text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Convolutional Neural Network is good at image classification. However, it is found to be vulnerable to image quality degradation. Even a small amount of distortion such as noise or blur can severely hamper the performance of these CNN architectures. Most of the work in the literature strives to mitigate this problem simply by fine-tuning a pre-trained CNN on mutually exclusive or a union set of distorted training data. This iterative fine-tuning process with all known types of distortion is exhaustive and the network struggles to handle unseen distortions. In this work, we propose distortion robust DCT-Net, a Discrete Cosine Transform based module integrated into a deep network which is built on top of VGG16 [@vgg1]. Unlike other works in the literature, DCT-Net is to the distortion type and level in an image both during training and testing. As a part of the training process, the proposed DCT module discards input information which mostly represents the contribution of high frequencies. The DCT-Net is trained () only once and applied in generic situation without further retraining. We also extend the idea of traditional dropout and present a training adaptive version of the same. We evaluate our proposed method against Gaussian blur, motion blur, salt and pepper noise, Gaussian noise and speckle noise added to CIFAR-10/100 [@cifar1] and ImageNet [@imagenet1] test sets. Experimental results demonstrate that once trained, DCT-Net not only generalizes well to a variety of unseen image distortions but also outperforms other methods in the literature.'
author:
- |
Md Tahmid Hossain Shyh Wei Teng Dengsheng Zhang Suryani Lim Guojun Lu\
School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology\
Federation University, Gippsland Campus, Churchill, VIC 3842, Australia\
[{mt.hossain,shyh.wei.teng,dengsheng.zhang,suryani.lim,guojun.lu}@federation.edu.au]{}
bibliography:
- 'cvprRef.bib'
title: Distortion Robust Image Classification using Deep Convolutional Neural Network with Discrete Cosine Transform
---
![VGG16 fails to correctly classify degraded images while the proposed DCT-Net predicts the class labels accurately. Type of distortion from top to bottom: Gaussian Blur, Motion Blur, Salt and Pepper noise, Gaussian Noise and Speckle noise. []{data-label="fig:comparison1"}](comparison1.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
![Sample output of DCT module. Each input is transformed into frequency domain via forward DCT and information is discarded in increasing magnitude from left to right with DCT frequency coefficient threshold set to 0 (L), 25 (M) and 50 (R). Lower and upper left ones are original image since 0 threshold does not discard any detail from the original image. Inverse DCT reconstructs the image from remaining coefficients. It should be noted that the images do not lose overall object structure. The sample pair belongs to ImageNet with class label Banjo (Top) and Impala (Bottom).[]{data-label="fig:tiledct"}](tiledct.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
Introduction
============
Back-propagation and gradient based learning [@lecun1; @lecun2] ushered a new era in the field of machine learning and artificial intelligence. The ImageNet challenge [@russakovsky1] has induced a number of new image classification architectures starting from AlexNet [@alexnet1] to even deeper networks like ZFNet [@zf1], VGGNet [@vgg1], ResNet [@resnet1], GoogleNet [@google1]. However, these deep networks are found to be susceptible to image distortion as far as classification is concerned [@icccn1; @akaram1; @anguyen1; @RN95; @RN101; @RN102]. It is observed that adding a little amount of distortion in the test set leads the network to misclassify an object as something else with surprisingly high confidence: some as high as 99.99% [@anguyen1]. The above-mentioned popular CNN models are reported to exceed human performance level on ImageNet [@imagenet1]. Nevertheless, in a number of instances, the subject of an image is easily recognizable by human but these CNN models fail to correctly classify in presence of negligible distortion. Figure \[fig:comparison1\] provides further visual evidence of this claim as VGG16 fails to correctly predict class labels of a set of distorted input. Most of the work in the literature tackle this problem by data augmentation or fine-tuning networks with mutually exclusive training image of chosen distortion. While it does increase the accuracy of the network, this does not perform better than models trained on a single distortion type [@akaram1]. Moreover, the fact that the network has to be fine-tuned on all possible distorted image data separately makes it even more undesirable. All these facts culminate to an intriguing question.
*Is it possible to attain such a network that is not fine-tuned to any explicit distortion type and is generally robust enough after being trained only once on the original training data?*
In this work, We propose Discrete Cosine Transform based deep network DCT-Net which significantly increases the deep network’s invariance to a variety of unseen image distortions. We show that after the input is transformed into frequency domain, dropping DCT coefficients or certain frequency components help the deep network to learn a more robust representation of the training images leading to a quality invariant CNN. The input diversity stemming from the integrated DCT module provides an assorted visual representation of the training data and the network gets to learn features from a wide array of variants of a single image. DCT-Net no longer heavily relies on minute image details for learning and therefore when faced with a degraded version of an image, it can still classify correctly.
Overfitting to training data has been a well-known issue with deep networks and dropout is a widely used technique to counter this problem [@dropout1]. Rather than using constant dropout probability through the entire training period, we incorporate a training adaptive version of it in DCT-Net to improve the test accuracy even further. The initial dropout probability is incremented when the network starts converging to training data.
Gaussian noise and blur are the two most common forms of image quality degradation. In addition to these two, we evaluate our network on salt and pepper noise, motion Blur and speckle noise. Speckle noise is often inherent to sound/electromagnetic wave-based imaging systems but has similarity to Gaussian granular noise [@speckle1].
This paper is organized as follows: Section \[motivation\] sheds light on our motivation behind this work. Section \[related\] discusses related works. In Section \[dct\], we introduce and formulate the proposed DCT-Net with adaptive dropout. In Section \[results\], we discuss about the data sets and provide a performance comparison of existing works with our proposed approach. Section \[conclusion\] concludes this paper.
Motivation
==========
Most of the well established deep networks (AlexNet [@alexnet1], ResNet [@resnet1], GoogleNet [@google1], VGG16[@vgg1]) presume that the input images are of artifact-free, high quality and both the training and test datasets of these networks reflect this assumption. However, in real-life scenarios, images can get distorted during acquisition, transmission or even by deliberation. For example, while capturing, image sensor can exhibit noise in low light conditions. Motion/Gaussian blur can occur if the camera or subject is moving/shaking or due to focusing error. In transmission, packet-loss can potentially result in missing regions of the image, noise, or missing frequencies, depending on how the image is encoded. Moreover, there are situations where surveillance images are taken in challenging conditions (low light, rain, snow, fast moving object etc.) or the device used is of substandard quality resulting in degraded visual data. Additionally, with the advent of a wide range of cellular phones and hand-held devices, the requirement of high-quality imagery to perform different computer vision related tasks may need to be relaxed. Distortion or substandard image quality can also degrade the performance of a CNN based system in other computer vision tasks as well e.g. object detection, image retrieval, image registration, segmentation and even more complex tasks like autonomous car driving, facial recognition-based security systems etc.
All these facts inspired us to explore ways of overcoming the drawbacks of traditional CNN. Our proposed DCT-Net’s aim is to solve this issue by learning a more robust representation of the training data. Since noise and blur cause the greatest degradation in a convolutional neural network’s performance [@akaram1; @buades1; @RN95], we focus on these two types of distortion in this work. We have found that training the deep network with DCT module enables our deep network to perform well on unseen distortions and thereby achieves substantial invariance against quality degradation.
The DCT module transforms each input image to frequency domain via Discrete Cosine Transform [@makhoul1; @narasimha1]. In order to discard input information and image details during training, DCT module eliminates certain DCT coefficients based on one randomly chosen threshold per image. The random threshold value *X* is selected for each new training input from a standard uniform distribution of integers where, *X $\sim U[0,50]$*. When *X* happens to be 0, the image does not get transformed at all and is fed forward in the input’s original form. Values close to 50, on the other hand, removes more detail from the image. It is worth noting that most of the discarded DCT coefficients belong to high frequency and therefore discarding them contributes to loss of image details as depicted in Figure \[fig:tiledct\]. Since the DCT based loss of input information or image detail is random for each image, every epoch of our deep network’s training process yields a different representation of each original training data. The input diversity induced by the DCT module ameliorates the learning process and enables the network to excel when tested on unseen distortions. The process is explained elaborately in Section \[dct\].
Related Work {#related}
============
Despite the deep network’s vulnerability to small image perturbations [@anguyen1; @RN101] or quality degradation [@icccn1], not a lot has been done to solve this problem. A simple approach to add robustness to neural networks is to fine-tune the network on images with the expected distortions. Vasiljevic *et al.* [@vas1] show that this approach works well for blurred images. They achieve satisfactory performance on clean and blurred test sets and their training data consists of half clean and half blurred images. Similarly, Zhou *et al.* [@zhou1] show the effectiveness of fine-tuning for both noisy and blurry images. Interestingly, the model trained on both noisy and blurry images has a much higher error rate than the average error rate of models trained only on noise and blur when these latter models are tested on their respective distorted or degraded test sets. Our results section shed further light on this aspect. Dodge *et al.* [@akaram1] propose a mixture of experts-based model for image classification (MixQualNet) that is more robust to distorted data than single fine-tuned models. Their proposed network architecture consists of expert networks where the experts are trained for particular distortion types and a gating network which is trained to select among the experts. This model shows better performance compared to [@zhou1; @vas1]. However, MixQualNet is effectively a complex ensemble of *N* number of identical CNN models where *N* is the number of distortion types the model is trained on. This already parameter heavy model has 1 million additional gating network parameters all resulting in a sluggish training process. Diamond *et al.* [@diamond1] and Yim *et al.* [@RN95] propose a system that modifies a neural network with additional layer or channels that serve to undistort the images by denoising and deblurring. For these reconstructed images, further fine-tuning of a deep neural network is performed. The method has prior knowledge of camera noise and blurring parameters, but for general applications (e.g. images from the internet) the camera parameters may be unavailable. This drawback greatly limits the feasibility of the method.
To reduce data overfitting during training, constant dropout probability [@dropout1; @Baheti1] is used in the literature. The dropout probability (*P*) used in VGG16 [@vgg1] is fixed at 0.5. Evaluation results in Section \[results\] will show that the proposed training adaptive incremental dropout enables the deep network to generalize better.
DCT-Net {#dct}
=======
In this section, we introduce our proposed DCT-Net which takes the form of a VGG16 [@vgg1] architecture with the integration of the DCT module and training adaptive dropout. We make use of Discrete Cosine Transform to select and eliminate a set of frequency coefficients from each of the training images. Section \[results\] which assesses the results, quantitatively demonstrates that once trained, the proposed DCT-Net not only achieves considerable robustness against a variety of quality degraded test sets but also maintains consistent performance on clean or original data.
Discrete Cosine Transform
-------------------------
Discrete Cosine Transform is a widely used technique to analyze signals in the frequency domain. It has found its way into numerous applications, from lossy compression of audio (e.g. MP3) and image (e.g. JPEG) to spectral methods for the numerical solution of partial differential equations. To perform The Forward DCT (FDCT) in a standard JPEG compression [@wallace1], each image is divided into $8\times8$ blocks; effectively a 64-point discrete signal. However, it is found that this block-wise DCT operation may lead to undesired properties like blocking artifacts [@wang2000blind; @chou1998simple]. Therefore, we consider only one block with dimensions equivalent to the height (*H*) and width (*W*) of the original input image. FDCT takes $H \times W$ signal as its input and outputs the corresponding basis-signal amplitudes or “DCT coefficients”. The DCT coefficient values can thereby be regarded as the relative amount of the 2D spatial frequencies contained in the original input signal, which in our case is an image. One of the most important features of FDCT is that it concentrates most of the signal energy in a few transformed DCT coefficients in the lower spatial frequencies [@jain1; @wallace1]. In other words, the number of DCT coefficients with substantially high magnitude is very low and the smaller coefficients are far greater in number. More often than not, bulk of the information in a natural image is represented in lower frequencies. Higher frequencies generally encode sharp changes that add extremely fine detail to the image.
There are a number of ways to perform DCT in the literature [@chan1]. However, we make use of Fast Cosine Transform (FCT) [@makhoul1; @narasimha1] because of its computational efficiency (*NLogN*). We make use of Equation \[eq:1\] on an input image A for FDCT and Equation \[eq:2\] for Inverse DCT (IDCT) to obtain the reconstructed image B.
$$\label{eq:1}
\small
\noindent
\begin{aligned}
B_{pq}=\alpha_{p}\alpha_{q}\sum\limits_{m=0}^{M-1}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{N-1}A_{mn}
\cos{\frac{\pi(2m +1)p}{2M}}
\cos{\frac{\pi(2n +1)q}{2N}},\\
0\leq p \leq M-1, 0\leq q \leq N-1
\end{aligned}$$
Where, $$%resizebox e jhamela ase
\small
%\resizebox{1 \hsize}{!} {%
%\begin{aligned}[c]
\alpha_p=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}}, & p = 0.\\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{M}}, & 1\leq p \leq M-1
\end{cases}$$ $$% \begin{aligned}[c]
\alpha_q=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}}, & q = 0.\\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}, & 1\leq q \leq N-1
\end{cases}
% \end{aligned}
% }$$ And the Inverse DCT (IDCT) is performed by:
$$\label{eq:2}
\small
\noindent
\begin{aligned}
A_{mn}=\sum\limits_{p=0}^{M-1}\sum\limits_{q=0}^{N-1}\alpha_{p}\alpha_{q}B_{pq}
\cos{\frac{\pi(2m +1)p}{2M}}
\cos{\frac{\pi(2n +1)q}{2N}},\\
0\leq m \leq M-1, 0\leq n \leq N-1
\end{aligned}$$
Where, $$\small
%\resizebox{1 \hsize}{!} {
%\begin{aligned}[c]
\alpha_p=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}}, & p = 0.\\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{M}}, & 1\leq p \leq M-1
\end{cases}
% \end{aligned}$$ $$% \begin{aligned}[c]
\alpha_q=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}}, & q = 0.\\
\sqrt{\frac{2}{N}}, & 1\leq q \leq N-1
\end{cases}
% \end{aligned}
% }$$\
Here M and N are the row and column size of the input and output images respectively.
$I = $ rgb2Ycbcr($RGB$)
$DCT\_Coeffs[c] =$ DCT$ (I),$ using equ. \[eq:1\] $Abs\_DCT\_Coeffs[c] =$ ABS $(DCT\_Coeffs[c])$ $X = $Uniform\_Random\_Threshold($0,50$) $DCT\_Coeffs[c] = 0$ $O[c]$ = IDCT $ (DCT\_Coeffs[c])$ using equ. \[eq:2\] $D$ = Ycbcr2rgb($O$)
DCT Module Integration
----------------------
![Proposed DCT-Net architecture based on VGG16 [@vgg1]. ReLU [@relu1] is used as activation function followed by each convolutional layer and the fully connected layer apart from the last one. Adaptive dropout is used only in fully connected layer. The proposed DCT module followed by the input layer is responsible for transforming the input according to Algorithm \[algo1\]. By discarding information, this module generates a wide range of representations of each image during training.[]{data-label="fig:dctvgg"}](dctvgg1.eps){width=".25\textwidth" height="18cm"}
DCT module in the DCT-Net (Figure \[fig:dctvgg\]) transforms each of the training images using FDCT and produces a set of DCT coefficients. A uniform random variable *(X)* is chosen for each training image from a predefined range of 0 to 50 (*X $\sim U[0,50]$*) which is effectively a random DCT coefficient threshold value. All the DCT coefficients lying under the chosen threshold *X* are turned zero. From a superficial point of understanding, when the random threshold is equal to or close to 0, the input image undergoes very little or no transformation at all which means there is hardly any loss of input information or image detail. On the other hand, if the random threshold happens to be a large number which is close to 50, this thresholding step removes most of the high frequencies from an image and leaves most of the lower frequencies intact along with the DC component. Since a large part of the signal strength is stored in the lower spectrum, the loss of information takes away mostly sharp changes and finer details of the image pertaining to different edges and contours. Along with the omission of most of the high frequencies, some of the lower frequencies with little visual impact on the input image may get discarded as well in the process. It is worth noting that the thresholding considers the absolute values of the coefficients. Inverse DCT or IDCT is performed on the remaining DCT coefficients to reconstruct the transformed image. This DCT transformed image is then fed forward to the first convolutional layer. The modus operandi of the proposed DCT module is presented in Algorithm \[algo1\].
The DCT module is free of trainable parameters and no backpropagation based learning takes place within this module. Once the deep network is trained, this module is removed from the network and test images directly enter into the first convolutional layer. Figure \[fig:tiledct\] depicts a sample image pair of DCT transformed training data from ImageNet. It can be visually observed that higher the threshold value, greater the loss of information or image detail.
![Five progressively distorted sample test image pairs from ImageNet test set. From top to bottom: (a) Gaussian Blur (b) Gaussian Noise (c) Motion Blur (d) Speckle (e) Salt & Pepper. Networks are tested against these five types of quality degradation.[]{data-label="fig:tiled"}](tiled.eps){width="1\linewidth"}
Deep Network
------------
![Performance comparison of MixQualNet [@akaram1], DCT-Net with and without adaptive dropout in five distorted versions of the ImageNet test set over the distortion levels specified in Section \[test\_data\].[]{data-label="fig:graphs5"}](graphs7.eps){width=".8\linewidth" height="20cm"}
VGG16 is found to be the most resilient deep network against image degradation [@akaram1; @qomex1]. Therefore, we employ this particular CNN model as the base of our proposed DCT-Net. Original VGG16 uses $3\times3$ filters in all thirteen convolutional layers, ReLU is used as activation function, $2\times2$ max pooling with stride 2 and 1000 channel softmax and classification output layer. All the weights are initialized on ImageNet for our network training.
Dropout is a well-known technique to counter the effect of data overfitting [@dropout1]. We extend the idea of dropout and deploy an adaptive version of it during training. The dropout probability *P* is initialized with 0.1 at the beginning of training and updated from a range of \[0.1 - 0.5\] with smallest increment unit of 0.1. The update only comes into effect when the network seems to converge to training data and the possibility of overfitting is inevitable. *P* is updated when minibatch training accuracy reaches and stays above 80% for an entire epoch. The value of *P* depends on the remaining number of epochs which is divided into five equal intervals. As the training proceeds forward, *P* increases in each of the five epoch intervals by 0.1.
Because of the smaller image dimensions in CIFAR-10/100, we modified the original VGG16 input layer from $224 \times 224 \times 3$ to $32 \times 32 \times 3$ and to maintain regularity of the network, the dimensions of the first and second fully connected layers are reduced to 512 from 4096. The original 1000 way softmax and classification output layers are replaced with 10 and 100 for CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 respectively. We use stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with momentum value 0.9, data shuffling before every epoch while training. We have used 40 epochs with minibatch size set to 128. Initial learning rate was set to 0.01. We make use of proposed adaptive dropout and L2 regularization to counter overfitting [@L1; @L2].
Results
=======
In this section, we present and discuss the performance of different deep networks on a number of benchmark data sets. In addition to the original test set, we evaluate the networks on five different types of distortion namely Gaussian noise, Gaussian blur, salt and pepper noise, motion blur and speckle noise.
Datasets
--------
We consider CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 [@cifar1] and ImageNet [@imagenet1] as our benchmark datasets. CIFAR-10 consists of 60,000 $32 \times 32\times 3$ images in 10 classes, with 6,000 images per class. The split is 50,000 training images and 10,000 test images. CIFAR-100 has 100 classes containing 600 images each. There are 500 training images and 100 testing images per class. Dimensions of these images are same as CIFAR-10. In ImageNet, there are 1000 object classes and approximately 1.2 million training images, 50,000 validation images and 100,000 test images.
[p[3.5cm]{}|p[1.1cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.9cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.5cm]{}]{}\
CNN Model & Original & Gaussian Noise & Salt and Pepper Noise & Speckle Noise & Gaussian Blur & Motion Blur & Overall Accuracy\
M~clean~ (VGG16 [@vgg1]) & **88.43** & 40.53 & 42.60 & 45.10& 61.43 & 56.35 & 55.74\
M~Gnoise~ & 65.50 & **62.91** & 59.10 & 54.32 & 23.50 & 20.36 & 47.60\
M~Gblur~[@vas1] & 68.84 & 29.33 & 30.25 & 38.36 & 73.36 & 50.51 & 48.44\
M~BN~ [@zhou1] & 83.36 & 59.06 & 51.87 & 55.08 & 69.36 & 52.98 & 61.95\
M~All~ & 80.54 & 57.95 & & **63.12** & 68.14 & 59.20 & 64.95\
MixQualNet[@akaram1] & 81.56 & & 58.99 & 57.36 & 70.26 & 62.89 & 65.29\
DCT-Net~NoAdaptiveDropout~ & 85.36 & 55.87 & 59.02 & 61.39 & & &\
DCT-Net & & 57.06 & **61.23** & & **77.15** & **70.91** & **69.23**\
\
CNN Model & Original & Gaussian Noise & Salt and Pepper Noise & Speckle Noise & Gaussian Blur & Motion Blur & Overall Accuracy\
M~clean~ (VGG16 [@vgg1]) & **67.49** & 25.52 & 29.62 & 32.91 & 50.39 & 48.30 & 42.37\
M~Gnoise~ & 52.54 & **49.80** & 59.22 & 41.20 & 17.61 & 14.25 & 39.10\
M~Gblur~[@vas1] & 56.81 & 19.69 & 22.26 & 27.35 & & 42.77 & 38.54\
M~BN~ [@zhou1] & 62.44 & & 38.28 & 33.03 & 52.46 & 35.88 & 44.70\
M~All~ & 60.68 & 45.13 & 60.20 & **61.39** & 53.32 & 49.10 & 54.97\
MixQualNet[@akaram1] & 63.50 & 45.89 & 58.01 & 57.61 & 55.22 & 49.83 & 55.01\
DCT-Net~NoAdaptiveDropout~ & 64.30 & 44.11 & & 60.39 & 62.32 & &\
DCT-Net & & 44.85 & **62.33** & & **64.05** & **55.91** & **58.86**\
\
CNN Model & Original & Gaussian Noise & Salt and Pepper Noise & Speckle Noise & Gaussian Blur & Motion Blur & Overall Accuracy\
M~clean~ (VGG16 [@vgg1]) & **92.60** & 32.45 & 15.32 & 24.98 & 29.53 & 25.67 & 36.76\
M~Gnoise~ & 49.60 & **55.31** & 40.21 & 33.55 & 11.95 & 10.66 & 33.55\
M~Gblur~[@vas1] & 55.36 & 16.24 & 18.91 & 22.63 & 39.88 & 30.69 & 30.62\
M~BN~ [@zhou1] & 75.77 & & 42.30 & 38.65 & 30.14 & 27.85 & 44.83\
M~All~ & 74.12 & 49.22 & 45.35 & 44.22 & 38.32 & & 48.79\
MixQualNet[@akaram1] & 72.85 & 50.68 & [49.63]{} & 47.34 & 39.33 & 34.98 & 49.14\
DCT-Net~NoAdaptiveDropout~ & 85.35 & 52.12 & & & & 39.77 &\
DCT-Net & & 52.98 & **51.30** & **50.98** & **43.90** & **41.32** & **54.66**\
\
Test Data {#test_data}
---------
Gaussian noise is added to an image with the variance ranging from 0.1 to 0.5. For the Gaussian blur kernel, the standard deviation used is between 0 to 5 for CIFAR-10/100 and 0 to 10 for ImageNet. Salt and pepper noise is replicated by turning on and off pixels with a predefined probability. We add salt and pepper noise to an image pixel with a probability varying from 0 to 0.5. For motion blur kernel in CIFAR-10/100, we use motion angle range between 0 to 22.5 degree because of the small spatial dimension of the dataset. The number of pixels is set to 10 as linear motion parameter. As the spatial dimension is greater in ImageNet, we use a motion angle range of 0 to 45 degree with the number of pixels set to 15 as linear motion parameter. We add multiplicative speckle noise to an image *I* and produce a noisy image *J*, where *$J = I + n*I$*, *n* is a uniformly distributed random noise. Variance ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 is used for speckle noise. All the test images are tested at five different distortion levels uniformly chosen from the defined range of distortions. A set of sample test image pairs with increasing level of distortion can be seen in Figure \[fig:tiled\].
Performance Comparison
----------------------
We refer our model as DCT-Net in this work which is based on the VGG16 architecture with adaptive dropout. We denote M~clean~ as the VGG16 network trained on the original clean dataset. M~Gnoise~ and M~Gblur~ [@vas1] are effectively M~clean~ fine-tuned on Gaussian noise and blur containing training set respectively. M~BN~ [@zhou1] is the model which is fine-tuned on both Gaussian blur and noise. M~All~ is the VGG16 network fine-tuned on all five distortions mentioned in this work. Finally, MixQualNet is the ensemble of individual distortion expert models with a gating network [@akaram1].
Table \[table:1\] compares the classification accuracy of these base models. All of the deep networks are tested against five increasing levels of corresponding type of noise and blur. The levels are uniformly chosen between the minimum and maximum distortion range specified in Section \[test\_data\]. The mean accuracy over all distortion levels is displayed in each of the results’ column of Table \[table:1\] except the first and last one. For a particular network, the original accuracy in Table \[table:1\] is computed over the corresponding clean test set whereas the overall accuracy in the last column is the numerical average over all six individual accuracies. It is worth noticing that the models fine-tuned on one specific type of distortion e.g. M~Gnoise~ and M~Gblur~ [@vas1] perform well on their specific distorted test set. However, they fail to generalize well to other types of distortion and also accuracy on the clean test data drops.
On the other hand, M~BN~ [@zhou1] has a mediocre performance on all the test sets and could not surpass M~Gnoise~ and M~Gblur~ in their particular distortion test sets in any of the benchmark data set. Moreover, the performance of M~BN~ propels the belief that the poor performance of these networks on unseen distortion remains a major drawback.
M~All~ and MixQualNet [@akaram1] displays competitive results in a number of test sets but the rigid training image requirement with all possible distortions should be kept in mind. The accuracy displayed by M~All~ and MixQualNet [@akaram1] seem to be similar across all three databases. The overall accuracy of M~All~ and MixQualNet is 64.95%, 54.97%, 48.79% and 65.29%, 55.01%, 49.14% in CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet respectively. This is consistent with the ways these networks are designed and trained. MixQualNet is basically an ensemble of expert networks trained on specific distortions augmented by a weight sharing gating network. M~All~, on the other hand, is fine-tuned on those specific distortions with a single network.
Our proposed DCT-Net is found to ameliorate the standards and copes well with all types of image distortion, outperforming contemporary models on overall accuracy in all three datasets (69.23% in CIFAR-10, 58.86% in CIFAR-100 and 54.66% in ImageNet). It also demonstrates consistent accuracy on each type of distortion that is introduced while negligible drop in performance on the original clean test set.
Figure \[fig:graphs5\] further sheds light on the performance of DCT-Net with and without adaptive dropout and MixQualNet [@akaram1] on ImageNet over the specified levels of distortions. It is visually evident that with increasing magnitude of distortion in the test sets, all three networks struggle to maintain classification accuracy. DCT-Net displays better consistency under increasing level of distortion which is consistent with the results in Table \[table:1\].
Conclusion
==========
We have proposed DCT-Net with an adaptive dropout and show that discarding part of the input signal or image detail based on Discrete Cosine Transform adds diversity to each of the training data. Since the threshold used for discarding information is random for each image, every epoch is likely to produce a different version of a training image. This way, the network gets to learn a strong feature representation from all the variants of an image. Our deep network does not heavily rely anymore on fine details for an object to be recognized and therefore becomes able to correctly classify degraded (noisy or blurry) images. Contrary to traditional fine-tuning process on specific distortions, the introduced DCT-Net is trained only once and shows impressive accuracy on unseen distortions on a number of benchmark data sets.
Although image classification has been the center of attention in this work, Substandard image quality can adversely affect the performance of any other computer vision task that relies on neural networks e.g. object detection [@girshick2014rich; @girshick2015fast; @ren2015faster], image segmentation [@long2015fully] etc. Our proposed method can easily be applied in other existing networks which further adds to the contribution of this work.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum mechanical treatment of light inside dielectric media is important to understand the behavior of an optical system. In this paper, a two-level atom embedded in a rectangular waveguide surrounded by a perfect electric conductor is considered. Spontaneous emission, propagation, and detection of a photon are described by the second quantization formalism. The quantized modes for light are divided into two types: photonic propagating modes and localized modes with exponential decay along the direction of waveguide. Though spontaneous emission depends on all possible modes including the localized modes, detection far from the source only depends on the propagating modes. This discrepancy of dynamical behaviors gives two different decay rates along space and time in the correlation function of the photon detection.'
author:
- 'Moochan B. Kim'
- Georgios Veronis
- 'Tae-Woo Lee'
- Hwang Lee
- 'Jonathan P. Dowling'
title: 'Spontaneous Emission from a Two-Level Atom in a Rectangular Waveguide'
---
=1
Introduction
============
The photon is one of the fascinating objects that has been researched since Einstein’s introduction. Usually, the currently accepted definition of photon is a monochromatic Fourier mode for electromagnetic waves in the vacuum [@NatureLight2008]. Since arbitrary shapes of photonic modes can be generated by superposition of modes, this usually accepted definition has been successfully used to describe many different physical processes [@ScullZubairy1997]. Recently, the technology of dielectric material fabrication is able to handle small sample sizes, comparable to the wavelengths of light [@Faraon2008; @Dowling2003]. Generation of a single photon inside the dielectric media and propagation through waveguide has been considered [@Englund2007]. In that investigation, a creation (annihilation) operator of the photon was used, which propagates to the right or left. Since this system is a one-dimensional waveguide, $e^{ikx}$-type of modes are enough to handle problems for the generation and propagation of photons. Although an integrated photonic crystal circuit operates at the single-photon level and is approximated as one-dimensional system, the actual phenomena occur in three dimensions. So, we need to treat the problem quantum-mechanically with Maxwell’s equations in three dimensions, or the second quantization method to describe photon’s behavior inside the dielectric material. Furthermore, from several formalisms [@Philbin2010], we also need to discern a proper description for photon inside dielectric material by comparing experimentally verifiable quantities. To initiate such investigation, this paper has considered a simple model system to treat the generation, propagation, and detection of light inside a dielectric material. We have found that the spontaneous decay can induce exponentially localized modes, which are usually ignored in the propagation problem, and that there are two different decay rates for the space and time in their correlation function. Though the exponentially localized modes satisfy the transversality condition, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = 0$, they do not propagate [@CohenTannoudji1989]. So only the nonlocalized modes are propagating modes, which are present in the far-field region. However, in near field region the photon detector measures the whole electric field, and the distinction of propagating modes from the localized modes is not possible through photon detection. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we derive the electric field operator using the second quantization method according to Glauber’s approach [@Glauber1991]. In Sec. III, we treat spontaneous emission in a two-level atom using the electric field operator derived in Sec. II. Finally, we calculate the spatio-temporal correlation function, and in Sec. IV we summarize our conclusions.
Electric Field Operator in Rectangular PEC waveguide
====================================================
To see the effect of dielectric materials on photon emission, propagation, and detection, let’s consider a rectangular waveguide filled by a dielectric material with constant electric permittivity $\epsilon$ and constant magnetic permeability $\mu$. Here, we choose a rectangular waveguide since it has a simple though nontrivial geometry. For simplicity, we consider that the dielectric material inside the waveguide is surrounded by a perfect electric conductor (PEC) so that the tangential electric field at boundary is zero. Let’s put the waveguide along the $z$-axis, and the center of coordinates at the vertex of the rectangles with the length along $x$-axis as $a$ and that along $y$-axis as $b$ with $a > b$, as shown in FIG. \[Fig:RectangularWaveguide\].
![Diagram for a rectangular waveguide along $z$-axis. The waveguide is filled with a dielectric material with electric permittivity $\epsilon$ and magnetic permeability $\mu$. We assume that $a > b$. (Color online)[]{data-label="Fig:RectangularWaveguide"}](Fig_RectangularWaveguide.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The Maxwell equations in source free region are $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{D} = 0, \\ %
\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0, \\ %
\label{Eq:AmpereMaxwell} %
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = - \frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}, \\ %
\label{Eq:FaradayDisplacementMaxwell} %
\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = \frac{\partial \mathbf{D}}{\partial t}, %\end{aligned}$$ with constituent equations $\mathbf{D} = \epsilon \mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B} = \mu \mathbf{H}$. To get the field operator using the second quantization method, we need complete eigenmodes from the classical Maxwell’s wave equations [@Glauber1991]. By assuming a harmonic time dependence $e^{-i\nu t}$ with frequency $\nu$, which is considered as eigenvalue, Eqs. and become $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:TimeIndependentAmpere} %
\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = i \nu \mathbf{B} = i \nu \mu \mathbf{H}, \\ %
\label{Eq:TimeIndependentFaradayDisplacementMaxwell} %
\nabla \times \mathbf{H} = -i \nu \mathbf{D} = -i\nu\epsilon\mathbf{E}. %\end{aligned}$$ The Maxwell’s equations and lead to wave equations for $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{H}$: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:WaveEqnElectric} %
\nabla^2 \mathbf{E} + k^2 \mathbf{E} = 0, \\ %
\label{Eq:WaveEqnMagnetic} %
\nabla^2 \mathbf{H} + k^2 \mathbf{H} = 0, %\end{aligned}$$ with $k = \nu \sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$. If we assume the propagation along $z$-axis as $e^{-\gamma z}$, the longitudinal field components ($E_x, E_y, H_x$ and $H_y$) can be written in terms of the transverse field components ($E_z$ and $H_z$) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
%
E_x & = \frac{1}{h^2} \left( -\gamma \frac{\partial E_z}{\partial x} - i \nu \mu \frac{\partial H_z}{\partial y} \right), \\ %
E_y & = \frac{1}{h^2} \left( -\gamma \frac{\partial E_z}{\partial y} + i \nu \mu \frac{\partial H_z}{\partial z} \right), \\ %
H_x & = \frac{1}{h^2} \left( i \nu \epsilon \frac{\partial E_z}{\partial y} - \gamma \frac{\partial H_z}{\partial x} \right), \\ %
H_y & = \frac{1}{h^2} \left( - i \nu \epsilon \frac{\partial E_z}{\partial x} - \gamma \frac{\partial H_z}{\partial y} \right) %\end{aligned}$$ with $h^2 = \gamma^2 + k^2$. Since $\gamma = \sqrt{h^2 - k^2}$, $\gamma$ will be pure imaginary for $\nu > \nu_c$ or pure real otherwise. Here, $\nu_c = h/\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$ is the cutoff-frequency. The solutions of the wave-equation are divided into two types of modes: the transverse magnetic (TM) modes with $H_z = 0$, and the transverse electric (TE) modes with $E_z = 0$. The field components for the TM modes are $$\begin{aligned}
%
E_z^{\text{TM}} & = E_0 \sin \frac{m\pi x}{a} \sin \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
E_x^{\text{TM}} & = - \frac{\gamma}{h^2} \left( \frac{m\pi}{a} \right) E_0 \cos\frac{m\pi x}{a} \sin\frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
E_y^{\text{TM}} & = - \frac{\gamma}{h^2} \left( \frac{n\pi}{b} \right) E_0 \sin\frac{m\pi x}{a} \cos\frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
H_x^{\text{TM}} & = \frac{i\nu\epsilon}{h^2}\left(\frac{n\pi}{b}\right) E_0 \sin\frac{m\pi x}{a} \cos\frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
H_y^{\text{TM}} & = -\frac{i\nu\epsilon}{h^2}\left(\frac{m\pi}{a}\right) E_0 \cos\frac{m\pi x}{a} \sin\frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, %\end{aligned}$$ with positive integers $m$ and $n$, and for TE modes are $$\begin{aligned}
%
H_z^{\text{TE}} & = H_0 \cos \frac{m\pi x}{a} \cos \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
E_x^{\text{TE}} & = \frac{i\nu\mu}{h^2} \left(\frac{n\pi}{b}\right) H_0\cos \frac{m\pi x}{a} \sin \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
E_y^{\text{TE}} & = - \frac{i\nu\mu}{h^2} \left(\frac{m\pi}{a}\right) H_0\sin \frac{m\pi x}{a} \cos \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
H_x^{\text{TE}} & = \frac{\gamma}{h^2} \left(\frac{m\pi}{a}\right) H_0\sin \frac{m\pi x}{a} \cos \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, \\ %
H_y^{\text{TE}} & = \frac{\gamma}{h^2} \left(\frac{n\pi}{b}\right) H_0\cos \frac{m\pi x}{a} \sin \frac{n\pi y}{b} e^{-\gamma z}, %\end{aligned}$$ with non-negative integers $m$ and $n$ without simultaneous $m= 0$ and $n=0$. The boundary conditions suggest that allowable $\gamma_{mn} = \sqrt{ h_{mn}^2 - k^2}$ with $h_{mn} = \sqrt{ \left( m\pi/a\right)^2 + \left( n\pi/b\right)^2}$. The propagating mode with the lowest cutoff frequency is a TE mode with $m = 1$ and $n = 0$. In the usual treatment of the propagation problem with injected light as input along the waveguide, the modes with exponential behavior ($\gamma > 0$) have been excluded since they diverge at $\vert z \vert \rightarrow \infty$, and only the oscillating eigenmodes ($\gamma = i\beta$) are considered, since they can propagate into the far-field region, where the detector is located. However, in our system the light is generated inside the dielectric material, and we want to solve a photon-generation problem in quantum mechanics. So, the usually ignored exponential decay modes can operate as one of the quantized modes, which can interact with the embedded atom. For a single atom located at $z=0$, the replacement of the exponential function $e^{-\gamma z}$ into $e^{-\gamma \vert z \vert}$ is an acceptable eigenmode with a singularity in first derivative at $z=0$. One thing to note is that all eigenmodes satisfy the transversaility condition, that is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{E}^{\text{TE}(\text{TM})}_{mn} = 0$. Since the corresponding wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ for the localized modes has a complex number in component along the $z$-axis, these modes do not propagate and only oscillate in time near the source. The corresponding electric field operator can be written as [@Glauber1991] $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:EFieldOperator} %
\hat{\mathbf{E}} & = \sum_{\nu} % \, \left( \frac{\hbar\nu}{2} \right)^{1/2} % \sum_{k_z} %
%\left[ %
\sum_K %
\left\{ \mathbf{E}_K^\nu \hat{a}_K^\nu e^{-i\nu t} + (\mathbf{E}_K^\nu)^* (\hat{a}_K^\nu)^\dagger e^{i\nu t} \right\} % \right] %\end{aligned}$$ where $K = \{ \text{TE} (\text{ or } \text{TM}), m, n \}$ denotes the set of quantum numbers for eigenmodes, and $\hat{a}_K^\nu$ ( $\hat{a}_K^{\nu\dagger}$ ) is annihilation (creation) operator for the corresponding mode. $\mathbf{E}_K^\nu$ are the eigenmodes for the electric field for a fixed frequency with orthogonality $$\begin{aligned}
%
\int d\mathbf{r} \, \epsilon \mathbf{E}_K^\nu \cdot ( \mathbf{E}_{K'}^\nu)^* = 0 \qquad \text{ for } K \neq K'. %\end{aligned}$$ The orthogonality condition for modes with different frequency is still ambiguous. However, since the frequency is given as the eigenvalue of Maxwell’s equation, the summation over $\nu$ might be similarly interpreted as that of continuous quantum states such as position states [@Sakurai1985]. From the creation $(\hat{a}_K^\nu)^\dagger$ and annihilation $\hat{a}_K^\nu$ operators in the $K$ mode with frequency $\nu$, we can define the number operator $\hat{n}_K^\nu \equiv (\hat{a}_K^\nu)^\dagger \hat{a}_K^\nu$ with a photon number state $\vert n_K^\nu \rangle$ as the corresponding eigenstate, such that $\hat{n}_K^\nu \vert n_K^\nu \rangle = n_K^\nu \vert n_K^\nu \rangle$. The general photon number state can be constructed by applying the corresponding creation operator: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\vert n_K^\nu \rangle \equiv \frac{(\hat{a}_K^\nu)^{\dagger n}}{\sqrt{n!}} \vert 0 \rangle. %\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to continuous modes, such as position modes or momentum modes in quantum mechanics [@Sakurai1985], we can assume the completeness and orthonormality of these modes for different frequencies: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:Orthonormality} %
\langle n_K^\nu \vert n_{K'}^{\nu'} \rangle = \delta_{KK'} \delta(\nu - \nu'), \\ %
\intertext{ and } %
\label{Eq:Completeness} %
\sum_\nu \sum_K \, \vert n_K^\nu \rangle \langle n_K^\nu \vert = \mathbf{1}. %\end{aligned}$$ According to Eqs. and , we can treat the states over the continuous variable $\nu$ as independent to each other, similarly to ones over discrete variables.
To find the unknown coefficients $E_0$ and $H_0$, let’s assign $\hbar \nu$ as the energy of the photonic modes: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\frac{1}{2} \int d^3 \mathbf{r} \{ \epsilon \vert \mathbf{E}_K^\nu \vert^2 + \mu \vert \mathbf{H}_K^\nu \vert^2 \} = \hbar \nu, %\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbar$ is Dirac’s constant. Since the integration along $z$-axis diverges for the propagating modes, we should be careful when carrying out the above integration along $z$-axis. Similar to the vacuum mode, we might consider a periodicity along $z$-axis, and restrict the integration range $[-L/2, L/2]$ for propagating modes. The normalization gives for a propagating TM mode ($\gamma = i \beta$) $$\begin{aligned}
%
%\epsilon \frac {2\pi S {E_{0}}^2 }{4} \left( 1 + \frac{\gamma^2}{h^2} \right) %
%= 1 \\ %
\label{Eq:PropagatingTMnormal} %
\vert E_0 \vert^2 = \frac{4 \hbar h_{mn}^2}{\epsilon^2 \mu \nu L S}, %\end{aligned}$$ for a localized TM mode ($\gamma > 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
%
%\epsilon \frac {S {E_{0}}^2 }{4} \left( 1 + \frac{\gamma^2}{h^2} \right) \frac{1}{\gamma} %
%= 1 \\ %
\vert E_0 \vert^2 = \frac{4\gamma \hbar h_{mn}^2}{\epsilon^2 \mu \nu S}, %\end{aligned}$$ for a propagating TE mode ($\gamma = i \beta$) $$\begin{aligned}
%
%\epsilon \frac {2\pi S {H_{0}}^2 h^2}{4} = 1 \\ %
\label{Eq:PropagatingTEnormal} %
\vert H_0 \vert^2 = \frac{4 \hbar h_{mn}^2}{\nu \epsilon \mu^2 L S}, %\end{aligned}$$ and for a localized TE mode ($\gamma > 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
%
%\epsilon \frac {S {H_{0}}^2 h^2}{4} \frac{1}{\gamma} = 1 \\ %
\vert H_0 \vert^2 = \frac{4 \gamma \hbar h_{mn}^2}{\nu \epsilon \mu^2 S}, %\end{aligned}$$ with the cross-sectional area of the waveguide $S= ab$. Since the periodicity $L$ is arbitrary, we need another condition for the summation over frequency for the propagating modes. For a description of photons in vacuum, the summation index over states is wave-number $k$, which satisfy periodicity $k = 2\pi n/L$ with integers $n$. The transition from discrete summation to continuous integration is given by [@ScullZubairy1997] $$\begin{aligned}
%
\sum_k \rightarrow \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right) \int dk. %\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we can consider the wave-number $\beta$ along $z$-axis for the propagating modes. The summation over $\nu$ is divided into two parts by the cut-off frequency $\nu_c$ for given $K = \{ \text{TE}( \text{or } \text{TM}), m, n\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\sum_{\nu} = \sum_{\nu < \nu_c} + \sum_{\nu > \nu_c} %
= \sum_{\nu < \nu_c} + \sum_{\beta}. %\end{aligned}$$ Then, the summation over $\beta$ can be transformed into continuous integration similarly as is done in vacuum $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:ContinousBeta} %
\sum_{\beta} \rightarrow \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right) \int \frac{dk_z}{d\beta} d\beta %
= \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right) \int \frac{d\beta}{v_{gz}}, %\end{aligned}$$ where $v_{gz} = \frac{d\beta}{dk_z}$ is the group velocity along the $z$-axis. In our case, $v_{gz} = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$, which is same to the phase velocity. Then the arbitrary quantization length $L$, shown in Eqs. and , will be canceled out by the $L$ in Eq. in the calculation of any physical observables. The localized modes show exponential decay along the $z$-direction, and depend on the position of the two-level atom. However, along the $x$- and $y$-axes they show an oscillatory behavior. Furthermore, we emphasize again that these localized modes are also quantized modes since they are the eigenmodes of the two wave equations, Eq. and Eq. .
Spontaneous Emission
====================
Hamiltonian
-----------
Let’s consider a spontaneous emission from a two-level atom embedded inside the PEC rectangular waveguide, shown in FIG. \[Fig:TwoLevelAtom\]. With the dipole approximation and rotating wave approximation, the Hamiltonian [@ScullZubairy1997] is $$\begin{aligned}
%
\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_\text{F} + \mathcal{H}_\text{A} + \mathcal{H}_\text{int} %\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
%
\mathcal{H}_\text{F} & = \sum_{\nu} \, %
\sum_{K} \hbar \nu \left( (\hat{a}_K^\nu)^\dagger \hat{a}_K^\nu + \frac{1}{2} \right), \\ %
\mathcal{H}_\text{A} & = \hbar \omega_a \vert a \rangle \langle a \vert + \hbar \omega_b \vert b \rangle \langle b \vert, \\ %
\mathcal{H}_\text{int} & = - e \mathbf{r} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{E}} %
= \hbar \sum_{\nu} \, \sum_{K} g_K^\nu \hat{\sigma}_+ \hat{a}_K^\nu + \text{H.C.}. %\end{aligned}$$ Here, H.C. denotes Hermitian Conjugate. The atomic transition operators are $$\begin{aligned}
%
\hat{\sigma}_+ & = \vert a \rangle \langle b \vert, \\ %
\hat{\sigma}_- & = (\hat{\sigma}_+)^\dagger = \vert b \rangle \langle a \vert, %\end{aligned}$$ and the interaction coefficient is $$\begin{aligned}
%
g_K^\nu = - \frac{ \wp_{ba} \cdot \mathbf{E}_K^\nu }{\hbar} %\end{aligned}$$ with dipole transition matrix element $\wp_{ba} = e \langle b \vert \mathbf{r} \vert a \rangle$.
![A two-level atom has an upper state $\vert a \rangle$ and a lower state $\vert b \rangle$. The transition frequency is $\omega = \omega_a - \omega_b$ with the energy of upper state $\hbar \omega_a$ and that of lower state $\hbar \omega_b$. (Color online)[]{data-label="Fig:TwoLevelAtom"}](Fig_TwoLevelAtom.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Decay rate and shift of transition energy
-----------------------------------------
In the interaction picture, the Hamiltonian is $$\begin{aligned}
%
\mathcal{V} = \hbar \sum_{\nu} \, \sum_{K} [ g_K^\nu \hat{\sigma}_+ \hat{a}_K^\nu e^{i(\omega - \nu) t} + \text{H.C.} ] %\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega = \omega_a - \omega_b$. Here we ignore the zero-point energy $\tfrac{1}{2} \hbar \nu$, since it just shifts the energy level of Hamiltonian [@ScullZubairy1997]. From the dressed state for the two-level atom with the field $$\begin{aligned}
%
\vert \psi(t) \rangle = c_a(t) \vert a, 0 \rangle + \sum_{\nu} \, \sum_{K} c_{b,\nu,K} \vert b, 1_K^\nu \rangle, %\end{aligned}$$ the corresponding Schrödinger equation, $$\begin{aligned}
%
\vert \dot{\psi}(t) \rangle = - \frac{i}{\hbar} \mathcal{V} \vert \psi(t) \rangle, %\end{aligned}$$ gives the following equations of motion for the coefficients $c_a(t)$ and $c_{b,\nu,K}(t)$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:Eqn_ca} %
\dot{c}_a (t) & = - i \sum_{\nu} \, \sum_{K} g_K^\nu e^{i(\omega - \nu) t} c_{b,\nu,K}(t), \\ %
\label{Eq:Eqn_cbj} %
\dot{c}_{b,\nu,K} (t) & = - i (g_K^\nu)^* e^{-i(\omega - \nu) t} c_a (t), %\end{aligned}$$ with initial conditions $c_a(0) = 1$ and $c_{b,\nu,K}(0) = 0$, which means that the two-level atom is prepared in an excited state. Integration of Eq. over $t$ and substitution into Eq. gives the following integro-differential equation for $c_a(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
\dot{c}_a (t) & = - \sum_\nu \sum_{K} \vert g_K^\nu \vert^2 \int_0^t dt' e^{i(\omega - \nu) (t-t')} c_a(t') \\ %
\nonumber %
& \simeq - \sum_\nu \sum_{K} \vert g_K^\nu \vert^2 \int_0^t dt' e^{i(\omega-\nu)(t-t')} c_a(t) \\ %
\nonumber %
& = - i \sum_\nu \sum_{K} \vert g_K^\nu \vert^2 \left[ \frac{\mathcal{P}}{\omega-\nu} - i \pi \delta(\omega-\nu) \right] %
c_a(t) \\ %
& = - \left( \frac{\Gamma_\text{eff}}{2} - i \delta \omega \right) c_a(t), %\end{aligned}$$ where the Markovian approximation for slow varying $c_a(t)$ is used to get this term out of the time integration [@ScullZubairy1997], and $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the Cauchy principal value [@Arken2005]. Here, $\Gamma_\text{eff}$ is the decay constant and $\delta\omega$ is the level shift of the transition from the upper level to lower one: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\Gamma_\text{eff} & = \pi \sum_\nu \sum_K \vert g_K^\nu \vert^2 \delta(\omega - \nu), \\ %
\delta \omega & = \sum_\nu \sum_K \mathcal{P} \frac{ \vert g_K^\nu \vert^2}{\omega - \nu}. %\end{aligned}$$ The summation goes over all possible states including the localized modes.
Propagation through the waveguide
---------------------------------
The temporal behavior of the excited state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
%
c_a(t) & = e^{-(\Gamma_\text{eff}/2 - i\delta \omega) t} c_a(0) = e^{-(\Gamma_\text{eff}/2 - i\delta \omega) t} \\ %
\nonumber %
c_{b,\nu,K}(t) & = - i (g_K^\nu)^* \int_0^t dt' e^{-i(\tilde{\omega} - \nu)t' - \Gamma_\text{eff} t' /2} \\ %
& = (g_K^\nu)^* \left[ \frac{ 1 - e^{i(\nu - \tilde{\omega})t - \Gamma_\text{eff} t/2 }}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i\Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \right], %\end{aligned}$$ with shifted frequency $\tilde{\omega} = \omega - \delta \omega$. So all the quantized modes are induced by the de-excitation of the atom. Since we put the detector far away from the atom, the measured modes are just the propagating modes, because the localized modes decay exponentially along the wave-guide axis and can be ignored in a region near the detector. In addition, $c_a(t)$ is also exponentially decaying in time. After $t \gg \Gamma_\text{eff}^{-1}$, the dressed state becomes $$\begin{aligned}
%
\vert \psi(t) \rangle \simeq %
\sum_{\nu} \sum_{K'} c_{b,\nu,K} \vert b, 1_K^\nu \rangle = \vert b \rangle \otimes \vert \gamma \rangle %\end{aligned}$$ where the photonic state far away from the atom is $$\begin{aligned}
%
\vert \gamma \rangle = \sum_\nu \sum_{K'} %
\frac{\{ g_{K'}^\nu(\mathbf{r}_0) \}^*}{ (\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \vert 1_{K'}^\nu \rangle. %\end{aligned}$$ Here, $K'$ sums over only propagating modes and $\mathbf{r}_0$ is the position of the atom. If the atomic transition frequency $\tilde{\omega}$ is between the lowest cutoff frequency and the second lowest cutoff frequency, the dominant propagating mode $\vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm}$ is the TE mode with $m=1$ and $n=0$: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
\vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm} %
& = \sum_\nu (- i) \wp_{ab}^* \sqrt{ \frac{4 \nu}{\hbar \epsilon L S} } \sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \\ %
\label{Eq:SinglePropagationMode} %
& \qquad \times %
\frac{e^{+i\beta z_0}}{ (\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \vert 1_{\text{TE},1,0}^\nu \rangle, %\end{aligned}$$ where the atom’s position $\mathbf{r}_0 = (x_0, y_0 , z_0)$. It is obvious that the generated propagating mode $\vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm}$ is independent of atom’s position along the $y$-axis. If the frequency $\omega$ is below the lowest cutoff frequency, the induced modes from the excited atom are localized modes, and the energy will oscillate between the atom and the localized modes.
Measurement by the detector
---------------------------
A single photon can be measured by a detector through photon absorption process, or by another atom through excitation. Here, we consider a measurement by a detector, which can be described by the correlation function [@ScullZubairy1997]: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
G^{(1)} (\mathbf{r},t) & = \langle \psi \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(-)}(\mathbf{r},t) \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) %
\vert \psi \rangle \\ %
%& = \langle \gamma \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(-)}(\mathbf{r},t) \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) %
%\vert \gamma \rangle \\ %
%& = \langle \gamma \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(-)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert 0 \rangle %
%\langle 0 \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert \gamma \rangle \\ %
& = \vert \langle 0 \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert \gamma \rangle \vert^2, %\end{aligned}$$ where the positive frequency part in electric field operator from Eq. is $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:Positive_EFieldOperator} %
\hat{E}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) = \sum_\nu %
\sum_K \mathbf{E}_K \hat{a}_K e^{-i\nu t}. %\end{aligned}$$ For the single photonic mode case, Eq. , we obtain the following expression through a contour integral, which is explicitly derived in the Appendix: $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
\langle 0 \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm} %
= & i \frac{\tilde{\omega} \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \wp_{ab}^*}{\pi^2 \epsilon S}
\frac{\tilde{\omega}}{\sqrt{(\pi/a)^2 - \tilde{\omega}^2}} \\ %
\nonumber %
& \quad \times \sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \sin \frac{\pi x}{a} %
\Theta(t - \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} z) \\ %
\label{Eq:ContourElectric} %
& \quad \times e^{i (\beta_r - i \beta_i) \Delta z - i (\tilde{\omega} - i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2) t}, %\end{aligned}$$ where the distance $\Delta z$ is from the source atom to the field operator evaluation point along $z$-direction, and $\Theta$ is the step function. Explicit expressions for $\beta_r$ and $\beta_i$ are shown in the Appendix. One thing to note is that the above equation is evaluated at the shifted resonance frequency $\tilde{\omega} = \omega - \delta \omega$.
![Profile of correlation function in $(z,t)$ plane. The distant detector at $z$ can detect after some time $t$ allowable by the causality relation, shown as black solid line on $(z,t)$ plane. In a time $t$ along $z$ axis, the detection probability shows exponential behavior with decay constant $\Gamma_\text{spa}$, drawn by red dashed line. Similarly, the detection probability at fixed position is maximum at the initial time and shows exponential decay along $t$ with decay constant rate $\Gamma_\text{eff}$. Generally, $\Gamma_\text{eff}$ and $\Gamma_\text{spa}$ are different. The maximum value of correlation at $z$ shows also the exponential behavior. The values of parameters are $\sqrt{\epsilon\mu} = 1.2$ and $\Gamma_\text{spa} / \Gamma_\text{eff} = 0.8$. (Color online)[]{data-label="Fig:ProfileCorrelation"}](Correlation_Profile.pdf){width="1.00\linewidth"}
Then, the first-order correlation function is
$$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:1stCorrelation} %
G^{(1)}_\text{sm} ( \mathbf{r},t) = %
\left( \frac{\tilde{\omega} \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \wp_{ab}^*}{\pi^2 \epsilon S} \right)^2 %
\frac{\tilde{\omega}^2}{(\pi/a)^2 - \tilde{\omega}^2} %
\sin^2 \frac{\pi x}{a} \sin^2 \frac{\pi x_0}{a} %
\Theta( t - \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \Delta z) %
e^{ \Gamma_\text{spa} \Delta z - \Gamma_\text{eff} t}, %\end{aligned}$$
where the spatial decay rate is $$\begin{aligned}
%
\Gamma_\text{spa} = 2\beta_i. %\end{aligned}$$ One thing to note is that the ratio between the spatial decay rate $\Gamma_\text{spa}$ and the temporal decay rate $\Gamma_\text{eff}$ is generally different from the velocity $\sqrt{\epsilon\mu}$. In Fig. \[Fig:ProfileCorrelation\], we show the profile of the correlation function in $(z,t)$ plane. The distant detector at $z$ from the source atom, located at $z_0$, can detect after a propagation time $t = \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \vert z - z_0 \vert$ by the causality relation. Along the $z$ axis, the detection probability shows exponential behavior with decay constant $\Gamma_\text{spa}$. Similarly, the detection probability at a fixed position is maximum at the arrival of the photon and shows exponential decay along $t$ with decay constant rate $\Gamma_\text{eff}$. It also shows the exponential behavior along the line with $t-\sqrt{\epsilon \mu} z = \text{const.}$, since the ratio is different from $\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$. In Eq. , the spatial decay and temporal decay are different in the first order correlation function due to the geometrical boundary of the waveguide. The ratio of two decay rates $\Gamma_\text{spa}/\Gamma_\text{eff}$ is equal to $\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}$ at $\tilde{\omega} = \tilde{\omega}_d$ with $$\begin{aligned}
%
\tilde{\omega}_d^2 = \frac{ \epsilon^2 \mu^2 \Gamma_\text{eff}^4 + 12 \epsilon \mu \Gamma_\text{eff}^2 (\pi/a)^2 + 4 (\pi/a)^4} %
{8 \{ \epsilon \mu \Gamma_\text{eff}^2 + 2 (\pi/a)^2 \} \epsilon \mu}, %\end{aligned}$$ which is derived from Eq. in the Appendix. In the limit $\omega \rightarrow \infty$, the spatial decay rate approaches the temporal decay rate. In the $a \gg b$ limit (that is, like a shallow slab), the temporal decay rate is larger than the spatial one when $\tilde{\omega}^2 > \Gamma_\text{eff}^2/8$. The correlation function is maximum in the cross-section of the waveguide when the detector and the embedded atom are in the middle of the waveguide along the $x$ axis. In comparison, the correlation function in free space [@ScullZubairy1997] is $$\begin{aligned}
%
G^{(1)}_\text{free} (\mathbf{r},t) = \frac{ \vert \mathcal{E}_0 \vert^2}{\vert \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_0 \vert^2} %
\Theta \left( t - \frac{ \vert \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_0 \vert}{c} \right) %
e^{ - \Gamma ( t - \vert \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_0 \vert / c) }, %\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, and the vacuum decay rate $$\begin{aligned}
%
\Gamma = \tfrac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0} \tfrac{4\omega^3 \wp_{ab}^2}{3\hbar c^3} %\end{aligned}$$ with the dipole moment $\wp_{ab}$ [@ScullZubairy1997]. Here, $$\begin{aligned}
%
\mathcal{E}_0 = - \tfrac{\omega^2 \wp_{ab} \sin \eta}{4\pi \epsilon_0 c^2 \Delta r}, %\end{aligned}$$ and $\eta$ is the angle of the dipole moment from $z$-axis.
Conclusion
==========
A simple model for the spontaneous emission problem is reconsidered in terms of the second quantization formalism. It has been revealed that the usually ignored localized modes should be considered as one of the quantized modes to calculate the decay rate for spontaneous emission. However, the description for propagation and detection of photon is similar to classical treatment since localized modes cannot contribute to these phenomena. One thing to notice is that the decay rates in space and time are different with smaller spatial decay rate usually. The problem with dispersive dielectric material will be investigated later. Furthermore, since we get the quantized electric field operator in this simple system, we can describe any quantum optical phenomena also. However, to extend Glauber’s method [@Glauber1991] to other systems might be difficult since it is usually difficult to calculate the complete set of eigenfunctions. To overcome this obstacle, approximate methods to the quantized field should be developed, such as to numerically evaluate the eigenmodes for a description of the behavior of the optical system.
Appendix: Evaluation of the first-order Correlation function {#Appendix:Cor .unnumbered}
============================================================
The calculation for the transition probability amplitude at the detection from a propagating photonic mode to vacuum mode is explicitly shown. From Eqs. and , $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
& \langle 0 \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm} \\ %
\nonumber %
= & \sum_\nu \mathbf{E}_{\text{TE},10} e^{-i\nu t} %
\frac{g_{\text{TE},10}^*(r_0)}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
%\nonumber %
%\simeq & \frac{L}{2\pi} \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \int d\beta %
%\frac{\wp_{ba} }{\hbar} \frac{\nu^2 \mu^2}{h^4} \frac{\pi^2}{a^2} \frac{2\hbar \nu}{\epsilon h^2 \pi L S}
%\sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \sin \frac{\pi x}{a} e^{-i\beta(z- z_0)} %
%\frac{ e^{-i\nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
%
%=
\nonumber %
\simeq & - \frac{2\sqrt{\epsilon \mu}}{\pi \epsilon S}
\sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \sin \frac{\pi x}{a} %
\int d\beta \frac{\nu \wp_{ab}^* e^{-i\beta(z- z_0) - i\nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
%
\label{Eq:Contour_Init} %
\simeq & - \frac{2\tilde{\omega} \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \wp_{ab}^*}{\pi \epsilon S}
\sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \sin \frac{\pi x}{a} %
\int d\beta \frac{e^{-i\beta(z- z_0) - i\nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} %\end{aligned}$$ where the frequency $\nu$ is approximated by the shifted resonance frequency $\tilde{\omega}$.
![Profile of contour integral in complex $\nu$-plane. (Color online)[]{data-label="Fig:ContourIntegral"}](Fig_Contour.pdf){width="0.80\linewidth"}
To evaluate the above integration in Eq. , let’s consider the contour integration after change of variables from $\beta$ to $\nu$. Since we are interested in a region near $\tilde{\omega}$ where the pole is located, $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
& \int d\beta \frac{e^{i\beta ( z_0 - z) - i \nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
\nonumber %
\simeq & \sqrt{\epsilon\mu} \int \frac{\nu}{\beta} d\nu \frac{e^{i\beta ( z_0 - z) - i \nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
\simeq & \sqrt{\epsilon\mu} \frac{\tilde{\omega}}{\sqrt{(\pi/a)^2 - \tilde{\omega}^2}} \int d\nu \frac{e^{i\beta ( z_0 - z) - i \nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the pole is at lower-half plane in complex $\nu$-plane, the contour $\mathcal{C}$ is as shown in Fig. \[Fig:ContourIntegral\] to get the nonzero result. $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
& \int d\nu \frac{e^{i\beta ( z_0 - z) - i \nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
\nonumber %
= & \frac{1}{2\pi i} %
\int_\mathcal{C} d\nu \frac{e^{i\beta ( z_0 - z) - i \nu t}}{(\nu - \tilde{\omega}) + i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2} \\ %
\label{Eq:ContourIntegral_result} %
= & \frac{1}{2\pi i} \Theta(t - \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} z) %
e^{i (\beta_r - i \beta_i) \Delta z - i (\tilde{\omega} - i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2) t}, %\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta z = \vert z - z_0 \vert$ is the distance between the source atom and a detector, and $\beta_r$ and $\beta_i$ are $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
\beta_r + i \beta_i & = \beta(\nu = \tilde{\omega} - i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2) \\ %
\nonumber %
& = \sqrt{ \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \left( \tilde{\omega} - i \frac{\Gamma_\text{eff}}{2} \right)^2 %
- \left( \frac{\pi}{a} \right)^2 } \\ %
& = \sqrt{ \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} ( \tilde{\omega}^2 - \frac{\Gamma_\text{eff}^2}{4} ) - \left( \frac{\pi}{a} \right)^2 %
- i \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \tilde{\omega} \Gamma_\text{eff} } \, . %\end{aligned}$$ After a simple evaluation, we get $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{Eq:beta_r} %
\beta_r & = \sqrt{ \frac{ A + \sqrt{ A^2 + 4 B^2}}{2}} > 0, \\ %
\label{Eq:beta_i} %
\beta_i & = - \sqrt{ \frac{ \sqrt{ A^2 + 4 B^2} - A}{2}} %\end{aligned}$$ with $A = \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \left( \tilde{\omega}^2 - \Gamma_\text{eff}^2/4 \right) - \pi^2/a^2$, and $B = \sqrt{\epsilon \mu}\tilde{\omega} \Gamma_\text{eff}/2$. Here, we choose $\beta_r$ as positive. Substituting Eq. into Eq. we obtain the transition probability amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
%
\nonumber %
\langle 0 \vert \hat{\mathbf{E}}^{(+)}(\mathbf{r},t) \vert \gamma \rangle_\text{sm} %
= & i \frac{\tilde{\omega} \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} \wp_{ab}^*}{\pi^2 \epsilon S}
\frac{\tilde{\omega}}{\sqrt{(\pi/a)^2 - \tilde{\omega}^2}} \\ %
\nonumber %
& \quad \times %
\sin \frac{\pi x_0}{a} \sin \frac{\pi x}{a} %
\Theta(t - \sqrt{\epsilon \mu} z) \\ %
& \quad \times %
e^{i (\beta_r - i \beta_i) \Delta z - i (\tilde{\omega} - i \Gamma_\text{eff}/2) t}. %\end{aligned}$$
This work was supported by the Air-Force office of Scientific Research and the National Science Foundation.
[999]{}
Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, *Inevitable Incompleteness of All Theories: An Epistemology to Continuously Refine Human Logics Towards Cosmic Logics*, in *The Nature of Light, What is a Photon?*, ed. Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, A. F. Kracklauer, and Katherine Creath (CRC Press, New York, 2008) M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, *Quantum Optics* (Cambridge University Press, 1997) Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jacques Dupont-Roc, and Gilbert Grynberg, *Photons and Atoms, Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics* (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989) Andrei Faraon, Ilya Fushman, Dirk Englund, Nick Stoltz, Pierre Petroff, and Jelena Vučković, “Dipole induced transparency in waveguide coupled photonic crystal cavities”, Opt. Express **16**, 12154 (2008). Jonathan P. Dowling and Gerald J. Milburn, “Quantum Technology: The Second Quantum Revolution”, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London A **361**, 1655 (2003). Dirk Englund, Andrei Faraon, Bingyang Zhang, Yoshihisa Yamamoto, and Jelena Vučković, “Generation and transfer of single photons on a photonic crystal chip”, Opt. Express **15**, 5550 (2007); J.T. Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Coherent photon transport from spontaneous emission in one-dimensional waveguides”, Opt. Lett. **30**, 2001 (2005); Jung-Tsung Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Strongly correlated multiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impurity”, Phys. Rev. A **76**, 062709 (2007).
T. G. Philbin, “Canonical quantization of macroscopic electromagnetism”, New J. Phys. **12**, 123008 (2010); Pablo L. Saldanha and C.H. Monken, “Interaction between light and matter: a photon wave function approach”, **13**, 073015 (2011). R.J. Glauber and M. Lewenstein, “Quantum Optics of Dielectric Media”, Phys. Rev. A **43**, 467-491 (1991). J.D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics* (3rd ed.), (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999); David M. Pozar *Microwave Engineering* (4th ed.), (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012) J.J. Sakurai, *Modern Quantum Mechanics* (The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1985), Sec. 1.6. G.B. Arfken, H.J. Weber, *Mathematical Methods for Physicists* (6th ed.), (Elsevier Academic Press, 2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have investigated the dynamical properties of coherent phonons generated in antimony under high density photo excitation. Precise measurements and extended analysis of coherent phonon oscillations provide new insights into the process of impulsive softening. In the process of recovering from instantaneous softening, phonon frequency shows an unexpected temporal evolution involving an abrupt change and a slight overshoot. Moreover, fluence dependence of the initial phonon frequency is strongly correlated with the phonon frequency shift of the high-pressure Raman spectra. These results clearly prove that the structural changes (lattice contraction and expansion) induced by laser excitation governs the softening mechanism of coherent phonons.'
author:
- 'H. Kumagai'
- 'I. Matsubara'
- 'J. Nakahara'
- 'T. Mishina'
bibliography:
- 'sbz.bib'
title: |
Softening Mechanism of Coherent Phonons in Antimony\
Under High Density Photoexcitation
---
Photoexcitation of materials with intense femtosecond laser pulses has led to a unique physical process in various materials on a femtosecond time scale. For example, phase transition [@Pashkin11], laser ablation [@Carbone08; @Otis91; @Wenqian10], laser melting [@Sokolowski-Tinten98; @Wai-Lun08], and band-gap renormalization [@Kleinman85; @Nowak11] have been intensively studied. Softening of coherent phonons under high density excitation is one of the most important and promising phenomena to investigate. In addition to the continuous efforts to clarify the generation and detection mechanism of coherent phonons of various materials [@Cho90; @Pfeifer92; @Mishina00], their softening mechanism under high density excitation has been intensively focused. Early observations of the softening of coherent phonons in antimony and tellurium have been reported, and the mechanisms have been deduced as ionic screening by photoexcited carriers and purely electronic softening of the crystal lattice, respectively [@Cheng94; @Hunsche95]. Hase [*et al*]{}. have proposed that the softening mechanism involves anharmonicity of the lattice potential instead of electronic softening of the crystal lattice [@Hase02]. The effect of photoexcited electron-hole plasma on the phonon dispersion relation of bismuth has been investigated using first principles density-functional perturbation theory, and its influence on phonon softening also has been discussed [@Murray07]. Recently, time-resolved X-ray diffraction experiments have revealed the atomic motion of bismuth under phonon softening conditions [@Fritz07]. However, the existing experimental evidence is still insufficient to arrive at a final conclusion on the phonon softening mechanism.
In this study, we explore the precise measurement of coherent phonon oscillations in antimony under high density excitation and examine the details of time evolution of frequency shifts. Time evolution exhibits an abrupt change and a slight overshoot, which are hardly expected from a carrier-phonon interaction. Moreover, fluence dependence of the initial frequency is closely correlated with the high-pressure Raman experimental results. The correlation is well explained by the theory based on the quantum motion of nuclei under intense excitation of bonding electrons. These results clearly prove that the structural changes induced by laser excitation govern the softening mechanism of coherent phonons.
The sample used in our experiment is a single crystal of antimony, with its surface perpendicular to the trigonal axis. Our experiments are performed in a reflection-type pump-probe system at room temperature. A commercial Ti:sapphire oscillator operating at repetition rates of 80 MHz and pulse width of 100 fs is used as the excitation light source. The pump and probe beams are orthogonally polarized to each other and they are coaxially arranged using a polarization beam splitter. The beams are focused on the sample to a diameter of about 3$ \mu $m with a microscope objective lens having a focal length of 4.5 mm. A high density excitation condition of maximum 20 mJ/cm$^{2}$ is easily achieved in this configuration. In one series of measurements, the pump pulse width is controlled with a prism pair compensator so that the amplitude of the coherent phonon is varied without changing the fluence. The signal is averaged by a rapid scan system with an optical shaker typically operating at 20 Hz.
![ \[Signal\] (a) Time-resolved reflectivity changes at three pump fluences 0.2, 4.3, and 8.7 mJ/cm$^{2}$. (b) Corresponding Fourier transformed power spectra.](Kfig1.ps){width="7.3cm"}
Figure \[Signal\](a) shows the time-resolved reflectivity changes at different pump power densities. The period of phonon oscillation is prolonged and its decay time is shortened with fluence. Vertical lines are located at the peak positions of the coherent phonon signal for the lowest fluence, and the change in peak positions with the oscillation period is distinctly observed. The corresponding Fourier transformed (FT) spectra are shown in Fig. \[Signal\](b). The peak frequency of the A$_{\rm 1g} $ mode down-shifts and the spectrum shape is asymmetrically broadened to the lower frequency side.
![\[Amplitude\] Dependence of time derivative of reflectivity change on pump pulse width. (a) Temporal profiles for three pump pulse widths. Inset shows cross-correlation trace of pump and probe pulses. (b) Corresponding Fourier power spectra. ](Kfig2.ps){width="7.3cm"}
The effect of anharmonicity of the lattice potential on softening of the A$_{\rm 1g} $ mode is examined by controlling the phonon amplitude. The width of the pump pulse is adjusted by a prism pair, while the width of the probe pulse is maintained at 100fs. As the pump pulse width increases with the period of phonon oscillation, the amplitude of the coherent phonon drastically decreases. Figure \[Amplitude\](a) shows the coherent phonon signal for three pump pulse widths at a fluence of 7.0 mJ/cm$^{2}$. The pump pulse width is evaluated by the width of the cross-correlation trace with probe-pulse and the time traces are labeled with these values. The corresponding cross-correlation traces are displayed in the inset. The amplitude of the phonon oscillation decreases by several times with the pump pulse width; however, the temporal profiles show negligible change. Figure \[Amplitude\](b) shows the corresponding Fourier power spectra obtained after removing the monotonic component. We also verified the dependence on the pump pulse width at higher fluences up to 17.3 mJ/cm$^{2}$, which is immediately below the damage threshold, and found that the temporal profile shows no significant change. It is clearly shown that the softening of coherent phonons is mostly determined by the accumulation of the pump pulse energy and not by the anharmonicity of the lattice potential.
To analyze the time-dependent frequency shift, we numerically fit the data over a monocycle of phonon oscillation with a function expressed as the sum of damping oscillation and a single exponential decay, and determine the instantaneous frequency. The region of the monocycle is selected approximately by the naked eye, and the frequency thus obtained is insensitive to the detail of the selection.
![\[Plot\] Fluence dependence of initial frequency of oscillation (open squares) and height of initial peak (filled circles). Inset shows the Fourier power spectra at three pump fluences of 4.3, 8.7, and 17.3 mJ/cm$^{2}$. ](Kfig3.ps){width="6.0cm"}
Open squares shown in Fig. \[Plot\] indicate the fluence dependence of initial frequency of the coherent phonon obtained by monocycle fitting. The frequency superlinearity decreases with fluence and shows saturation above 10 mJ/cm$^2$. Excitation exceeding 20 mJ/cm$^2$ leads to optical damage of the sample. Filled circles in Fig. \[Plot\] indicate the fluence dependence of the height of the initial peak. The figure shows that the initial peak height increases linearly with fluence, which indicates that there is no significant absorption saturation. Therefore, the saturation of frequency shift originates from a purely internal mechanism. Fourier power spectra at the corresponding fluence is displayed in the inset of Fig. \[Plot\]. The spectrum shows a large frequency shift and broadening as the fluence increases from 4.3 to 8.7 mJ/cm$^2$. Compared with the spectrum at 8.7 mJ/cm$^2$, the frequency shift of the spectrum at 17.3 mJ/cm$^2$ is saturated, although remarkable growth of the low frequency component materializes.
![\[t-Amplitude\] Time evolutions of amplitude (a) and frequency (b) of coherent A$_{\rm 1g}$ phonon for two fluences. The inset represents the temperature dependence of A$_{\rm 1g}$ phonon frequency. Filled circles and open circles correspond to pump fluences of 0.2 and 8.7 mJ/cm$^{2}$, respectively. ](Kfig4.ps){width="5.8cm"}
Figure \[t-Amplitude\] shows time evolutions of the amplitude and frequency of the coherent A$_{\rm 1g}$ phonon for two fluences. Although the amplitude decreases almost exponentially with a decay constant of 0.4 ps$^{-1}$ at 0.2 mJ/cm$^{2}$, it shows an accelerated decay for the first 6 ps at 8.7 mJ/cm$^{2}$, as shown in Fig. \[t-Amplitude\](a). The time dependence of frequency at 8.7 mJ/cm$^{2}$ indicates an abrupt change and a slight overshoot of the phonon frequency around the time delay of 2 ps in contrast to the flat time evolution at 0.2 mJ/cm$^{2}$, as shown in Fig \[t-Amplitude\](b). At higher fluences, an abrupt change in frequency also appears around the time delay of 2 ps and becomes more discontinuous. After these transient responses, the frequency reaches a thermal equilibrium value of 4.50 THz, which lasts onward and the corresponding temperature is very close to room temperature. These experimental results, the saturation behavior of the softening and the unusual time evolution of phonon frequency, indicate that the mechanism of the softening process involves structural change rather than carrier-phonon interaction.
![\[power and pressure\] Comparison of fluence and pressure dependences of phonon frequency. Crosses show pressure dependence of Raman frequencies for Sb. Filled circles show pump fluence dependence of coherent phonon frequencies for Sb. ](Kfig5.ps){width="4.4cm"}
The change in the phonon frequency of the semi-metal that is initiated by the structural change under a high-pressure condition was extensively studied by Raman scattering and pump-probe experiments [@Wang06; @Degtyareva07; @Kasami06]. Figure 5 shows the comparison of the fluence dependence of the initial frequency of the coherent phonon with the uniaxial pressure dependence of the static phonon frequency measured by Raman scattering [@Degtyareva07]. Crosses in the figure indicate the pressure dependence of the Raman peak frequency, and the pressure is indicated in the upper horizontal axis. Vertical dashed lines located at the pressures of 7.2 and 9.0 GPa correspond to the phase boundaries of Sb-I (hexagonal setting), Sb-IV, and Sb-II (host-guest structure). Filled circles indicate the pump fluence dependence of the phonon frequency, and the fluence is indicated in the lower horizontal axis. We set the conversion ratio of fluence to pressure as 0.9 GPa per 1.0 mJ/cm$^{2}$ so that the two curves overlap. Surprisingly, not only the decreases in super linearity at the Sb-I phase but also the saturation behavior at phase IV show extremely good agreement with the fluence dependence. This correspondence between the transient frequency and static pressure shifts of the phonon frequency clearly indicates that the optical high density excitation generates a compressed state whose pressure is proportional to the fluence. Since there is no absorption saturation, as shown in Fig. \[Plot\], the disagreement of the frequency of the coherent phonon corresponding to the Sb-II phase could be explained by the formation of a quasi-stable state instead of a host-guest structure.
In contrast to the generally accepted idea that high density excitation weakens the covalent bond and the lattice undergoes the same expansion process as it undergoes when subject to a heating condition, time-resolved electron diffraction measurements have revealed instantaneous contraction of the atomic distance in graphite [@Carbone08; @Raman08]. Theoretically, the contraction in graphite [@Jeschke01] and the mechanism is now considered as the efficient LA phonon emission by the double resonant Raman process [@Carbone11; @Saito02]. A similar mechanism is also expected in our case; the lattice contraction explains the good correspondence between the fluence and pressure dependences of the phonon frequency, as shown in Fig. \[power and pressure\].
From the result of the optically generated high-pressure state, the following consideration is provided for the energy balance and the surface dynamics. The conventional material parameters used below are taken from the literature [@Landolt]. The sheet energy density of the strain is roughly expressed as $u$ = $p^{2}d$/2$C\rm_{33}$, where $p$ is the pressure, $d$ is the penetration depth, and $C\rm_{33}$ is the elastic modulus along the c-axis. Here, we calculate the strain energy density at the excitation density of 10 mJ/cm$^{2}$. Using the pressure $p$ of 9.0 GPa, the elastic modulus $C\rm_{33}$ of 44.6 GPa, and the optical penetration depth of 13 nm, the resultant strain energy density is 1.2 mJ/cm$^{2}$. $p$ is deduced from the frequency shift shown in Fig. 5; the elastic modulus $C\rm_{33}$ is obtained from the ultrasonic measurement; and the optical penetration depth is defined as the inverse of the absorption coefficient ($1/\alpha$) of the amorphous film of antimony at a wavelength of 790 nm. Since the photoabsorbed energy is determined as 3.0 mJ/cm$^{2}$ from the optical reflectivity of 70 %, it is concluded that a large amount of the absorbed energy is converted into strain energy for the lattice, which is consistent with the X-ray experimental result [@Reis01]. It is well known that a strain pulse with a picosecond duration can be generated by irradiating a metal film or a semiconductor with intense femtosecond laser pulses and that it propagates into the sample [@Baumberg97; @Kasami04; @Akimov06]. Because our experimental conditions are very close to this situation, a strain pulse is also expected, and the lattice contraction corresponds to the initial stage of the strain pulse. The spatial size of the strain pulse estimated by the optical penetration depth $d$ is 13 nm, and the acoustic velocity $v$ of antimony along the c-axis is about 2584 m/s. Therefore, the escape time of the strain pulse from the optical penetration layer is calculated as 5.0 ps. The complete recovery from phonon softening and the small temperature increase observed after 5 ps, as shown in Fig. \[t-Amplitude\], are satisfactorily explained by the strain pulse, which carries away the structural deformation and the associated energy from the surface. Further theoretical and experimental research is needed to clarify the dynamics of highly photoexcited solid surfaces. It is strongly emphasized that the high-pressure Raman scattering experiment is very powerful for understanding high density excitation phenomena.
In conclusion, we have investigated the impulsive softening process in antimony by using a precise measurement system based on rapid scan and microscope optics. The detailed analysis of the instantaneous frequency shift yields unexpected findings. The fluence dependence of the initial frequency is strongly correlated with the high-pressure Raman scattering experiment and the time evolution of the phonon frequency shows an abrupt change and overshoot. These results clearly indicate that the highly excited surface layer undergoes contraction and successive expansion processes that leads to ablation. Transient high pressure associated with lattice contraction represents the extreme reduction in the phonon frequency and the time evolution of the phonon frequency indicates the lattice deformation dynamics. Simple estimation of the energy balance reveals that most of the photo-injected energy is converted to lattice strain energy and the duration of the softening process is consistent with the exit time of the strain pulse propagating deep into the sample.
The authors thank Professor Takashi Kozasa and Dr. T. Yanagisawa for stimulating discussions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Rolf Kuiper
- 'Harold W. Yorke'
- 'Neal J. Turner'
bibliography:
- 'Papers.bib'
title: Protostellar Outflows and Radiative Feedback from Massive Stars
---
Introduction {#sect:introduction}
============
Protostellar outflows are ubiquitous in high-mass star forming regions and are believed to be a direct consequence of the stars’ growth. The outflows from massive protostars range broadly in appearance, from highly collimated and jet-like [e.g. @Forbrich:2009p20734; @Linz:2010p4356; @Beuther:2010p10561; @Sepulveda:2011p12644; @Wang:2011p3204; @Beltran:2011p5712; @Moscadelli:2013p17691; @Cesaroni:2013p17688; @Palau:2013p16699] to somewhat collimated [@Hennemann:2009p635] or confined outflow structures [@Wang:2011p3204]. @Beltran:2011p5712, for instance, report an outflow with a poorly collimated blue-shifted lobe and a better collimated red-shifted lobe in their source A. Poorly collimated outflows sometimes surround collimated jets and hence could result from the jet entraining ambient gas [e.g. @Fallscheer:2009p245; @Beuther:2010p359; @Sepulveda:2011p12644]. Furthermore, recent observations of a couple of massive young stars show collimated fast jets in combination with disk winds roughly perpendicular to Keplerian-like accretion disks [@Murakawa:2013p23340], a picture quite similar to that for Solar-mass stars. The observed range of outflow properties might be an evolutionary sequence [@Beuther:2005p142]; a recent observational study of the evolution of molecular outflows in high-mass star forming regions and the associated SiO excitation conditions is in @SanchezMonge:2013p21495. Broader reviews of massive stars’ outflow properties are in @Shepherd:2005p11163, @Arce:2007p10514, and @Bally:2008p20721.
Theoretical studies of outflows can be divided between those focusing on the launching, acceleration and collimation, and those dealing with the feedback effects of outflows on the circumstellar environment. On the launching side of this division, tight collimation is generally attributed to Lorentz forces. However, the complex outflow morphologies in high-mass star forming regions could mean that more than one acceleration and collimation mechanism is at work. Magnetic fields [e.g. @Seifried:2012p5262; @Sheikhnezami:2012p21519], molecular line radiation pressure [@Vaidya:2011p14600], ionization [@Peters:2012p16740], and photoevaporation of disks [@Yorke:2002p22373] have all been suggested as contributing to outflows.
Only a few studies include both the launching physics and the feedback at large scales. These follow the magneto-hydrodynamical (MHD) evolution of a collapsing molecular core either with a cooling prescription [@Banerjee:2007p691] or a barotropic equation of state [@Hennebelle:2011p5748]. The time span covered in such calculations is limited by the need to simultaneously resolve the MHD launching physics on small scales and span the large-scale collapse. So far it has only been possible to study the early stages of collapse — up to half the free-fall time of the pre-stellar core. To circumvent the small timesteps and make it possible to follow the outflow feedback longer, several studies have used a sub-grid scheme to inject protostellar outflows into the computational domain. These include MHD simulations [@Wang:2010p2487], radiation-hydrodynamics (RHD) studies [@Cunningham:2011p953], and multiple outflow interactions [@Peters:2014p27736]. Whereas @Wang:2010p2487 followed the MHD collapse for roughly 2-3 free-fall times, the RHD simulations of @Cunningham:2011p953 were still limited to the initial 0.8 free-fall times, i.e. not long enough to determine the net effect of outflows on the evolution. @Peters:2014p27736 studied the effect of multiple outflows from low-mass companion stars in massive star forming regions, explaining the morphology and power of observed outflows, but neglecting the effect of radiation pressure from the massive star.
Here we focus on the long-term evolution of the collapsing pre-stellar environment. A protostar forms, grows through accretion, initiates an outflow, and continues to grow until it becomes so luminous that its radiative forces shape the dynamics of the surrounding gas. The high optical depth of a massive accretion disk surrounding a protostar significantly reduces the radiation pressure onto the stellar accretion flow by causing an anisotropy of the reemitted thermal radiation field, a mechanism also known as the “flashlight effect” [@Yorke:1999p156; @Yorke:2002p735; @Krumholz:2005p406; @Kuiper:2010p541].
In general, protostellar outflows impact the stellar environment via their momentum feedback [see @Ray:2007p10756; @Arce:2007p10514; @Frank:2014p28089 for reviews]. Hence, outflows are assumed to have a negative SFE feedback via decreasing the accretion rate and, hence, limiting the accreted mass. On the other hand, for massive stars in the super-Eddington regime (i.e. their environment is severely affected by radiative forces), early protostellar outflows may alter the later radiative feedback epoch of these stars. Indeed, a low-density / optically thin cavity produced by protostellar outflows might decrease the radiative feedback on the accretion flow, i.e. outflows also have a positive SFE feedback. Conceptually, this effect was already shown in purely radiation transport simulations of a static configuration with a star, a disk, an envelope, and an outflow cavity in @Krumholz:2005p406. To finally conclude, which of these effects is stronger - the negative or the positive one - dynamical studies of the star formation process are essential. But previous radiation-hydrodynamical studies including the effect of radiative forces [such as @Krumholz:2007p416; @Cunningham:2011p953; @Commercon:2011p1547] have been performed only for the sub-Eddington / marginal-Eddington regime. Here, we go beyond this barrier, to quantitatively determine the efficiency of both effects and their interplay for substantially massive stars.
Such super-Eddington massive stars are assumed to form naturally via global cloud collapse as presented in recent observations by @Peretto:2013p26092.
When the high optical depth cannot further be sustained by ongoing accretion from the envelope onto the disk, ultimately, the radiation forces overcome the gravitational attraction of the protostar and reverse the infall. We follow the evolution of the core through the entire stellar accretion phase, stopping the calculations only after the initial mass within our computational domain is either accreted onto the central star or expelled through the outer boundary at a radius of 0.1 pc. The simulations run 6.7 and 5.7 free-fall times starting with pre-stellar cores having initial density profiles $\rho
\propto r^{-1.5}$ and $\rho \propto r^{-2.0}$, respectively. To separate the consequences of protostellar outflows from radiation feedback, we also perform comparison calculations without the outflows. The difference between these two is expected to be the cavities opened by the early protostellar outflows and these will affect the radiation field.
We treat the radiation pressure feedback using a hybrid radiative transport scheme, calculating the stellar irradiation by a ray-tracing method and the thermal dust emission by flux-limited diffusion. For details, we refer the reader to the methods section below.
In Sect. \[sect:methods\] we briefly describe our star formation modeling framework and the sub-grid model for the protostellar outflows, and in Sect. \[sect:setup\] the initial state of the pre-stellar cores. The results are presented in four sections focusing on the dominant forces (Sect. \[sect:results-forces\]), the core evolution and mass loss (Sect. \[sect:results-core\])), the outflows (Sect. \[sect:results-outflow\]) and the disk and stellar accretion (Sect. \[sect:results-disk\]). In Sect. \[sect:observations\] we discuss the observational implications and in Sect. \[sect:limitations\] reiterate the limitations of this study and outline the prospects for follow-up work. A summary is in Sect. \[sect:summary\].
Methods {#sect:methods}
=======
General Star Formation Framework
--------------------------------
To follow the evolution of the gas and dust in a collapsing, slowly rotating pre-stellar core, we solve the equations of compressible radiation-hydrodynamics, including self-gravity and shear viscosity. The basic numerical code is the same as in our previous studies [@Kuiper:2010p541; @Kuiper:2011p21204; @Kuiper:2012p1151]. The hydrodynamical solver we use is the open source magneto-hydrodynamics code Pluto [@Mignone:2007p544]. The coordinate system is spherical with radial and colatitude coordinates $(r,\theta)$.
A special feature of the code is our hybrid radiation transport scheme, which combines a highly accurate frequency-dependent ray-tracing step for the stellar irradiation with a gray flux-limited diffusion (FLD) approximation for the dust thermal (re-)emission. Detailed description of the derivation, numerical implementation, and benchmarking of the radiation transport solver are in @Kuiper:2010p586. Our hybrid approach is a major improvement over the pure gray FLD approximation [e.g. @Bodenheimer:1990p615; @Yorke:1995p550], in which not only the thermal dust emission but also the stellar irradiation is computed in the FLD approximation. Especially when radiation dominates the energy budget of an optically thin outflow cavity, the stellar irradiation must be treated accurately to correctly model the dynamical evolution [@Kuiper:2012p1151]. Most importantly, the much higher opacity of the stellar irradiation in contrast to the rather low opacity of the thermal radiation field has to be taken into account properly. Furthermore, the technique takes into account the irradiation’s anisotropy in the optically thin limit (relevant for studies of molecular outflows) and renders the formation of shadows behind highly optically thick regions (relevant for studies of circumstellar disks). For a setup including a star, a slightly flared disk, and an envelope, the hybrid method is nearly as accurate as modern Monte-Carlo radiative transfer codes (excluding the effect of scattering) in all optical depth regimes [@Kuiper:2013p19458], but much faster.
The spectrum of the stellar irradiation is treated using 79 frequency bins. Across these bins the dust opacity’s frequency dependence is drawn from @Laor:1993p358. Frequency-averaged (gray) Planck and Rosseland mean opacities for the thermal dust emission are computed from the frequency-dependent dust opacities. In dust-free regions the gas opacity is used instead of dust and is fixed to a constant value $\tau = 0.01 \mbox{ cm}^2 \mbox{ g}^{-1}$.
The central star evolves following a sub-grid model computed by fitting the stellar evolutionary tracks of @Hosokawa:2009p23. These tracks include the effects of accretion onto forming high-mass stars. Including the effects of protostellar outflows is a straightforward extension of the self-gravity radiation-hydrodynamical star formation framework of @Kuiper:2010p541.
Protostellar Outflows Sub-Grid Model
------------------------------------
A consistent study of the launching mechanism(s) and the developing outflow structure within the collapsing pre-stellar core would require computing the MHD evolution of the collapse down to a small fraction of an AU resolution to guarantee meaningful results. Due to limited computing resources, we can currently perform such a self-consistent study in 2D for about one free-fall time of the pre-stellar core. To enable this investigation of protostellar outflow feedback over the course of the protostar’s entire accretion phase, we adopt the following approach. Rather than modeling the launching mechanism(s) and structures of protostellar outflows from basic principles, we use a sub-grid model, whereby the momentum injection and mass loss rate of the protostellar outflows follow an analytical prescription [@Cunningham:2011p953], and depend on the protostellar parameters (mass, radius, and accretion rate).
In these simulations a protostar forms and evolves at the center of our grid, i.e. within a sink cell of radius $R_\mathrm{min}$, the inner radial boundary of the computational domain. The protostellar outflow associated with the protostar can therefore be implemented in the numerical scheme as an inner boundary condition at $R_\mathrm{min}$, which we set equal to 10 AU. Because the protostellar outflow’s launching is generally attributed to magneto-centrifugal acceleration and/or twisting of magnetic field lines near the accretion disk’s inner rim, we turn on the outflow when a rotation-supported disk first forms in the calculation. The exact time to initiate the outflow is chosen based on the corresponding reference simulation without an outflow. The switching-on occurs when the central protostar has grown to $8 \mbox{ M}_\odot$ and $25 \mbox{
M}_\odot$ in the cases with initial core density profiles $\rho
\propto r^{-\beta}$ with power law indexes $\beta = 1.5$ and $\beta =
2$, respectively.
Once the outflow turns on, the outward radial velocity at the inner radial boundary is set proportional to the Keplerian velocity at the stellar radius $$v_\mathrm{BC} = f_\mathrm{v} \times v_\mathrm{Kepler}(R_*)$$ with $v_\mathrm{Kepler}(R_*) = \sqrt{G M_* / R_*}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $M_*$ and $R_*$ are the protostellar mass and radius. Here we use $f_\mathrm{v} = 1/3$. The parametrization above can also be given in terms of the escape speed $v_\mathrm{escape}$ at the injection radius $R_\mathrm{min}$ $$v_\mathrm{BC} = f_\mathrm{v} \times \sqrt{\frac{R_\mathrm{min}}{2
R_*}} \times v_\mathrm{escape}(R_\mathrm{min}).$$ At all epochs of the simulations, the injection velocity is higher than the corresponding escape velocity. The mean ratio $v_\mathrm{BC}
\approx 3.5~v_\mathrm{escape}(R_\mathrm{min})$.
The density at the inner radial boundary is set proportional to the actual accretion rate $\dot{M}_*$ onto the protostar $$\rho_\mathrm{BC} = f_{\dot{M}} \times f(\theta) \times
\frac{\dot{M}_*}{4 \pi~R_\mathrm{min}^2~v_\mathrm{BC} }$$ The mass loss rate $\dot{M}_\mathrm{outflow} = 4 \pi r^2 \rho(r) v(r)$ in the outflow is $$\dot{M}_\mathrm{outflow} = f_{\dot{M}} \times f(\theta) \times \dot{M}_*.$$
The outflow is concentrated near the polar axis. The angular distribution $f(\theta)$ is conveniently parametrized using a formulation from @Matzner:1999p13489 $$\label{eq:angularweighting}
f(\theta) = \left(\ln \left(2/\theta_0 \right) * \left( \sin^2
\theta + \theta_0^2 \right)\right)^{-1}.$$ This yields collimated flows up and down the rotation axis and broad wings toward the disk’s mid-plane $\theta = \pi/2$, resembling the jets observed within broader molecular outflows. The so-called flattening of the distribution is given by the constant $\theta_0$, which we set to 0.01 in accordance with @Cunningham:2011p953, giving the angular weighting in Fig. \[fig:AngularDependence\].
![ Angular weighting of the protostellar outflow injection as function of the angle with respect to the rotation axis. []{data-label="fig:AngularDependence"}](fig1.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
The low value of $\theta_0 \ll 1$ yields an outflow force feedback focussed near the rotation axis, most strongly impacting the poles. The momentum flux injected at ($\theta=0$) is four orders of magnitude greater than in the disk mid-plane ($\theta=\pi/2$).
Protostellar outflows have several feedback effects. First, the accretion onto the star is reduced by $f_\mathrm{\dot{M}}$ (“mass loss feedback”). Second, the outflow changes the dynamics of the stellar environment due to additional outward momentum $\rho_\mathrm{outflow}~v_\mathrm{outflow}$ (“kinematic feedback”). Third, the outflows clear material away from the poles, making the ambient density more anisotropic. This is especially important for high-mass stars, where the starlight radiative forces eventually dominate (“radiative feedback”). For simplicity and to allow straightforward comparison with simulations lacking the protostellar outflows, here we focus on the kinematic and radiative feedback, setting $f_{\dot{M}}=0.01$ so that mass loss feedback is minor.
Comparison to Cunningham et al. (2011)
--------------------------------------
While the analytical formulae we use to parametrize the outflows are identical to @Cunningham:2011p953, the numerical implementation differs because of the particulars of the computational grids. @Cunningham:2011p953 use a 3D Cartesian adaptive mesh with maximum resolution $\Delta x \times \Delta y \times \Delta z = (10
\mbox{ AU})^3$. We use a 2D static grid in spherical coordinates with maximum resolution $\Delta r \times \Delta \theta= 1.27 \times 1.04
\mbox{ AU}^2$. In @Cunningham:2011p953, forming protostars are represented by sink particles. A protostellar outflow associated with a sink particle is injected into the ambient gas via a kernel function, which spreads the outflow injection over four to eight grid cells radially around the sink particle, i.e. within $r = 40 - 80$ AU. In our treatment, the protostar forms in a sink cell at the center of the spherical grid. Hence, its interaction with the ambient medium can be described via ordinary boundary conditions at the innermost grid point, at $R_\mathrm{min} = 10$ AU.
We aim to run the simulations long enough to follow the protostar’s whole accretion phase, and to investigate the protostellar outflows’ effects at late epochs when the star grows so luminous that radiative forces dominate the dynamics. This is made possible by choosing a simpler setup than @Cunningham:2011p953: our models are symmetric around the rotation axis and about the midplane. High spatial resolution is important especially in the innermost regions, where the protostellar outflow is injected and first interacts with the envelope medium, and where radiative forces act on the inner rim of the accretion disk. High resolution is achieved by using spherical coordinates with a logarithmically-spaced radial grid. The pressure scale height of the accretion disk is resolved by at least one grid cell in our simulations. In @Cunningham:2011p953 the disk scale height was unresolved and therefore – to avoid an artificial disruption of the forming disk by the protostellar outflow – the outflow injection was switched off in an equatorial belt at least one cell thick ($\Delta x \ge 10$ AU). No such switch is needed in our calculations, allowing us to investigate the accretion flow’s interaction with the outflow and starlight, both as the disk is forming and in late evolutionary stages.
Initial Conditions {#sect:setup}
==================
We consider four cases. All start with a pre-stellar core containing $100 \mbox{ M}_\odot$, 0.1 pc in radius, with a uniform temperature 20 K and in slow solid body rotation at $\Omega = 2 \times
10^{-13}$ s$^{-1}$. For each of two different initial density distributions, $\rho \propto r^{-1.5}$ and $\rho \propto r^{-2}$, we carry out runs with and without protostellar outflows. The four cases are listed in Table \[tab:run-table\].
Run label $\rho \propto r^{-\beta}$ Protostellar Outflow $\overline{\dot{M}_*}~[10^{-4}\mbox{ M}_\odot \mbox{ yr}^{-1}]$ $t_\mathrm{acc}$ \[kyr\] $M_*^\mathrm{final}~[\mbox{M}_\odot]$
----------- --------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------------
rho1.5 1.5 No 1.2 350 42
rho1.5-PO 1.5 Yes 1.0 460 47
rho2.0 2.0 No 5.8 90 52
rho2.0-PO 2.0 Yes 1.5 360 55
Dominant Forces {#sect:results-forces}
===============
Protostars’ masses are ultimately determined by what happens to the reservoir of potentially accretable material. In our calculations the growth ends when the remaining envelope is expelled either by radiation forces or by entrainment in outflows. To gain insight into these feedback processes, in this section we examine the main forces along the radial direction.
Initially the flow is governed by collapse under self-gravity. As collapse proceeds, centrifugal forces increase near the center of the core due to angular momentum conservation, until a rotation-supported disk forms in orbit around the protostar. Once the disk is in place, a protostellar outflow is launched and injects outward momentum into the ambient medium. The protostar’s luminosity grows until eventually radiative forces overcome the star’s gravitational attraction. Although thermal pressure builds up as the core contracts and the star brightens, its contribution to the radial forces remains limited. Note, however, that we neglect photoionization of the ambient medium and heating by photoelectrons, both of which increase thermal pressure forces. UV feedback is most likely limited to later epochs of stellar evolution (than we study here), after the accreting protostar reaches the main sequence [@Hosokawa:2009p23; @Hosokawa:2010p690; @Kuiper:2013p19987].
Thus the radial dynamics of the polar regions during the pre-main sequence phases are dominated by gravity, outflows and stellar radiative forces. The resulting velocity patterns in the pre-stellar core collapse are shown in Figs. \[fig:VisIt-WholeDomain1\] to \[fig:VisIt-WholeDomain9\]. The figures distinguish the inward accretion flow from the outward motion due to protostellar outflow and both stellar and thermal radiation pressure feedback. The time sequence is chosen to display the clearing of the bipolar region. In the accretion disk the radial flows are controlled by gravity approximately balanced by centrifugal forces, with radiative forces contributing at certain times.
{width="89.00000%"}\
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
{width="95.00000%"}
Core Evolution and Mass Loss {#sect:results-core}
============================
In all four runs, with and without the feedback from protostellar outflows, the radiative forces remove a substantial fraction of the envelope. The epoch of radiative feedback starts once the protostar becomes super-Eddington with respect to the opacities of the accreting material. In the two runs without protostellar outflows, radiative and centrifugal forces reverse the flow closely above (and below) the accretion disk, launching a wide-angle wind. Closer to the rotation axis, the stellar radiative forces reverse the flow, launching a bipolar outflow. At the same time the high midplane optical depth of the accretion disk means the thermal dust reemission is strongly anisotropic due to the flashlight effect, enhancing the radiative forces in the bipolar outflow while reducing them at lower latitudes.
The two runs including the protostellar outflows differ once the disk forms and the outflows are injected. Accretion onto the protostar is then slower than in the versions without the outflows, a direct result of the outflows entraining and carrying away envelope material. We designate this the “kinematic” feedback to contrast it with the “radiative” feedback.
By ejecting envelope material from the system, the outflows alter the evolution of the disk and protostar. Fig. \[fig:scalars\] shows the rates of stellar accretion $\dot{M}_*$ (upper panels) and mass loss from the prestellar core $M_\mathrm{loss}$ (lower panels) as functions of the accreted stellar mass $M_*$.
\
The kinematic outflow feedback coincides with a decline in the star’s accretion rate (fig. \[fig:scalars\], upper panels). As the star gains mass, the radiative feedback becomes more important (lower panels) and eventually ends the stellar accretion (upper panels). Both feedback effects act first on small scales to diminish the stellar growth rate, and later on large scales to expel mass from the core.
Outflow Evolution {#sect:results-outflow}
=================
As with the core, the bipolar outflows are governed by the injected protostellar outflows at early times and later also shaped by the stellar radiative forces. Below we divide the discussion between the outflows’ dynamics, momentum and their opening angle history.
Outflow Dynamics
----------------
The outflow dynamics at low latitudes is complex. Basically, in the runs without protostellar outflows, the polar regions’ dynamics are dominated by gravity and stellar radiation forces. At low latitudes, centrifugal forces also contribute, yielding lower effective gravities. The radiatively-driven outflow therefore starts first at the lower latitudes, yielding a quadrupole or butterfly shape around the protostar. Shortly afterward, the radiation pressure also halts the infall along the rotation axis. In short order the flow reverses all the way to the boundary.
In the runs with protostellar outflows, the injected momentum leads to a disk wind at earlier epochs, before the onset of strong radiation forces. The centrifugal forces are unimportant because the outflow is strong enough to drive the disk wind without help. Once the radiation pressure increases, the dynamics at low latitudes are controlled by the kinematic feedback, the radiative feedback, and gravity. [ E.g. for the transition from kinematically dominated to radiatively dominated outflows, see Fig. \[fig:VisIt-WholeDomain7\], in which the white-colored region above and behind the accretion disk denotes the onset of flow reversal due to dominating radiative forces within the collapsing environment. ]{}
Momentum Distribution
---------------------
Beginning soon after the protostellar outflows are first launched, and continuing until stellar radiation forces become important, the outflow momentum distribution is characterized by a collimated high-momentum jet-like structure ending in a somewhat wider bow shock. The degree of collimation is determined by the angular weighting used when injecting the outflows (Sect. \[sect:methods\]).
The outflow passes through several phases of evolution, shown by snapshots of the momentum, velocity and density distributions in Figs. \[fig:VisIt1\] to \[fig:VisIt6\]. During all phases, the outflow consists of two components (Figs. \[fig:VisIt2\] to \[fig:VisIt6\]). The first is a fast jet, confined to a small angle around the symmetry axis. Its extent is governed by the injection rate and thus the stellar accretion rate. The second component is a slower wind, which transports intermediate-density material ($\rho \sim
10^{-19} - 10^{-17} \mbox{ g cm}^{-3}$) at lower latitudes in the bipolar cavity and/or the top of the accretion disk atmosphere. [ The slower wind is initially driven by the kinematic feedback of the outflow and limited in size to a few 100 AU. Over time the radiation forces become more and more important, and around the time they come to dominate, the wind briefly reaches out as far as 2000 AU (Fig. \[fig:VisIt4\] and Fig. \[fig:VisIt5\]). ]{} In the later phase (Fig. \[fig:VisIt6\]), the protostellar radiation force eventually drags the intermediate-density gas to larger radii and clears the bipolar region over a large solid angle. Hence the wind component associated with the intermediate density gas vanishes on extents larger than roughly 500 AU once the stellar radiative forces dominate the outflow region.
{width="79.00000%"}\
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
{height="10cm"} {height="10cm"}
Opening Angle {#sect:classification}
-------------
The bipolar outflow’s opening angle passes through three stages of evolution. Over long timescales the opening angle widens as the radiative feedback from the protostar increases. Over shorter timescales, however, the opening angle is affected by the distribution of intermediate-density gas and dust above and below the disk. The material’s opacity shields the environment from the central radiative force.
When the protostellar outflow is first injected, a shock propagates into the envelope, slowing and even reversing the infall on larger scales. The shock appears green in Fig. \[fig:VisIt1\] right panel. Once the shock propagates past each radius, infall there resumes. The shock temporarily clears material, allowing the outflow opening angle to increase up a maximum of about 60 degrees (measured from the symmetry axis to one side). This broadening of the outflow is confined to within roughly $2000$ AU of the protostar and reaches its maximum extent 18 kyr after the start of the collapse.
In a second stage, after the shock passes out of the domain, the outflow within $4000$ AU of the protostar settles into a quasi-stationary state. The opening angle is governed by the injected momentum and the infall from larger scales. The quasi-stationary opening angle is about 40 degrees starting at 25 kyr. The outflow reaches $14000$ AU along the symmetry axis at this time.
The quasi-stationary stage holds only up to about 30 kyr. Then, in a third stage, the stellar radiative force overcomes the gravitational attraction of the protostar and the opening angle of the radiation-pressure-dominated outflow broadens monotonically in time (Figs. \[fig:VisIt4\] and \[fig:VisIt5\]). The maximum angle of the radiation-pressure-driven outflow is controlled by the inner accretion disk’s variation of optical depth with angle. The radiatively-driven outflow has a larger opening angle than the early protostellar outflow.
Disk Evolution and Stellar Accretion {#sect:results-disk}
====================================
In this section we look at how the kinematic and radiative feedback shape the star’s growth. The star grows by receiving mass from the accretion disk. Angular momentum conservation in the infalling gas dictates that the disk is assembled from inside out. Its growth is governed by the mass fed from larger scales, which appears in Figs. \[fig:VisIt1\] to \[fig:VisIt5\] as a blue torus of inward radial momentum. The disk’s outer edge undergoes radial oscillations and super-Keplerian azimuthal motion as the arriving material settles into radial force balance. The balance involves contributions from self-gravity, thermal pressure and radiation pressure. [ E.g. the red-colored region (positive outward momentum) at the outer rim of the accretion disk (Fig. \[fig:VisIt6\], right panel) denotes the interaction zone of the disk with the collapsing environment; the process of in-falling material approaching its gravito-centrifugal balance (plus minor contributions of thermal and radiation pressure) yields small natural oscillations around the equilibrium point. For further details of this disk-growing process, we refer the interested reader to @Kuiper:2011p21204, Sect. 4.2 and Fig. 4, where a 3-D calculation is compared with a series of axisymmetric disk models having varying shear viscosities.. ]{}
The star’s final mass is the time integral of the accretion rate history and can be expressed as a mean accretion rate multiplied by the duration of the epoch of disk accretion. The disk’s mass flow rate and lifetime both depend on the supply of material falling from the envelope onto the disk, which in turn is governed by the radiative feedback. The surprise is that adding the modest protostellar outflow makes the star’s final mass larger. The outflow’s kinematic feedback is more than balanced by a reduction in the effectiveness of the thermal radiative feedback. The bipolar cavity cleared by the outflow amplifies the flashlight effect, letting both the stellar and thermal radiation escape more easily near the poles and reducing the fluxes into lower latitudes. The anisotropy of the thermal radiation, in particular, reduces the extent of the mass loss through the outer boundary, allowing more of the envelope mass ultimately to fall onto the disk.
A measure of the flashlight effect is the density contrast between the disk and its surroundings. The contrast is several orders of magnitude greater with the protostellar outflow (Fig. \[fig:Density\_vs\_z\]). The flashlight effect’s strength can also be seen in the contrast from pole to equator in the optical depth for thermal radiation, $\tau=\int_{R_*}^{R_\mathrm{max}}
\kappa_\mathrm{R}\left[T(r)\right]~\rho(r)~dr$ (Fig. \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta\]). The early evolution in simulations without protostellar outflow is characterized by an optical depth independent of the polar angle $\theta$ — that is, the protostar’s surroundings are isotropic. By contrast, simulations including the protostellar outflow reach the same point in time with the poles cleared so that the optical depth for the thermal radiation $\tau<1$. The angular extent of the optically thin region grows in time (gray shading in Figs. \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-a\] to \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-f\]). Along the axis, the optical depth is due to the protostellar outflow itself and hence remains at higher values.
Even in the calculations without the protostellar outflows, the radiative forces eventually strengthen, slowing the accretion and at certain angles reversing it. Inside the optically thick accretion disk, the flashlight effect diminishes the thermal radiative forces. At angles immediately above the disk, the dynamics of the infalling envelope are governed by gravity, centrifugal and radiative forces, while at angles near the poles, centrifugal forces are negligible. Therefore the inflow is most easily halted along radial lines passing just outside the body of the disk. In our calculations without the protostellar outflows, the radiative and centrifugal forces drive winds at angles roughly $30\degr$ above the midplane, leading to decreased optical depths (Figs. \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-b\], \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-d\], and \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-e\]). But the winds are not continuously present in time. The winds’ erratic interaction with the envelope means during some phases the disk is mass-starved, while in others the disk receives infalling envelope material (compare the extent of the blue-colored disk feeding region in Figs. \[fig:VisIt1\] to \[fig:VisIt3\]). At late epochs, when the star is luminous and radiative forces become important, simulations lacking the outflow are characterized by mass loss from the protostellar core due to radiative feedback on the previously isotropic environment. The optical depth decreases in a large range of viewing angles around the pole (see Fig. \[fig:Tau\_vs\_theta-f\]). At the same time, the disk’s optical depth decreases due to limited accretion from the envelope.
\
\
When we include the protostellar outflow, both the stellar and the thermal radiative flux is concentrated near the poles, and the bulk of the envelope elsewhere receives less radiation. The weaker radiation forces on the envelope mean a larger reservoir of mass is available to accrete onto the disk and ultimately onto the star. Although the disk mass flow rate is lower, the flow continues for longer. The slower depletion of the disk is evident in midplane density cuts (Fig. \[fig:Density\_vs\_R\]). The epoch of disk accretion lasts up to four times longer in the simulations with protostellar outflows (Table \[tab:run-table\]). However the relatively low accretion rates in the later stages yield only a few Solar masses of extra material. The final masses for the cases with protostellar outflow are $47 \mbox{ M}_\odot$ and $55 \mbox{ M}_\odot$ for initial density distributions $\rho \propto r^{-1.5}$ and $\rho \propto r^{-2.0}$, respectively. The final masses in the reference runs without the protostellar outflow are $42 \mbox{ M}_\odot$ and $52 \mbox{
M}_\odot$, respectively.
Observational Implications {#sect:observations}
==========================
The phase of rapid mass accretion onto a protostar is particularly important for understanding the origins of massive stars. The challenge is to capture observations during this brief phase. As the envelope collapses under its own gravity, the gas density above and below the disk decreases, allowing the radiation-driven outflow to broaden. The increasing opening angle makes the central protostar directly visible for observers over a larger portion of the sky. The cases we discuss here indicate that we could observe high-mass protostars either directly through their outflow cavities, if the viewing angle is nearly pole-on, or indirectly via scattered light [see also @Bruderer:2009p28194]. Several candidate massive protostars appear to be bloated [@Linz:2009p3056; @Bik:2012p3198; @Palau:2013p16699] suggesting they are accreting gas at high rates [@Hosokawa:2010p690; @Kuiper:2013p19987]. For more quantitative predictions of the observability and expected signatures of massive protostars during rapid mass accretion, hydrodynamical models like those presented here ought to be complemented by detailed radiative transport calculations.
Radiative feedback reduces the star formation efficiency of the pre-stellar core collapse to roughly 50%. In our simulations, about half the initial mass is expelled through the outer boundary at 0.1 pc and therefore does not contribute to the growth of the central star. The lost mass is mostly envelope material entrained in the protostellar outflow (at early times) and accelerated by radiation (at later times). There are minor contributions from disk winds and the redirection of the disk accretion flow into the protostellar outflow. This outcome is consistent with the tight correlation observed between outflow mass and core mass over many orders of magnitude by @Beuther:2002p3040. High-mass molecular outflows could resemble their counterparts around lower-mass stars in resulting from entrainment in a collimated protostellar outflow, as suggested by the match of the IRAS 05358+3543 outflow system to a shock entrainment model @Beuther:2002p3046, and by the correlation of outflow mass with source bolometric luminosity across outflows from both low-mass and high-mass stars @Wu:2004p20604.
Finally, we note that since the outflowing gas entrains part of the envelope, we expect that the observed outflow rates exceed the sum of the masses being lost in the protostellar outflow and radiation-driven winds.
Limitations & Outlook {#sect:limitations}
=====================
An important limitation of this study is the fact that the protostellar outflows are injected following a sub-grid prescription, rather than calculated from first principles. Unfortunately, determining the outflow launching forces accurately would require significantly better spatial resolution of the central regions. Achieving higher resolution with an explicit dynamical code requires short timesteps, so that the long-term evolution we studied here is so far accessible only using such an outflow prescription.
With a clear focus on disentangling the kinematic protostellar outflow feedback from the radiation pressure feedback, we considered an outflow-to-accretion-rate conversion factor of 0.01 only in this exploratory study. Because protostellar outflows and radiation interact, and do not simply add to each other’s effects, a range of outflow strengths should be considered in more detailed follow-up studies.
Also, shock waves driven into the surroundings when the outflow is launched would be even more important if the outflow were episodic. In our calculations the outflow momentum is determined from the stellar accretion rate, which in turn is governed mostly by the disk’s evolution (sect. \[sect:results-disk\] above). Hence the outflow evolves smoothly in time and weakens at later epochs. In contrast to this gradual evolution, similar collapse scenarios investigated in 3-D show long-term variations in the accretion rate due to gravitational torques from nonaxisymmetric density disturbances in the disk [@Kuiper:2011p21204]. Rapid accretion bursts also occur if the protostar and envelope are coupled together by the inward accretion flow and outward radiation forces [@Kuiper:2013p19987]. Such an accretion history could mean episodic protostellar outflows driving repeated shocks into the surroundings. In this scenario, the outflow may never reach a quasi-stationary stage and its opening angle could be episodic also. This picture is best investigated including magnetic fields, so that the outflow launching is coupled to the magneto-hydrodynamical evolution of the infall, disk formation, and accretion flow.
The protostellar evolution of the forming star in the sink cell relies on the assumption that the accretion flow over the 10 AU sink cell radius denotes the actual stellar accretion rate. The potential formation of a binary or multiple stellar system within this region has not been taken into account. Hence, the resulting final stellar masses obtained in the simulations denote an upper mass limit of the most massive star of such a multiple system.
The stars’ growth continues much longer in our models including the protostellar outflows. The cause is the enhanced flashlight effect resulting from the clearing of the bipolar regions. The anisotropy in the thermal radiation could be stronger still if we included the accretion disk’s innermost optically thick dust-free region. @Kuiper:2013p17358 treated this region using temperature- and density-dependent mean gas opacities, while our simpler but longer-term calculations involve a constant (and generally lower) gas opacity. Accounting for both effects would likely result in an even longer disk accretion phase and lower accretion rates.
Finally, the disk lifetime is influenced by effects other than radiative acceleration, not accounted for in our simulations, including ionization, disk fragmentation under self-gravity, and the winds and UV radiation from nearby sources.
Summary {#sect:summary}
=======
We numerically model the whole accretion phase of massive star formation, including the effects of protostellar outflows, stellar and thermal radiative feedback. We examine both the outflows’ direct kinematic feedback, and the indirect consequences for the later epoch of radiative feedback. To enable such long-term calculations, we restrict the simulations to (1) axially- and midplane-symmetric configurations and (2) launching the protostellar outflows using a sub-grid model.
The protostellar outflow and radiative forces together drive the surrounding material through two stages of evolution. At early times, kinematic feedback yields a bipolar outflow cavity whose shape comes from the collimation in the sub-grid launching model. At later times, radiative acceleration becomes significant and the outflow broadens. In addition, the protostellar outflow and radiative forces drive a high-momentum-flux wind along the disk’s upper (and lower) surface. These outflows ultimately entrain part of the envelope, reversing its infall and expelling it from the system. The outflow rates measured at the core’s outer edge are thus greater than those near the star and accretion disk.
The protostellar outflow’s kinematic feedback reduces the accretion rate onto the disk and ultimately onto the star, compared with calculations lacking the outflow. In later stages, however, the protostellar outflow cavities strengthen the flashlight effect, extending it from the starlight near the disk to the thermal radiation throughout the envelope. Although the thermal radiation forces are still significant, as they must be for such a luminous protostar, the flashlight effect means the thermal radiation ejects less of the envelope. For the cases considered here, the retained envelope material allows the star a longer accretion phase, more than balancing the decrease in accretion rate from the kinematic feedback. For the future it is desirable to examine whether this result holds for other initial conditions and ratios of outflow to accretion rate. Moreover, the final mass of the forming star depends on the lifetime of the circumstellar accretion disk, which could be influenced by several processes we have not included, such as ionization, magnetic fields, disk fragmentation, and UV radiation and winds from nearby sources. Nonetheless, the results of this study clearly show that long-term effects must be accounted for when investigating the final feedback efficiency of protostellar outflows.
We thank Takashi Hosokawa for many critical and fruitful discussions. R. K. acknowledges financial support by the German Academy of Science Leopoldina within the Leopoldina Fellowship Programme, grant No. LPDS 2011-5. R. K. further acknowledges funding from the Max Planck Research Group Star formation throughout the Milky Way Galaxy at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy. Major portions of this work were conducted at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, operating under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Convergence
===========
For the simulations presented, we use a 2D static grid in spherical coordinates with maximum resolution $\Delta r \times \Delta \theta= 1.27 \times 1.04 \mbox{ AU}^2$. To check for numerical convergence, we compare one of the simulations with three additional simulation runs using a different resolution, namely with a factor of two lower, with a factor of two higher, and with a factor of four higher resolution in each dimension, respectively. The initial condition for these simulations are identical to the one with $M_\mathrm{core} = 100 \mbox{ M}_\odot$ and an exponent of the density slope of $\beta=-2$. The factor two higher resolution run was computed up to 34 kyr of evolution. The factor four higher resolution run was computed up to 14.2 kyr of evolution, which marks the onset of the protostellar outflow launching. Due to the high speed of the outflow, the Courant-Friedrich-Levy condition on the numerical hydrodynamical timestep limits the realizability of longer-term and/or higher resolution studies.
The resulting mass growth of the central star, the maximum velocity of the protostellar outflow, and the accumulated injected mass by the outflow without the entrainment is presented in Fig. \[fig:Convergence\].
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}\
{width="8cm"} {width="8cm"}
The stellar accretion rate is controlled by the large scale collapse at early times and the accretion disk physics at later times. The default resolution of our simulation runs is already high enough to follow the pressure scale height of the forming accretion disk; as a result, the differences in the stellar mass growth $M_*$ between the simulations with default or higher resolution stay below a few percent.
With respect to the outflow properties, the a priori defined angular distribution of the outflow velocity (Eq. \[eq:angularweighting\]) yields a faster outflow at the poles with increasing polar resolution as well as an earlier launching time (due to the higher velocity/momentum at the pole). Both effects are clearly visible in Fig. \[fig:Convergence\], middle and lower panel, at about 13 -18 kyr of evolution (the onset of outflow launching). After this difference in the launching time, the maximum velocity of the outflow $v_\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{max}$ remains within a 20a side effect of the delayed outflow launching in the low resolution run, also the stellar mass growth of the low resolution differs visibly from the other runs in default and higher resolution due to the fact that accretion along the polar regions sustains for a longer period in time. The accumulated injected mass by the outflow $M_\mathrm{outflow}$ agrees within 20The dependence of the injected outflow velocity at the poles (see Eq. \[eq:angularweighting\] within model section) on the numerical polar resolution in use makes it difficult to derive further conclusions. In principle, this dependence could have been avoided in the convergence study by computing the injected outflow velocity as the integral value of Eq. \[eq:angularweighting\] over the polar extent of a grid cell rather than using the grid cell center as a reference point.
In conclusion, the quantitative results such as the outflow velocity and mass load differ on the 20scan of the broad parameter space goes beyond the scope of this pioneering study. We also have to admit that a quantitative determination of the outflow quantities cannot be the aim of this study and would e.g. better be tackled within MHD simulations of the outflow launching process.
Our focus is the protostellar outflow feedback’s long-term consequences, including its influence on the radiation-pressure-dominated epoch. In a nutshell, the main conclusions are (a) the outflow amplifies the flashlight effect and the large-scale anisotropy of the core’s radiation field; as a result, (b) the core loses less mass, (c) a large reservoir of gas in the core’s outer region remains available for sustained feeding of the disk, and (d) radiation feedback is lessened, compensating for the outflow’s kinematic feedback so that growth in the super-Eddington regime is easier than expected. These findings are of general and qualitative interest, and, hence, adequately represented in the runs with the default grid resolution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, several methods based on generative adversarial network (GAN) have been proposed for the task of aligning cross-domain images or learning a joint distribution of cross-domain images. One of the methods is to use conditional GAN for alignment. However, previous attempts of adopting conditional GAN do not perform as well as other methods. In this work we present an approach for improving the capability of the methods which are based on conditional GAN. We evaluate the proposed method on numerous tasks and the experimental results show that it is able to align the cross-domain images successfully in absence of paired samples. Furthermore, we also propose another model which conditions on multiple information such as domain information and label information. Conditioning on domain information and label information, we are able to conduct label propagation from the source domain to the target domain. A 2-step alternating training algorithm is proposed to learn this model.'
author:
- |
Xudong Mao\
Department of Computer Science\
City University of Hong Kong\
[[email protected]]{}\
- |
Qing Li\
Department of Computer Science\
City University of Hong Kong\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Haoran Xie\
Department of Mathematics and\
Information Technology\
The Education University of Hong Kong\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'aligngan.bib'
title: |
AlignGAN: Learning to Align Cross-Domain Images with\
Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks
---
Introduction
============
Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) [@Goodfellow2014] has proven hugely successful for various computer vision tasks [@Isola2016; @Ledig2016; @Radford2015]. This paper addresses the problem of aligning cross-domain images or learning a joint distribution of cross-domain images [@Liu2016]. Early approaches [@Isola2016; @Wang2012] for this problem require paired images from different domains, which limits the effectiveness of these approaches. Recently, CoGAN [@Liu2016] has been proposed, lifting the restriction of paired images. In particular, CoGAN couples two GANs in which two generators share the weights of the first several layers, which guides the two generators to generate aligned images.
In this paper, we introduce a model called AlignGAN for aligning cross-domain images, which is based on the conditional GAN [@Mirza2014]. Similar to CoGAN, our proposed AlignGAN is also able to align cross-domain images without paired images. The idea of using conditional GAN for alignment is to learn the domain-specific semantics by the conditioned domain vectors and to learn the shared semantics by the other latent vectors. However, as pointed out in literature [@Liu2016], adopting conditional GAN directly will fail to align cross-domain images for some tasks. We find that determining which layers to be conditioned by domain vectors is critical to the performance. Our proposed AlignGAN is inspired by the following two ideas. First, for the generator, the highest level semantics of different domains should be similar. Thus we should not condition the domain vectors on the noise input layer of the generator. Second, for the discriminator, we should enhance the domain information signals to let the discriminator know which domain the images are from. The image input layer generates the strongest signal for the discriminator. Thus we should condition the domain vectors on the image input layer of the discriminator. We explore AlignGAN for many tasks including digits and negative digits, blond hair and black hair, and chairs and cars. Furthermore, AlignGAN is not limited to two domains and it can be extended to three or more domains by just adding more dimensions to the domain vectors as Figure \[fig:face\](a) shows.
Based on AlignGAN, we also propose another model that is conditioned on multiple information such as domain information and label information. Suppose we only have the label information of the source domain. By learning the label information from the source domain and aligning the images using the domain information, the model is able to propagate the label information from the source domain to the target domain. However, directly training on the multiple conditioned information is hard to converge. We propose to condition domain vectors and label vectors on different layers and train the model via alternating optimization.
In this paper, we make the following contributions:
- We propose AlignGAN which is based on conditional GAN for aligning cross-domain images. We evaluate AlignGAN on numerous tasks and the experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness for aligning cross-domain images.
- We also propose another model which conditions on multiple information such as domain information and label information. This model is able to propagate the label information from the source domain to the target domain. In addition, a 2-step alternating optimization algorithm is proposed to train this model.
Related Works
=============
Goodfellow [@Goodfellow2014] proposed the generative adversarial network (GAN) which has achieved great successes in generative models. After that, many works have been proposed to improve the image quality [@Mao2016; @Radford2015; @Zhang2016] or to stabilize the learning process [@Arjovsky2017; @Metz2016; @Salimans2016]. Further, GAN has been applied to various computer vision tasks such as image super-resolution [@Ledig2016], text-to-image translation [@Reed2016], and image-to-image translation [@Isola2016].
The most relevant work to this paper is CoGAN [@Liu2016] which also tries to align cross-domain images. In literature [@Liu2016], the authors also tried to use conditional GAN for this task. However, their attempt failed in many tasks such as aligning digits and negative digits. Another task which is related to our work is image-to-image translation [@Kim2017; @Zhu2017]. Both [@Zhu2016] and [@Kim2017] adopted two GANs which form a cycle mapping to form a reconstruction loss. Dong [@Dong2017] proposed to use conditional GAN for image-to-image translation. They first trained a conditional GAN to learn shared features and then trained an encoder to map the images to latent vectors.
Model
=====
In this section, we first briefly review GAN and conditional GAN in Section \[sec:gan\]. Then we present the proposed AlignGAN in Section \[sec:aligngan\]. Finally, the model to be conditioned on multiple information is introduced in Section \[sec:multiple\_info\].
GAN and Conditional GAN {#sec:gan}
-----------------------
The framework of GAN consists of two players, the discriminator $D$ and the generator $G$. Given a data distribution $p_\text{data}$, $G$ tries to learn the distribution $p_g$. $G$ starts from sampling noise input $\bm{z}$ from a uniform distribution $p_{z}(\bm{z})$, and then maps $\bm{z}$ to data space $G(\bm{z}; \theta_g)$. On the other hand, $D$ aims to distinguish whether a sample is from $p_\text{data}$ or from $p_g$. The objective for GAN can be formulated as follows:
$$\label{eq:gan}
\begin{split}
\min_G \max_D V(D, G) = \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}[\log D(\bm{x})]& \\
+ \mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}[\log (1 - D(G(\bm{z})))]&.
\end{split}$$
Conditional GAN introduces extra information $\bm{y}$ where both discriminator and generator are conditioned on $\bm{y}$. The objective for conditional GAN can be formulated as follows:
$$\label{eq:cgan}
\begin{split}
\min_G \max_D V(D, G) = \mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}[\log D(\bm{x}|\bm{y})]& \\
+ \mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}[\log (1 - D(G(\bm{z}|\bm{y})))]&.
\end{split}$$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Network architecture of AlignGAN. (a): The discriminator. (b): The generator. “Conv” and “Deconv” denote the convolutional layer and deconvolutional layer, respectively. “FC” denotes the fully connected layer. []{data-label="fig:arch1"}](arch1_D.pdf "fig:"){width="1.5in"} ![ Network architecture of AlignGAN. (a): The discriminator. (b): The generator. “Conv” and “Deconv” denote the convolutional layer and deconvolutional layer, respectively. “FC” denotes the fully connected layer. []{data-label="fig:arch1"}](arch1_G.pdf "fig:"){width="1.5in"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlignGAN {#sec:aligngan}
--------
Our proposed AlignGAN is based on conditional GAN. The intuition is to learn the domain-specific semantics by the conditioned domain vectors and to learn the shared semantics by the other shared latent vectors. Previous attempt [@Liu2016] of using conditional GAN to align cross-domain images has shown its failure in many tasks. After extensive exploration, we conclude the following two rules for achieving successful learnings.
First, for the generator, the noise input layer should not be conditioned by the domain vectors. Because the model should learn identical highest level semantics for different domains. For the other layers of the generator, they should be conditioned by the domain vectors.
Second, for the discriminator, the image input layer should be conditioned by the domain vectors. Because the input layer generates the strongest signals to let the discriminator know which domain the images are from. For the other layers of the discriminator, we find that whether they are to be conditioned or not is not critical to the performance.
Based on the above two rules, we present the network architecture of AlignGAN in Figure \[fig:arch1\].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![ Network architecture of the model conditioning on multiple information. (a): The discriminator. (b): The generator. []{data-label="fig:arch2"}](arch2_D.pdf "fig:"){width="2.18in"}
(a)
![ Network architecture of the model conditioning on multiple information. (a): The discriminator. (b): The generator. []{data-label="fig:arch2"}](arch2_G.pdf "fig:"){width="2.18in"}
(b)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditioning on Multiple Information {#sec:multiple_info}
------------------------------------
Another model we proposed is to condition on multiple information such as domain information and label information. Domain information helps to align images from different domains and label information allows to control the class of generated images. One application of combining the two kinds of information is that we can propagate the label information from the source domain to the target domain when we only have the label information of source domain. The idea is to learn the semantics of label information from the source domain and to align the images from the domain information. As a result, the model is able to control the class of generated images of the target domain. One simple method is to concatenate the domain and label vectors first and then to be conditioned by the generator and discriminator. However, we find that this simple method is not able to converge. We propose to condition the domain vectors and label vectors separately, which means that the domain vectors and label vectors are conditioned by different layers. As stated in Section \[sec:aligngan\], the domain vectors should not be conditioned for the noise input layer of the generator. On the contrary, for the label vectors, the highest level semantics vary for different classes. Thus the label vectors should be conditioned by the noise input layer of the generator. As Figure \[fig:arch2\] shows, we condition the label vectors on the layers which are not conditioned by the domain vectors.
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
{width="30.70000%"} {width="30.70000%"} {width="30.70000%"}
(a) (b) (c)
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
{width="97.00000%"}
(a): Black hair, blond hair and brown hair.
{width="97.00000%"}
(b): With glasses and without glasses.
{width="97.00000%"}
(c): Male and female.
{width="97.00000%"}
(d): With sideburns and without sideburns.
----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
{width="48.00000%"} {width="48.00000%"}
(a): Shoes. (b): Handbags.
--------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
**2-Step Alternating Training.** We adopt a 2-step training algorithm to learn the domain-specific semantics and shared label semantics via alternating optimization. In the first step, we utilize the source domain images with label vectors to learn the label semantics, and the domain vectors are set to zero vectors. In the second step, we utilize both the source and target domain images with domain vectors to learn the domain-specific semantics, and the label vectors are set to zero vectors. The training procedure is formally presented in Algorithm \[alg:multiple\_info\]. Note that the hyperparameter $\tau$ is used to adjust the allocation of training iterations between domain semantics and label semantics. In our experiments, we set $\tau = 4$.
\[alg:multiple\_info\]
**Input:** $\bullet$ Source domain images $X_{s}$ with domain vectors $D_{s}$ and\
label vectors $L_{s}$. $\bullet$ Target domain images: $X_{t}$ with domain vectors $D_{t}$.
$\bullet$ Update the discriminator using $X_{s}$ with $L_{s}$ and zero domain vectors. $\bullet$ Update the generator with $L_{s}$ and zero domain vectors. $\bullet$ Update the discriminator using $X_{s}$ and $X_{t}$ with $D_{s}$, $D_t$ and zero label vectors. $\bullet$ Update the generator with $D_{s}$, $D_t$ and zero label vectors.
Experiments
===========
Implementation Details
----------------------
Except for the task of aligning digits and negative digits, we adopt LSGAN [@Mao2016] for training the models since LSGAN is able to generate higher quality images and stabilize the learning process. For the task of aligning digits and negative digits, we adopt regular GAN because we find that regular GAN performs well for this task while LSGAN will sometimes fail to align the images of digits and negative digits. For LSGAN, we select the parameters of $a=-1, b=1$, and $c=0$ which have been proven to minimize the Pearson $\chi^2$ divergence. Then Equation \[eq:gan\] is replaced with the following formula:
$$\label{eq:lsgan}
\begin{split}
\min_D V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(D) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{x} \sim p_{\text{data}}(\bm{x})}\bigl[(D(\bm{x})-1)^2\bigr] \\
+ &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z}))+1)^2\bigr] \\
\min_G V_{\text{\tiny LSGAN}}(G) = &\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}_{\bm{z} \sim p_{\bm{z}}(\bm{z})}\bigl[(D(G(\bm{z})))^2\bigr].
\end{split}$$
We use Adam optimizer with learning rates of $0.0005$ for LSGAN and $0.0002$ for regular GAN. All the codes of our implementation will be public available soon.
**Model Selection** For LSGAN, we find that the quality of generated images will shift between good and bad during the training process. We select the model manually by checking the quality of generated images at some iterations.
AlignGAN {#aligngan}
--------
In this section, we evaluate AlignGAN on several datasets including digits, faces, edges, chairs, and cars.
### Digits
For this task, we use USPS and MNIST datasets to evaluate the performance of AlignGAN. Following literature [@Liu2016], we first evaluate AlignGAN for the following two tasks. The first one is to align images of digits and edge digits. The second one is to align images of digits and negative digits. In addition, we further apply AlignGAN to align images of USPS and MNIST digits. As Figure \[fig:digits\] shows, AlignGAN learns to align the images successfully for all the three tasks.
### Faces
We also evaluate AlignGAN on face images where the CelebFaces Attributes dataset [@Liu2015] is used for this experiment. We investigated the following four tasks: 1) alignment between different color hairs; 2) alignment between wearing eyeglasses and not wearing eyeglasses; 3) alignment between male and female; 4) alignment between males with sideburns and males without sideburns. The results are presented in Figure \[fig:face\], where the resolution of generated images is $112\times 112$.
### Edges and Photos
Another evaluation is to align between edge images and realistic photos of handbags [@Zhu2016] or shoes [@Yu2014]. Figure \[fig:edge\] shows the generated results with the resolution of $64 \times 64$ and we can observe that AlignGAN learns to align between edges and realistic photos successfully.
[c]{}
### Chairs and Cars
Following literature [@Kim2017], we also investigate the task of aligning images of chairs [@Aubry2014] and cars [@Fidler2012] to study whether AlignGAN is able to learn the rotation relationship between the two different domains. As Figure \[fig:chair\] shows, the rotation angles of generated chairs and cars are highly correlated.
[c]{}\
(a)
\
\
(b)
Conditioning on Multiple Information {#conditioning-on-multiple-information}
------------------------------------
We apply the proposed model conditioning on multiple information to two tasks. The MNIST dataset is used for the first task where the source and target domains are digits and negative digits, respectively. The second task is between USPS digits and MNIST digits. Only the label information of source domain is used during training. We generate the digits from $0$ to $9$ by controlling the label vectors and the results are shown in Figure \[fig:multiple\_negative\]. We have the following two observations. First, the paired images in Figure \[fig:multiple\_negative\] are highly correlated. Second, we are able to control the classes of generated target domain digits by adjusting the label vectors.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we proposed two kinds of models. The first one called AlignGAN is for aligning cross-domain images based on conditional GAN. AlignGAN has been evaluated on numerous tasks and the experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of AlignGAN for aligning cross-domain images. The second one is an extension of AlignGAN, which conditions on not only domain information but also label information. Conditioning on these two kinds of information, we are able to do label propagation from the source domain to the target domain.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate signals of the lightest neutral Higgs in an R-parity violating supersymmetric model through the vector boson fusion mechanism. Assuming that R-parity is violated through lepton number, and locating regions in the parameter space where decays of such a neutral scalar into a pair of lightest neutralinos can be significant, we proceed to calculate the event rates for final states arising from decays of the neutralinos through both $\lambda$-and $\lambda''$-type interactions. Regions of the parameter space where each of these types of interactions can lead to detectable events are identified. The possibilities where such signals can be faked by other superparticles (squarks, gluinos, charginos and neutralinos) are also investigated. It is found that over a sizable region, one can obtain distinguishable signals of an intermediate mass neutral scalar from a study of the suggested final states at the Large Hadron Collider.'
---
=-6pt =-1in =6.5in =9.4in =0.75in
ł Ł
2 [q\^2]{}
/[/]{}
[MRI-P-000802\
hep-ph/0009112]{}\
[**New Higgs signals from vector boson fusion in R-parity violating supersymmetry**]{}\
Anindya Datta [^1], Partha Konar [^2] and Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya [^3]\
[*Mehta Research Institute,\
Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad - 211 019, India*]{}
1 true cm
Introduction
============
To a large extent, the notion of a supersymmetric nature owes itself to questions concerning the stability of the electroweak symmetry breaking sector. It is, therefore, of natural interest to look for some signature of supersymmetry (SUSY) [@SUSY] in the phenomenology of the (lightest) Higgs boson if and when it is discovered in collider experiments. In particular, if most of the SUSY particle spectrum is on the heavier side, then it is of considerable importance to study properties of the lightest neutral scalar and find out whether they correspond to a SUSY scenario, and if so, [*what kind of a framework*]{} it is.
Ironically, SUSY (at any rate in most of its incarnations) also dictates that the lightest neutral Higgs be within a mass range of about 140 $GeV$ [@higgs_mass]. Since the lower two-thirds of this mass range is practically ruled out by data from the Large Electron Positron (LEP) collider [@lep_higgs_bound], we are left with the so-called ‘intermediate mass range’ in which a SUSY Higgs should decidedly lie. The conventional method of producing such a neutral scalar via gluon fusion seems to suffer from an abundance of backgrounds for the dominant channels, and one has to depend only on decays like $H \longrightarrow \gamma \gamma$ or $H \longrightarrow V
V^{*}$ (where $V = W, Z$) to uncover its presence [@higgs_search]. Under the circumstances, a detailed investigation of the couplings and other properties of the Higgs becomes a rather difficult proposition.
A parallel channel explored for the discovery of a Higgs at a hadron collider (such as the upcoming Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN) is the fusion of $W(Z)$ bosons emitted from quark pairs [@w-fuse]. Though it was originally discussed in the context of a heavy Higgs [@w-fuse_hev_higgs], its usefulness in finding signals of an intermediate mass Higgs [@int_mass_higgs], too, has been established. Tagging of the energetic forward jets associated with such a process, together with the absence of hadronic activity in the large rapidity gap between them, [@forward_jet] can considerably reduce backgrounds for final states ensuing from different Higgs decay channels. The process has been studied, both in the context of the standard model (SM) and the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM), for channels such as $\tau \overline{\tau}$, $b \overline{b}$, $\gamma
\gamma$ and for associated $HW$ production processes [@zeppen_rain], and the advantages compared to the gluon fusion mechanism have been reiterated. The observation of these various final states arising from the decay of neutral Higgs will undoubtedly go a long way in establishing the properties of the latter [@mlhc].
In this paper, we focus our attention on R-parity violating SUSY theories [@susy_rp]. There is nothing that forbids the multiplicative quantum number $R$, defined as $R = (-)^{3B + L + 2S}$, from being violated in SUSY so long as [*one*]{} of baryon (B) or lepton (L) number is conserved. On the other hand, the violation of R-parity makes the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) unstable, thereby altering many of the conventional signals of the MSSM [@rp_signals]. Here we argue that if R-parity is violated, the small but non-negligible fraction of neutral scalars decaying into the $\chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$ channel (where $\chi_1^0$ is the lightest neutralino, the LSP in most cases), followed by decays of the $\chi_1^0$ into three fermions, will lead to useful signals of the Higgs via the vector boson fusion (VBF) mechanism.
This channel has been discussed earlier in the context of MSSM as an invisible decay mode of the Higgs [@djouadi; @madhu]. As almost all of the parameter space that could make this the dominant decay mode has been ruled out by LEP data, its relevance in the context of R-conserving theories is perhaps not very high any more. However, we want to show that even a branching ratio of a few per cents (or less) for this channel can make it detectable if the VBF technique is employed. This not only gives us the source of a substantial signal for an intermediate mass Higgs, but also allows the measurement of the Higgs coupling with a neutralino pair if R-parity is violated.
The production of the neutral scalar via gluon fusion can also give rise to new signals if it decays into LSP pairs which in turn have three-body decays. However, in such cases it is very difficult to distinguish the Higgs signals against the backdrop of numerous superparticle cascades, most importantly those originating from squark or gluino pair production, all leading to the production of LSP pairs. As we shall show here, the VBF signals give us tags with which we can eliminate the cascade ‘backgrounds’ quite effectively.
We confine ourselves to R-parity violation in terms of lepton number only. In section 2, we present an investigation of the SUSY parameter space and try to outline the region where the two-neutralino decay mode for the lightest Higgs can have any hope of detection. The signals corresponding to the so-called $\lambda$-and $\lambda^{'}$-type couplings are discussed in sections 3 and 4. We have also looked into the possibilities of the Higgs signals being faked by strongly interacting superparticles (i.e. squarks and gluinos) as well as charginos or neutralinos. After a detailed estimate of such ‘backgrounds’, we identify in these two sections the regions in the parameter space where the corresponding signals have a strong chance of standing out. We summarise and conclude in section 5.
Analysis of the parameter space
===============================
Let us first take a close look at the parameter space of the theory and try to identify the regions where the $\chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$ decay mode for the lighter neutral Higgs can have a branching ratio of one per cent or more. In doing so, we recall that in a general R-parity violating SUSY model, the following terms are added to the MSSM superpotential, written in terms of the quark, lepton and Higgs superfields [@barger]:
$$W_{\not R} = \lambda_{ijk} {\hat L}_i {\hat L}_j {\hat E}_k^c +
\lambda_{ijk}' {\hat L}_i {\hat Q}_j {\hat D}_k^c +
\lambda_{ijk}''{\hat U}_i^c {\hat D}_j^c {\hat D}_k^c + \epsilon_i {\hat
L}_i {\hat H}_2$$
where the $\lambda''$-term causes B-violation, and the remaining ones, L-violation. In order to suppress proton decay, it is customary to have one of the two types of nonconservation at a time. Here we will consider only lepton number violating effects. Furthermore, we simplify our analysis by keeping, in turn, only the $\lambda$-and $\lambda'$-type interactions. Experimental limits on the individual couplings can be found in the literature [@rp_limits]. The presence of such interactions (which lead, among other things, to the instability of $\chi_1^0$) affects the MSSM parameter space allowed by the LEP data, mainly through chargino search limits [@chargino_limit]. They, however, do not have any noticeable effect on the Higgs potential, and therefore the results of analyses corresponding to MSSM can be taken over directly for our purpose. It may be worthwhile to note here that when the bilinear terms $\epsilon_i {\hat L}_i {\hat H}_2$ are included [@roybabu], the presence of explicit Higgs-slepton mixing alters the character of the potential. Nonetheless, the conclusions reached by us are not drastically altered even upon the inclusion of such terms. We shall comment on this again in section 5.
We assume gaugino mass unification at a high energy scale, so that all masses and mixing angles in the chargino-neutralino sector are fixed when we specify the SU(2) gaugino mass $M_2$, the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$, and $\tan \beta$, the ratio of the vacuum expectation values (vev) of the two Higgs doublets. No supergravity (SUGRA) framework has been postulated, so that the squark and slepton masses (and also $\mu$) can be treated essentially as free parameters.
In the Higgs sector, the physical states are comprised of two neutral scalars ($h,~H$), a neutral pseudoscalar ($A$) and two mutually conjugate charged scalars ($H^\pm$). At tree level, all these masses and also the neutral scalar mixing angle ($\alpha$) get completely determined once the pseudoscalar mass ($m_A$) and $\tan \beta$ are specified. In addition, they are influenced by the top quark mass, the squark masses and the trilinear SUSY breaking parameter $A_t$ when radiative corrections to the potential are taken into account. Here we have used the full one-loop corrected Higgs potential [@higgs_one_loop] to determine the various masses and the mixing angle $\alpha$. Our results for different Higgs masses and corresponding branching ratios are consistent with those in [@HDECAY].
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
The decay width of the lightest neutral scalar $h$ into two lightest neutralions is given by [@djouadi].
$$\Gamma (h \longrightarrow \chi_1^0 \chi_1^0) =
{\frac{G_F m_W^2 m_h}{2\sqrt{2} \pi}} |\Delta_{11}|^2 (1 -
4 m_{\chi_1^0}^2/m_h^2)^3$$
where
$$\Delta_{11} = (N_{12} - N_{11} \tan \theta_W)(N_{13} \sin \alpha +
N_{14} \cos \alpha)$$
N being the neutralino mixing matrix in the basis ($\tilde{B}, \tilde{W_3}, \tilde{H_1}, \tilde{H_2}$). As is evident from the expression, the decay requires contributions from the gaugino components of one neutralino and Higgsino components of the other. Thus the branching ratio is expected to go down when either of $M_2$ and $\mu$ becomes large compared to the other, so that either the gaugino or the Higgsino components may fall appreciably.
In figures 1(a -d), we show contours of different branching ratios in the $\mu$-$M_2$ plane. The region disallowed by LEP data (upto the 202 $GeV$ run) has been shaded out in each graph. Clearly, even within the LEP-allowed regions, a branching ratio of the order of 1% and ranging up to 10% are possible. There is a predictable decrease in the branching ratio as one moves outwards in each case, since, in addition to the reason given in the previous paragraph, the $\chi_1^0$ mass rises when both $M_2$ and $\mu$ are increased.
A comparison between 1(a) and 1(c) (as also between 1(b) and 1(d)) shows that larger values of $\tan \beta$ tend to suppress the branching ratio for the $\chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$ channel, an effect resulting mainly from the enhancement of the $b \bar{b}$ coupling of $h$.
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
On the other hand, the decay of our interest is seen to be boosted if one has a larger value of the trilinear SUSY breaking parameter $A_t$. As has already been mentioned, the latter has a crucial influence on the one-loop corrections to the scalar potential, thereby affecting not only the neutral scalar mass but also the mixing angle $\alpha$. However, $A_t$ is also constrained from considerations such as the absence of flavor-changing neutral currents, and more stringently, from the requirement to prevent charge and color breaking as well as instability of the scalar potential [@ccb]. Keeping all these constraints in view, the value of $A_t$ can be as high as 1 TeV and can even go up to 1.5 TeV, but with a simultaneous increase in the sfermion masses. Thus higher branching ratios for $h \longrightarrow
\chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$, triggered by $A_t$, seem to be more likely when the squarks and sleptons are close to 1 TeV.
In figures \[fig:br\_ma\_tanb\], we show the branching ratio contours in the $\tan \beta - m_A$ plane. Together with $A_t$, these two variables fix the mass of the decaying $h$. The figures show that there is a marginal increase in the branching ratio as one increases $m_A$. This effect is more pronounced for higher values of $\tan \beta$. The reason behind this is the fact that in the region of our interest, the decay width in equation (2) is controlled by the terms proportional to $\cos \alpha$ which, as can be easily checked, increases slowly with $m_A$. However, the same terms are also proportional to the quantity $N_{14}$ which is larger for large $\tan \beta$, thereby leading to the features observed in the figures.
The above analysis thus leads us to the conclusion that over a sizable region of the parameter space, the two-neutralino decay mode of an intermediate mass Higgs can have a branching ratio ranging from 1 to 10 per cent and can occasionally go up to 20 per cent as well. As we shall see in the following sections, such values can yield detectable and background-free events at the LHC when the lightest neutralino is unstable.
Signals with $\lambda$-type interactions
========================================
Since there are thirty-six independent $\lambda$-and $\lambda'$-type couplings which are [*a priori*]{} unrelated, a transparent analysis is possible when only some of them are considered at a time. Here we assume the presence of just [*one*]{} $\lambda$-type interaction (say, $\lambda_{212}$) which can lead to the decay $\chi_1^0 \longrightarrow l \bar{l'} \nu$ for the lightest neutralino, with $l, l'~= e, \mu$.
The experimental limits on the interactions of the above kind can be found, for example, in reference [@rp_limits]. However, our predicted number of events will be independent on the actual value of the coupling so long as there is just one coupling driving the decay of $\chi_1^0$ (and we impose identical event selection criteria for both electrons and muons).
Thus the type of events we are predicting here can be described as
$$qq \longrightarrow qqh \longrightarrow qq \chi_1^0 \chi_1^0
\longrightarrow qq + 4l + \not{E_T}$$
the missing transverse energy coming from the neutrinos produced in three-body decays of the neutralino. The absence of color exchange between the quarks leads to a suppression of hadron production in the central region, so that a ‘central jet veto’ (whose efficacy in eliminating backgrounds can be established by looking into the VBF process along with one-parton emission) can be applied for final states like the ones under consideration here. The two quarks jets are highly energetic and in high-rapidity regions, with a large rapidity gap in between, where the four leptons resulting from Higgs decay are expected to lie. It is by tagging these forward jets that one can trace the origin of the neutralino decay products to the neutral scalar $h$, thereby distinguishing them from conventional superparticle cascades started by the production of squarks or gluinos through strong interactions.
Our calculation is based on a parton level Monte Carlo for pp collisions with $\sqrt{s}~=~14~TeV$. Here as well as in the next section, we have set a degenerate squark mass of 300 $Gev$ and a degenerate slepton mass of 200 $Gev$. We have used the CTEQ4L [@cteq] parton distribution functions. The lowest order tree-level matrix elements for both $WW$ and $ZZ$ fusion processes have been used. We have not included QCD corrections which are usually rather modest [@qcd_corr]. The jet and lepton energies have been further smeared using Gaussian functions, with half-widths ($\Delta
E$) given by [@smear]
$$\Delta E ~=~ 0.15 \sqrt{E} ~+~ 0.01E$$
for leptons, and
$$\Delta E ~=~ 0.4 \sqrt{E} ~+~ 0.02E$$
for jets.
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
The $2j~+~4l~+~\not{E_T}$ events are subjected to the following event selection criteria [@rain_thesis]:
- [**Rapidity of jets:**]{} for each jet, $2.5 \le |{\eta}| \le 5.0$. The upper limit is there to ensure detectability in the hadronic calorimeter. Also, the existence of two jets in opposite hemispheres is ensured by demanding that $\eta_{j_1}\eta_{j_2}$ be negative.
- [**Rapidity gap and isolation between jets:**]{} $\Delta \eta_{{j_1}{j_2}}
\ge 3.0$, $\Delta R_{{j_1}{j_2}} \ge 0.7$, where\
$\Delta R^2 = \Delta \eta^2
+ \Delta \phi^2$, $\Delta \phi$ being the angular separation in the azimuthal plane. This retains a large part of the signal, since the signal rapidity interval tends to peak between 4 and 5.
- [**Jet transverse energy:**]{} for each forward jet, $E_T \ge 20~GeV$.
- [**Central jet veto:**]{} no jet in the large rapidity interval.
- [**Absence of b-jets:**]{} no b-induced jet identified. Does not affect the signal at all.
- [**Jet invariant mass:**]{} $M_{{j_1}{j_2}} \ge 650~GeV$. Kills an enormous amount of QCD background, and, as we shall see, helps in distinguishing the signal from other SUSY cascades.
- [**Lepton location:**]{} all four leptons to lie in the rapidity interval between the forward-tagged jets, with $\Delta R_{lj} \ge 0.4$.
- [**Lepton transverse momentum(energy):**]{} For each muon(electron), $p_T (E_T) \ge 20~ GeV$. Together with the isolation cut on leptons, this hardness cuts should eliminate of all SM backgrounds.
- [**Missing transverse energy**]{}: ${\not{E}_T} \ge 15~GeV$ is required.
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
In figures \[fig:evts\_ma\_tanb\_lambda\](a-d) we show contours in the $m_A - \tan \beta$ plane for different numbers of events, predicted for an integrated luminosity of 100 $fb^{-1}$. As can be seen from the figures, up to about 50 events are predicted over a rather large region of the parameter space. If the lepton $p_T (E_T)$ cut is further relaxed to 15 $GeV$ (something that is feasible at the LHC) [@atlas_cms], the event rates are even higher. As expected from the discussion in the previous section, the event rate tends to decrease with a rise in $\tan \beta$, and increase with $m_A$. Also, higher values of the soft breaking parameter $A_t$ seems to favour high event rates. Side by side, a look at figures \[fig:evts\_mu\_m2\_lambda\](a-b) tells us how much of the LEP-allowed region in the chargino-neutralino parameter space can be explored through this channel. Judging by the fact that the signals are practically free from standard model backgrounds, event rates of such magnitude should be detectable. It is also interesting to note, by comparison with figure 1, that even a small branching ratio for $h
\longrightarrow \chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$ can lead to useful signals at the LHC.
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
Finally, let us verify that the event selection procedure adopted here enables us to differentiate the Higgs signals from remnants of superparticle cascades. We demonstrate this by considering $\chi_1^0$’s, together with quark jets, coming from pair-produced squarks. Although the uncut cross-section for this process is considerably larger than that for our signal, the forward-tagged jets cause the latter to stand out. In figure \[mas\_rap\]a we show the rapidity distributions for the signal jets as well as for those arising from squark decays. The latter exhibits a strong central peaking, and is largely removed by a rapidity cut of 2.5. In addition, if we look at the invariant mass distribution of the jet pair in figure \[mas\_rap\]b, one can see that all such squark decay ‘backgrounds’ can be completely eliminated just with the invariant mass cut of 650 $GeV$, while a substantial fraction of the signal survives. This is true unless the squark mass is above 650 $GeV$. For a squark mass of, say, 700 $GeV$, the uncut cross-section for $\chi_1^0$-pair production through squark decay cascades is about 2-3 $pb$. However, as figure \[mas\_rap\]a tells us, the overwhelming majority of the resulting jets lie in low-rapidity regions. Subjected to the rapidity, $E_T$ and invariant mass cuts of the suggested magnitudes, they get reduced to a level well below the threshold of detectability. The same argument applies to cascade decays of gluino pairs, where there is usually a greater multiplicity of quark jets, and the probability of their merger into just two jets, satisfying all the cuts, is extremely low.
------- -------- ------- --------------------
$\mu$ $M_2$
(GeV) (GeV)
MSSM $R_p\!\!\!\!\!\!/$
200 137.6 0.037 0.55
400 120.02 0.039 0.44
600 113.03 0.066 0.45
800 106.79 0.081 0.36
1000 100.34 0.084 0.6
-200 103.5 0.003 0.32
-400 102.18 0.101 0.3
-600 97.44 0.142 0.35
------- -------- ------- --------------------
[**Table 1**]{} [*The number of ‘$4l$ + forward jets’ events coming from neutralino pairs both for MSSM and with R-parity violation, for different values of $\mu$ and $M_2$, with $\tan \beta$ = 5, $m_{\tilde q}
$ = 300 $GeV$ and $m_{\tilde l}$ = 200 $GeV$.*]{}
Similar final states can also in principle be faked by direct production of neutralino pairs via VBF. There are two possibilities: ([*a*]{}) in an MSSM scenario, the pair-production of the second lightest neutralino, and their subsequent decays in the channel $\chi_2^0 \longrightarrow \chi_1^0 l \overline{l}$ can lead to signals of our type; and ([*b*]{}) the production of $\chi_1^0 \chi_1^0$, $\chi_1^0 \chi_2^0$ or $\chi_2^0 \chi_2^0$ and their subsequent decays (through $\lambda$-type couplings) including the possibility of R-parity violation can be the sources of similar signals. In table 1 we have shown the results of our estimate of such ‘fake’ signals, obtained at such points of the parameter space where the Higgs signals are at their weakest (i.e. at about 5 events level). In the R-parity violating case, one $\lambda$-type coupling has been assumed, and has been kept at the highest value compatible with phenomenological bounds. The forward jets and leptons in between them have been subjected to the same cuts as the ones employed for our Higgs signals. The table shows that after all cuts, the number of such ‘backgrounds’ get extremely suppressed, so that even as low 5 as events for the Higgs signal should be quite conspicuous compared to them.
Signals with $\lambda'$-type interactions
=========================================
In presence of the $\lambda'$-type interactions (again, taken in isolation), the lightest neutralino decays in the channel $\chi_1^0
\longrightarrow q \bar{q'} l$ or $\chi_1^0 \longrightarrow q \bar{q}
\nu_l$. Of these, we use only the former channels where the decay products are all visible. The signal will then consist of two forward jets together with four central jets and two leptons, all in the rapidity interval between the former. Obviously, the central jet veto is not going to be effective here. However, a compensating feature here is the visibility of all the particles in the final state. Thus two bunches of particles, each consisting of two jets and one lepton, can be identified with the same invariant mass (equal to $m_{\chi_1^0}$), and the whole bunch of particles in between the forward-tagged jets can be reconstructed to an invariant mass peak equal to the mass of the lighter neutral scalar $h$.
=6.5cm=6.0cm =6.5cm=6.0cm
The signal here thus corresponds to the process
$$qq \longrightarrow qqh \longrightarrow qq \chi_1^0 \chi_1^0
\longrightarrow qq~~+~(4q)~+~2l$$
leading to two forward-tagged jets with two, three or four jets (due to possible jet merger) together with two leptons in the rapidity interval between the former.
=6.5cm=6.0cm
In figures \[fig:ma\_tanb\_lp\] and \[fig:mu\_m2\_lp\] we present some event contours, of the same style as those applied earlier. The two forward jets are subjected to the same cuts as those applied earlier. The rapidity interval demanded of the leptons and the central jets are also the same. The jets arising from neutralino decays are also required to have a minimum isolation of $\Delta R~=~0.6$ with respect to the forward jets, and a minimum transverse energy of 20 $GeV$. The minimum $p_{T}(E_{T})$ required of each lepton is 15 $GeV$. In addition, the invariant mass of the lepton pair is made to lie outside an interval of $\pm 10~GeV$ of the $Z$-boson mass. Also, we demand that there should be no missing energy ($\le 10~GeV$), something that enables us to distinguish the events from cases of undetected jets. These cuts are found to be sufficient to eliminate standard model background, including arising from Drell-Yan process and $t\bar{t}$ production. Moreover, as figure \[fig:deltaphi\] indicates, the distribution in the azimuthal angle between the two leptons in the transverse plane peaks at a very low value. Since dileptons from Drell-Yan process tend to be aligned back-to-back, one kills all backgrounds without affecting the signal strength by requiring this angle to be less than $120$ degrees.
Clearly, we have fewer events predicted in this case than in the one with the $\lambda$-type interactions. This is primarily due to the stringent cuts on the jets, in terms of both hardness and isolation from the forward-tagged ones. Nonetheless, contours of 5 to 20 events span a substantial part of the parameter space. Considering the absence of SM backgrounds, these events should enable us to identify the Higgs in the corresponding regions. The observed dependence on other parameters such as $A_t$ and $\mu$ is similar to that noted in the previous section.
=6.5cm=6.0cm
Again, it is necessary to address the question of possible faking of the signal through charginos and neutralinos. It is found that the strongest candidates in this are $\chi_1^{+} \chi_1^{-}$ and $\chi_2^{0} \chi_2^{0}$, when their subsequent R-parity violating decays through $\lambda'$-type interactions are allowed. On the face of it, such decays can have large branching ratios (of the order of 30-40%) and the [*forward jets + 2l + jets*]{} events can have high survival probability on imposing the aforementioned cuts. However, it should be borne in mind that we are discussing a Higgs boson of mass well below 135 $GeV$ or so. Thus the invariant mass of the visible particles in between the forward-tagged jets should peak at that value. On the other hand, simple kinematics tells us that the combined invariant mass of the products of $\chi_1^{\pm}$ or $\chi_2^{0}$-pair decays peaks at much higher values for chargino and neutralino masses currently allowed by the LEP data. As an example, we show in figure \[fig:invmas\] the invariant mass distribution for a case where the chargino mass is at the lowest limit. In spite of that, the number of surviving events drop from about 85 to 0.01 once an invariant mass less than 140 $GeV$ is demanded from the decay products. Thus such backgrounds, too, do not pose any hindrance to unmasking the Higgs via the $\lambda'$-type interactions in the VBF channel.
=6.5cm=6.0cm
Clearly, it requires considerable care to reconstruct the neutralinos individually. In order to do that, one has to select only those events where none of the two jets from one neutralino merges with any jet arising from the decay of the other. Using a jet merger criterion of $\Delta R \le 0.6$, we find that the event rates get drastically reduced. One way to salvage them is to relax the $p_{T}(E_{T})$ cut on the leptons. In figure \[fig:ma\_tanb\_lp\_pt10\] we show how the rates are enhanced when a separation of jets is demanded and for leptons the minimum $p_{T}(E_{T})$ required is 10 $GeV$, with all other parameters affecting the results in the same way as before. Here one has two, three or four-jet and dilepton events plus the forward-tagged jets. In addition, the invariant mass of one lepton with one or two jets should equal that of the remaining particles in the central region. This kind of intertwining of leptons and jets in the invariant mass peaks makes the signals almost completely free of SM backgrounds. In this way, the lightest neutralino is also fully reconstructed. Since one can aspire to see other signatures of such a neutralino at the LHC as well, the reconstruction from the Higgs decay events with the neutralino mass peaks at the right place serves in a big way to establish the [ *locus standi*]{} of the process under investigation here, to remove combinatoric backgrounds, and to improve measurements of the Higgs-neutralino coupling. Therefore, if the detector sensitivity permits one to use these somewhat relaxed cuts, then one has one of the cleanest signals of an intermediate mass Higgs in an R-parity violating scenario, at least in the identified regions of the parameter space.
=6.5cm=6.0cm
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We have considered signals of the lightest neutral Higgs at the LHC in a SUSY scenario where R-parity is violated through lepton number in trilinear interactions. Regions have been identified in the parameter space where the Higgs, lying the intermediate mass range, has a perceptible decay width into a pair of lightest neutralinos. Then we have considered the production of such a Higgs by the vector boson fusion mechanism, and looked at the decay products of the two lightest neutralinos, noting that the forward-tagged jets and the associated event selection strategies remove interference from cascades arising out of strongly interacting superparticles.
We have presented an analysis based on only the lepton number violating trilinear interactions. Inclusion of the bilinear terms $\epsilon_i L_i H_2$ in the superpotential will open additional decay channels of the lightest neutralino like $\chi_1^0 \longrightarrow l W$ and $\chi_1^0 \longrightarrow \nu Z$ through neutralino-neutrino and charged lepton-chargino mixing [@blp]. However, since we are concerned here with a parameter region where the decay of $\chi_1^0$ can lead only to virtual $W$ and $Z$, the final products will still consist of three fermions. In this case, events of both the types discussed in sections 3 and 4 will be always present. Another consequence of the bilinear terms is mixing between the neutral Higgs and sneutrinos in the scalar potential. Such mixing may somewhat alter the parameter space discussed in section 2, but no qualitative difference is expected, given the phenomenological constraints on models of this type [@bi_rp_pheno]. Therefore, the existence of bilinear R-violating interactions are expected to result in signals of the same kind as those investigated here.
We observe that while the signals obtained from the $\lambda$-type interactions are more copious and cover a larger area of the parameter space, the $\lambda'$-type interactions provide a way of reconstructing the Higgs completely, though they lead to smaller event rates after applying the cuts. The complete reconstruction of the events including the lightest neutralinos, however, require cuts that tend to reduce the event rates. It is by being able to identify leptons with transverse energies down to $10~GeV$ that one can reconstruct both the Higgs and the neutralinos which act as intermediaries in the signals of our interest. Therefore, if optimal detection efficiencies of the various final states discussed here can be achieved at the LHC, it will be of great help in identifying an intermediate mass Higgs in an R-parity violating supersymmetric theory. In addition, by looking for signals of this kind, we can obtain useful information on the different couplings of an intermediate Higgs boson when it is discovered, so as to be enlightened on what kind of an electroweak symmetry breaking scenario it represents.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}: B.M. thanks Dieter Zeppenfeld for useful comments, and acknowledges the hospitality of the Theory Division, CERN, where part of this work was done. Both the authors gratefully acknowledge the help received from Debajyoti Choudhury in preparing the figures.
[99]{}
For reviews see, for example, J. Wess, J. Bagger, [*Supersymmetry and Supergravity*]{}, (Princeton University Press, 1983); H. Nilles, [Phys. Rep. [**110**]{} 1 (1984)]{}; H. Haber, G. Kane, [Phys. Rep. [**117**]{} 75 (1985)]{}; M. Drees and S. P. Martin [(hep–ph/9504324)]{}; I. Simonsen [(hep–ph/9506369)]{}; X. Tata, [(hep–ph/9706307)]{}; S. Dawson, Lectures given at TASI’97, [(hep–ph/9712464)]{}.
H. E. Haber, R. Hempfling, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{} 1815 (1991)]{}; M. Carena, M. Quiros, C.E.M. Wagner, [Nucl. Phys. [**B461**]{} 407 (1996)]{}; S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, [Euro. Phys. J [**C9**]{} 343 (1999)]{}. For the latest bound on the lightest SUSY Higgs mass see, [*The LEP working group report for higgs boson searches*]{}, CERN-EP-2000-55. For a comprehensive review of Higgs search strategies at the LHC see, for example, S. Dawson [(hep–ph/9901280)]{} and references therein. R.N. Cahn, S. Dawson [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B36**]{} 196 (1984)]{}. D.A. Dicus, J.F. Gunion, L.H. Orr, R. Vega, [Nucl. Phys. [**B377**]{} 31 (1991)]{}; R. Cahn [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D35**]{} 1626 (1987)]{}; V. Barger, T. Han, R.J.N. Phillips, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D37**]{} 2005 (1988)]{}. D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D60**]{} 113004 (1999)]{}; T. Plehn,D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B454**]{} 297 (1999)]{}. J. D. Bjorken, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D47**]{} 101 (1993)]{}. D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld, Journal of High Energy Physics [**9712:005**]{} 1997; D. Rainwater, D. Zeppenfeld, K. Hagiwara, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D59**]{} 014037 (1999)]{}; D. Rainwater, [(hep–ph/0004119)]{}. D. Zeppenfeld [*et al.*]{}, [(hep–ph/0002036)]{}.
See, for example, C.S. Aulakh, R.N. Mohapatra, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B119**]{} 136 (1982)]{}; L.J. Hall, M. Suzuki, [Nucl. Phys. [**B231**]{} 419 (1984)]{}; G. Ross, J.W. F. Valle [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B151**]{} 375 (1985)]{}; S. Dawson [Nucl. Phys. [**B261**]{} 297 (1985)]{}; H. Dreiner in [*Perspective in Supersymmetry*]{} ed., G. Kane, World Scientific, [(hep–ph/9707435)]{}.
H. Dreiner, G. Ross, [Nucl. Phys. [**B365**]{} 597 (1991)]{}; R. Godbole, P. Roy, X. Tata, [Nucl. Phys. [**B401**]{} 67 (1993)]{}; D. K. Ghosh, R. Godbole, S. Raychaudhuri, [(hep–ph/9904233)]{}; D. K. Ghosh, S. Roy, [(hep–ph/0003225)]{}; A. Datta, B. Mukhopadhyaya, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} 248 (2000)]{}.
A. Djouadi [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B376**]{} 220 (1996)]{}.
G. Be$\!\!'$langer [*et al.*]{}, [Nucl. Phys. [**B581**]{} 3 (2000)]{}.
V. Barger, G.F. Giudice, T. Han, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D40**]{} 2987 (1989)]{}.
See, for example, J.L. Goity and M. Sher, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B346**]{} 69 (1995)]{}; erratum:[[*ibid.*]{} [**385**]{} 500 (1996)]{}; D. Choudhury, P. Roy, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B378**]{} 153 (1996)]{}; G. Bhattacharyya, [Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**52A**]{} (1997) 83]{}; H. Dreiner, [(hep–ph/9707435 v2)]{}; R. Barbier [*et al.*]{}, [(hep–ph/9810232)]{}; B.C. Allanach, A. Dedes and H. Dreiner, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D60**]{} 075014 (1999)]{}.
C. Be$\!\!'$rat, talk given at SUSY2K, CERN (2000). Copies of transparencies can be found at http://wwwth/cern.ch/susy2k/susyfinalprog.html.
See, for example, I. -H. Lee, [Nucl. Phys. [**B246**]{} 120 (1984)]{}; H. P. Nilles, N. Polonsky, [Nucl. Phys. [**B484**]{} 33 (1997)]{}; S. Roy, B. Mukhopadhyaya, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D55**]{} 7020 (1997)]{}; J.W.F. Valle, [(hep–ph/9808292)]{}; Chao-Hsi Chang, Tai-Fu Feng, [Euro. Phys. J [**C12**]{} 137 (2000)]{}; also see [(hep–ph/9908295)]{}; S. Davidson, M. Losada, N. Rius, [(hep–ph/9911317)]{}; J. Mira [*et al.*]{}, [(hep–ph/0007266)]{}.
See the second reference in [@higgs_mass].
A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski, M. Spira, Comp.Phys.Comm. [**108**]{}, 56 (1998).
J.F. Gunion, H. Haber, M. Sher, [Nucl. Phys. [**B306**]{} 1 (1988)]{}; S. Abel, T. Falk, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B444**]{} 427 (1988)]{}; J.A. Casas, S. Dimopoulos, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B387**]{} 107 (1996)]{}; J. A. Casas [(hep–ph/9707475)]{}; C. Munoz,[(hep–ph/9709329)]{}.
H. Lai [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D55**]{} 1280 (1997)]{}.
T. Han, G. Valencia, S. Willenbrock, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} 3274 (1992)]{}.
CMS Collaboration, G.L. Bayatian [ [*et al.*]{}]{}, Technical Proposal CERN/LHCC 94-38 (December 1994); ATLAS Collaboration, W.W. Armstrong, [[*et al.*]{}]{}, Technical Proposal CERN/LHCC/94-43 (December 1994).
D. Rainwater, Ph. D thesis, [(hep–ph/9908378)]{}.
Lepton ($e$ or $\mu$) can be identified at the LHC even with a $p_T$ ($E_T$) cut of 10 $GeV$. For example see [@smear].
S. Roy, B. Mukhopadhyaya in reference [@roybabu]; B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Roy, F. Vissani, [[Phys. Lett.]{} [**B443**]{} 191 (1998)]{}; J. Romao [*et al.*]{}, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D61**]{} 071703 (2000)]{}; A. Bartl [*et al.*]{}, [(hep–ph/0007157)]{}.
A. Datta, B. Mukhopadhyaya, S. Roy, [[Phys. Rev.]{}[**D61**]{} 055006 (2000)]{}.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this letter we explore the temperature and isospin chemical potential ($\mu_I$) dependence of the vacuum structure and the meson masses in the linear sigma model, at the one loop level. The sigma meson mass grows steadily with temperature. This behavior does not agree with previous mean field calculations. For the pion our results show the same behavior as the mean field approach. The stability of the vacuum has a very soft dependence on $\mu_I$ since this is a second order effect in the tadpole diagrams.'
author:
- 'M.L. El-Sheikh'
- 'M. Loewe'
title: Isospin Chemical potential and temperature effects in the Linear Sigma Model
---
Introduction
============
In this letter we address, once again, the question of how the temperature (T) and the chemical potential, in our case isospin chemical potential ($\mu_I$), affect the behavior of the linear sigma model. The question is interesting, since this model, proposed by Gell-Mann and Levy [@gell] represents perhaps the most simple realization of QCD at low energies, being also renormalizable [@renormalizacion]. Of course, there are other low energy realization of QCD as, for example, the no-linear sigma model, and its treatment according to Chiral perturbation theory [@otrosapproaches].
In both approaches for the low energy realization of QCD, the fundamental questions concern the occurrence of phase transitions, as, for example, restoration of Chiral symmetry, the presence of a pion superfluid phase, etc, as well as the evolution of parameters in the model with emphasis on mesonic masses and/or couplings constants. The recent analysis in the frame of Chiral perturbation theory for masses and phase transitions has been done in [@villa].
The novelty of this article is the analysis of the $\mu_I$ role, together with T, in the context of these questions. Effects of pure finite temperature have been discussed in the past many times [@contreras] and [@larsen]. More recently, [@antifermi] the Chiral symmetry restoration at finite T and finite baryon density has been discussed. The chemical potential involved in their analysis is the baryonic chemical potential. It is well known, [@kogut], that the dependence of the low energy effective lagrange parameters on T and the chemical potential is different if we consider the baryonic chemical potential or the isospin chemical potential, which is related to the existence of an asymmetric charge state of matter. The $\mu_I$, as well as the temperature dependence in the linear sigma model have been discussed very recently in [@nico]. Now, their treatment is based on the Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis (CJT), formalism, which allows them to obtain the mass evolution from certain gap equations. An analysis of finite isospin chemical potential as well as finite temperature effects has been carried on in the frame of the Nambu-Jona- Lasinio model, [@He], where the authors also include a discussion of the linear sigma model.
It is interesting, therefore, to compare the prediction of the one loop correction, including $\mu_I$ and T, to the masses in the model and compare the results with the approach in [@nico]. As we will see the results for the pion mass evolution coincides almost completely, been the behavior of the scalar meson sigma, however, quite different in both approaches.
First, we will consider briefly the problem of chiral symmetry restoration due to the tadpoles, which in fact depends only on T at the one loop level. Then, we go on into the problem of the determination of pion an sigma meson masses. The fermions, which in the model correspond to the nucleons, are quite massive and stable. In fact, regarding phase transitions only the lower mass states are relevant.
The Linear Sigma Model and the evolution of the vacuum
======================================================
The linear sigma model is defined through the following lagrangian:
$$L=L_{0}+\epsilon L_{1}$$
$$L_{0}=\overline{\psi}[i\gamma_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}-g(\sigma+\boldsymbol{\pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\tau}\gamma_{5})]\psi
+\frac{1}{2}[(\partial_{\mu}\sigma)^{2}+(\partial_{\mu}\boldsymbol{\pi})^{2}]-\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}[\sigma^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2}]
-\frac{\lambda^{2}}{4}[\sigma^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2}]^{2}$$
$$L_{1}=c\sigma$$
Notice that we have a scalar field $\sigma$ and a vector of isoscalars, the pions ($\boldsymbol{\pi}$). Notice also that due to the presence of the explicit Chiral symmetry breaking term $L_1$, we have $\langle0~|~\sigma|~0\rangle=v$, $v\neq0$. Shifting the $\sigma$ field as $\sigma=s+v,$ were $\langle0~|~s|~0\rangle=0$, we have a new lagrangian given by $L=L_{a}+L_{b}+L_{c}$:
$$L_{a}=\overline{\psi}[i\gamma\cdot\partial-m-g(s+i\boldsymbol{\pi}\cdot\boldsymbol{\tau}\gamma_{5})]\psi
+\frac{1}{2}[(\partial
\boldsymbol{\pi})^{2}-\mu_{\pi}^{2}\boldsymbol{\pi}^2]$$
$$+\frac{1}{2}[(\partial s)^{2}-\mu_{\sigma}^{2}
s^2]-\lambda^{2}vs(s^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2})-\frac{\lambda^{2}}{4}(s^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2})^{2}$$ $$L_{b}=(\epsilon c-v\mu_{ \pi}^{2})s$$ $$L_{c}=-\frac{\mu^{2}v^{2}}{2}-\frac{\lambda^{2}v^{4}}{4}+\epsilon
cv,$$
where we have defined:
$$m=gv$$ $$\mu_{\pi}^{2}=\mu^{2}+\lambda^2v^2$$ $$\mu_{\sigma}^{2}=\mu^{2}+3\lambda^2v^2.$$
We defined the charged pions as:
$$\pi^{\pm}=\frac{\pi_{1}\mp i\pi_{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$$
$$\pi^{0}=\pi_{3}.$$
The important object, in order to fix $v$, as function of T, is to impose $\langle0~|~s|~0\rangle=0$. This means that the sum of tadpoles must vanishes, i.e.:
$$\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figuras/counterterm.eps}
+\frac{1}{2}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figuras/tadpolesigma.eps}
+\frac{1}{2}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figuras/tadpolepio.eps}
+2
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{figuras/tadpolefermion.eps}
=0$$
This can be rewritten as:
$$i(\epsilon
c-v\mu_{\pi}^{2})+\frac{1}{2}T_{\sigma}+\frac{1}{2}T_{\pi}+2T_{\psi}=0$$
In the previous equation, $T_{\sigma}$, $T_{\pi}$, $T_{\psi}$, denote the corresponding tadpole corrections. Notice that we have included symmetry factors.
If we neglect the chemical potential associated to the fermions, due to their very high mass, the previous relation gives us an evolution of $v=v(T)$. The $\sigma$ and $\pi_0$ fields are isoscalars, i.e. there is no isospin chemical potential associated to them. The influence of $\mu_I$ on the vacuum stability appears only in higher loop tadpole corrections.
The thermal corrections for $v(T)$ are obtained by taking the thermal part of the propagators in each tadpole.
Thermo Field Dynamics (TFD) is an appropriate formalism for dealing with thermal loop corrections in the real time formalism. For one loop corrections, the matrix propagators reduce to the well known Dolan-Jackiw propagators. The propagator for a bosonic scalar field is given by:
$$\Delta_{\beta}(k)=\frac{i}{k^{2}-m^{2}+i\epsilon}+2\pi
n_{B}(|k_{0}|)\delta(k^{2}-m^{2}),$$
and for a fermion field, by
$$S_{\beta}(k)=\frac{i}{k\!\!\!\slash-m+i\epsilon}-2\pi
n_{F}(|k_{0}|)(k\!\!\!\slash+m)\delta(k^{2}-m^{2}).$$
In the previous equations, $n_{B}$ and $n_{F}$, denote the well known Bose-Einstein and the Fermi-Dirac statistical factors, respectively.
$$n_{F,B}(z)=\frac{1}{exp(z)\pm1}.$$
The most natural way to introduce a chemical potential in field theory is to consider it as a zero component of an external constant gauge field ,[@Wel82] and [@Act85]. In this way, for example for the scalar bosonic propagator we have now
$$D_{DJ}(k)_{+-}=\frac{i}{(k+\mu_{I}u)^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}+i\epsilon}+2\pi
n_{B}(|k_{0}|)\delta((k+\mu_{I}u)^{2}-m_{\pi}^{2}).$$
If we take only in to account the finite thermal corrections we get
$$i(\epsilon
c-v\mu_{\pi}^{2})-iv(3\lambda^{2}I_{\sigma}+\lambda^{2}I_{\pi}-8g^{2}I_{\psi})=0,$$
where,
$$I_{\sigma}=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\Delta_{\sigma}^{\beta}(k)=
\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}2\pi
n_{B}(|k_{0}|)\delta(k^2-m_{\sigma}^{2}),$$
$$I_{\pi}=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\Delta_{\pi}^{\beta}(k)=
\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}2\pi n_{B}(|k_{0}|)\delta(k^2-m_{\pi}^{2}),$$
$$I_{\psi}=\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}\Delta_{\psi}^{\beta}(k)=
(-1)\int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}2\pi
n_{F}(|k_{0}|)\delta(k^2-m_{\psi}^{2}).$$
The evolution of $v=v(T)$ is shown in Fig.1.We notice that $v$ vanishes only if $L_1$ is absent.
![Vacuum expectation value of the $\sigma$ field, $v$(T)[]{data-label="vdet"}](figuras/expectacion.eps)
For the numerical purposes we will use, $m_{\pi}=139.6 ~~MeV$, $m_{\sigma}=550 ~~MeV$, $m_{\psi}=900 ~~MeV$, i.e. $m_{\pi}<m_{\sigma}<m_{\psi}$. Recently, [@bediaga], the existence of a scalar meson with $m\approx550~~ MeV$ has been established.
An analytic treatment of $v(T)$ is only possible in the low or high energy temperature regime. In Fig.1 we show the numerical results. As a consequence of the thermal tadpoles, the tree level potential energy of the model,
$$V(\sigma,\boldsymbol{\pi})=\frac{\lambda^{2}}{4}[\sigma^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2}]^{2}+
\frac{\mu^{2}}{2}[\sigma^{2}+\boldsymbol{\pi}^{2}] -\epsilon c\sigma
\label{pot1}$$
develops a non trivial temperature dependent minimum for $\boldsymbol{\pi}=0$. In fact we get,
$$V(s,0)=\lambda^{2}vs^{3}+\frac{\lambda^{2}}{4}s^{4} -(\epsilon
c-v\mu_{ \pi}^{2})s,\label{pot3}$$
where $v=v(T)$.
If we start from the Nambu-Goldstone phase, $\mu^2<0$, we can see that for $0\leq T\lesssim 230 ~~MeV$ the potential has two minima as it is shown in Fig.2,
![Potential behavior for $T=220$ MeV[]{data-label="220"}](figuras/potencial.ps)
However, when $T=232~MeV$ the potential starts to develop only one minimum. This fact, shown in Fig.3, represents the occurrence of a phase transition from the Nambu-Golstone mode into de Wigner mode, if we neglect the explicit chiral symmetry breaking term $L_1$, as it is discussed in [@lee].
![Potential behavior for $T=240$ MeV[]{data-label="240"}](figuras/pot240.eps)
Thermal and isospin chemical potential mass corrections
=======================================================
In order to find the mass corrections for the $\pi_0$ we need to evaluate the diagrams shown in Fig.4,
![Diagrams that contribute to the $\pi_0$ self energy corrections, $\Sigma_{\pi^{0}}(\beta)$[]{data-label="diagramas piones"}](figuras/diagramaspio.eps)
whereas for the charged pions we have only the two diagrams shown in Fig.5.
The self energy corrections $\sum$ allow, according to the well known procedure of summing geometric series, to define a dressed mass i.e. $m_{d}^2=m^{2}+i\sum$.
$\sum$ can be decomposed as $\sum=\sum(0)+\sum(\beta)$, where $\sum(\beta)$ denotes the thermal corrections to the self energy. $\sum(0)$ is the zero temperature self energy and it will not be considered here, since it is absorbed according the usual renormalization procedure at zero temperature.
The self energy correction for $\pi_0$ does not depend on the isospin chemical potential $\mu_I$, since as we said we are not considering here a $\mu_I$ associated to the fermions. On the contrary, the self energy corrections to the charged pions will have now thermal and $\mu_I$ dependent contributions.
Our results are plotted in Fig.6 for $\pi_0$ and in Fig.7 for the charged pions. The chemical potential contributes, as it was expected to increase de mass for the charged pions.
![Mass behavior of $m_{\pi_{0}}$.[]{data-label="masapio"}](figuras/mpiopolos.ps)
![Mass behavior of $m_{{\pi}^{+}}$ and $m_{{\pi}^{-}}$.[]{data-label="masapimasmu"}](figuras/masapimasmu.eps)
$\sigma$ meson mass corrections
===============================
The relevant diagrams, where the $\sigma$ meson is represented by the dashed line, are shown in Fig.8.
![Diagrams that contribute to $\Sigma_{\sigma}(\beta)$[]{data-label="diagramas sigma"}](figuras/diagramassigma.eps)
The results for the sigma meson mass are shown in Fig.9 and Fig.10. From the technical point of view, as usual, the principal value has to be use in order to handle the poles.
The growing of $m_\sigma$, as function of T, does not correspond to the $m_\sigma$ evolution in [@larsen] and in [@nico]. This is due to the Mean Field approximation they followed. In fact, this effective approach is quite more complicated than the usual loop expansion for the masses.
![Behavior of $m_{\sigma}$ in function of T. []{data-label="masasigma"}](figuras/masa_sigma_T.ps)
![Behavior of $m_{\sigma}$ in function of $\mu_I$. []{data-label="masasigma"}](figuras/masa_sigma_mu.ps)
To summarize, we can see that the isospin chemical potential contribution, both for the masses as well as for the vacuum evolution is quite small compared to the temperature dependence. The pion masses at the one loop order have have a very similar behavior to the corresponding masses in the mean field approaches. However, the sigma meson mass is quite different in both approaches. The loop expansion predicts a steadily growing for the sigma meson mass as function of T with small correction due to $\mu_I$.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge support from FONDECYT under grant 1051067. M.L. also acknowledges support from the *Centro de Estudios Subatómicos*. The authors would like to thank Dr. C. Contreras for helpful discussions. M.L.E. acknowledges also support from FONDECYT under grant 1060629.
[99]{}
M.Gell-Mann and M.Lévy, Nuovo Cimento 16,705(1960); see also B.W. Lee, Chiral Dynamics (Gordon and Breach, 1972)
B.W. Lee, Nucl.Phys. **B9** (1969)649; J.L Gervais and Benjamin W. Lee, Nucl. Phys. **B12**,627(1969).
J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. **B250**, 465 (1985).
M. Loewe and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D 67, 074034 (2003); ibid Phys. Rev. D. 70, 074005(2004).
C.Contreras and M. Loewe, Int. Jour. of Mod. Phys. A5, 2297 (1990).
A. Larsen, Z.Phys.C 33, 291(1986).
N.Bilić and H.Nikolić, Eur. Phys. J. C6 513(1999).
See for example J. B. Kogut and M. A. Stephanov *The Phases of Quantum Chromodynamics* Cambridge University Press, 2004, and references therein.
Hong Mao, N. Petopoulos and Wei-Qin Zhao, J.Phys. G32, 2187(2006); N. Petropoulos, arXiv: hep-ph/0402136 and references therein.
Lianyi He, Meng Jin and Pengfei Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 71, 116001, 2005.
H. A. Weldon. Phys. Rev., D26, 1394(1982).
A. Actor. Phys. Lett., B157, 53(1985).
E791 Collaboration, E.M. Aitala, etal , Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 765 (2001), ibid Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 770 (2001); J.M. de Miranda, I.Bediaga: Scalar meson sigma (500) phase motion at $D^{+}\rightarrow\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{+}+Decay$. AID conf. Proc. 814: 654(2006).
B. W. Lee. *Chiral Dynamics*. Gordon and Breach 1970.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we compare the integrable hard hexagon model with the non-integrable hard squares model by means of partition function roots and transfer matrix eigenvalues. We consider partition functions for toroidal, cylindrical, and free-free boundary conditions up to sizes $40\times40$ and transfer matrices up to 30 sites. For all boundary conditions the hard squares roots are seen to lie in a bounded area of the complex fugacity plane along with the universal hard core line segment on the negative real fugacity axis. The density of roots on this line segment matches the derivative of the phase difference between the eigenvalues of largest (and equal) moduli and exhibits much greater structure than the corresponding density of hard hexagons. We also study the special point $z=-1$ of hard squares where all eigenvalues have unit modulus, and we give several conjectures for the value at $z=-1$ of the partition functions.'
address:
- '$^1$ CN Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA'
- '$^2$ Laboratoire de Physique Th[é]{}orique, [É]{}cole Normale Sup[é]{}rieure, 24 rue Lhomond, 75231 Paris Cedex, France'
- '$3$ Universit[é]{} Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris, France'
- '$^4$ ARC Center of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia'
- '$^5$ LPTMC, UMR 7600 CNRS, Université de Paris, Tour 23, 5ème étage, case 121, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France'
author:
- 'M. Assis$^1$, J.L. Jacobsen$^{2,3}$, I. Jensen$^4$, J-M. Maillard$^5$ and B.M. McCoy$^1$'
---
**Integrability vs non-integrability**
**Hard hexagons and hard squares compared**
[**AMS Classification scheme numbers**]{}: 34M55, 47E05, 81Qxx, 32G34, 34Lxx, 34Mxx, 14Kxx .5cm
[**Key-words**]{}: Hard square model, hard hexagon model, partition function zeros, equimodular curves
Introduction
============
There is a fundamental paradox in the practice of theoretical physics. We do exact computations on integrable systems which have very special properties and then apply the intuition gained to generic systems which have none of the special properties which allowed the exact computations to be carried out. The ability to do exact computations relies on the existence of sufficient symmetries which allow the system to be solved by algebraic methods. Generic systems do not possess such an algebra and the distinction between integrable and non-integrable may be thought of as the distinction of algebra versus analysis.
This paradox is vividly illustrated by the two dimensional Ising model. In zero magnetic field Onsager [@ons] computed the free energy by means of exploiting the algebra which now bears his name. On the other hand in 1999 Nickel [@nic1; @nic2] analyzed the expansion of the susceptibility at zero magnetic field for the isotropic Ising model on the square lattice and discovered that as a function of the variable $s=\sinh 2E/k_BT$ the susceptibility has a dense set of singularities on the circle $|s|=1$ which is the same location as the thermodynamic limit of the locus of zeros of the finite lattice partition function. From this Nickel concluded that the curve of zeros is a natural boundary of the susceptibility in the complex $s$ plane. This is a phenomenon of analysis not seen in any previously solved statistical system. Further study of this new phenomenon has been made by Orrick, Nickel, Guttmann and Perk [@ongp] and in [@cgnp] the phenomenon of the natural boundary was studied on the triangular lattice. However the implication of these results for other models has not been investigated.
The hard square and hard hexagon models can be obtained from the Ising model in a magnetic field $H$ in the limit $H\rightarrow \infty$ for the square and triangular lattices respectively, and thus it is natural to study the question of analyticity in these two models. However, unlike the Ising model at $H=0$ where both the square and triangular lattices have been exactly solved, the hard hexagon model is exactly solved [@baxterhh]-[@baxpaul] whereas the hard square model is not. Thus, the comparison of these two models is the ideal place to study the relation of integrability to the analyticity properties of the free energy in the complex plane.
Three different methods may be used to study the non-integrable hard square model: Series expansions of the free energy in the thermodynamic limit, transfer matrix eigenvalues for chains of finite size $L_h$ and zeros of partition functions on the $L_v\times L_h$ lattices of finite size and arbitrary aspect ratio $L_v/L_h$.
Series expansions of the partition function per site $\kappa(z)$ of the hard square model [@gf]-[@kam] of up to 92 terms [@chan] and analysis of transfer matrix eigenvalues [@ree] for chains of up to 34 sites [@gb] show that $\kappa(z)$ has a singularity on the positive $z$-axis [@gb] $$z_c=3.79625517391234(4)$$ and a singularity on the negative $z$-axis [@tony; @jensen] $$z_d=-0.119338886(5)$$ The hard hexagon model has two singular points at [@baxterhh]-[@baxpaul] $$\begin{aligned}
&&z_{c;hh}=\frac{11+5{\sqrt 5}}{2}= 11.09016\cdots\nonumber\\
&&z_{d;hh}=\frac{11-5{\sqrt 5}}{2}=-0.09016\cdots\end{aligned}$$ For hard squares, series expansions [@gf]-[@kam] have been used to estimate the leading critical exponents at $z_c$ and $z_d$, and correction to scaling exponents have been estimated as well. For hard hexagons there are no singular points of the free energy other than $z_{c;hh},~ z_{d;hh},~\infty$. It is not known if there are any further singular points for hard squares. In [@gb] the singularity at $z_c$ is determined to be in the Ising universality class and in [@jensen] the first two exponents at $z_d$ are shown to agree with those of the Lee-Yang edge and hard hexagons. However these long series expansions have not given information about additional higher order singularities at $z_c$ and $z_d$ or singularities which may occur at other values of $z$.
In 2005 a very remarkable property of hard squares, which is not shared by hard hexagons, was discovered [@fse] by means of studying the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix for finite size systems [@fse]-[@baxneg]. These studies discovered that at the value of the fugacity $z=-1$ all eigenvalues of the transfer matrix with cylindrical boundary conditions have unit modulus and the partition function of the $L_h\times L_v$ lattice with toroidal boundary conditions depends on divisibility properties of $L_v$ and $L_h$. However, the free energy for these boundary conditions in the thermodynamic limit is zero. For the lattice oriented at $45^o$, on the other hand, for cylindrical boundary conditions of the transfer matrix, there are some eigenvalues which do not have unit modulus [@jon2] and for free boundary conditions of the transfer matrix with $L_h\equiv 1~({\rm mod}~ 3)$ all roots of the characteristic equation are zero and thus the partition function vanishes.
In [@assis] we computed for hard hexagons the zeros of the partition function for $L\times L$ lattices with cylindrical and toroidal boundary conditions as large as $39\times 39$ and the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix with cylindrical boundary conditions. For these cylindrical transfer matrices both momentum and parity are conserved, and for physical (positive) values of $z$ the maximum eigenvector is in the sector of zero momentum positive parity $P=0^+$. From these cylindrical transfer matrices we computed the equimodular curves where there are two eigenvalues of the row transfer matrix of (equal) maximum modulus both in the sector $P=0^+$ and for the full transfer matrix.
In this paper we extend our study of partition function zeros and transfer matrix equimodular curves to hard squares for systems as large as $40\times 40$ and compare them with corresponding results for hard hexagons [@assis]. There are many differences between these two systems which we analyze in detail. In addition to the transfer matrix with cylindrical boundary conditions we also introduce the transfer matrix with free boundary conditions. Thus we are able to give two different transfer matrix descriptions for the partition function zeros of the cylindrical lattice. For hard hexagons there is strong evidence that this boundary condition preserves integrability.
In section \[recall\] we recall the relation between finite size computations in the complex plane of zeros of $L\times L$ lattices and eigenvalues of the $L$ site transfer matrix. In section \[compare\] we make a global comparison in the complex $z$ plane of the equimodular curves and partition function zeros of hard squares with hard hexagons. In section \[negz\] we make a more refined comparison on the negative $z$ axis.
The comparisons presented in sections \[compare\] and \[negz\] reveal many significant differences between hard squares and hard hexagons which we discuss in detail in section \[discussion\]. We conclude in section \[conclusions\] with a presentation of potential analyticity properties of hard squares which can be different from hard hexagons.
In \[appa\] we tabulate the factored characteristic polynomials of the transfer matrix at the point $z=-1$ and the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+1$. We also give formulas for the growth of the orders of the transfer matrices, where such a formula is known, and for all cases the asymptotic growth is given by $N_G^{L_h}$ where $N_G$ is the golden ratio.
In \[appb\] we consider the partition function values at $z=-1$ on $L_v\times L_h$ lattices for the torus, cylinder, free-free rectangle, M[ö]{}bius band and Klein bottle boundary conditions. We give generating functions for the sequences of values of the partition function of the $L_v\times L_h$ lattice as a function of $L_v$ and find that almost all sequences of values are repeating. We conjecture that along the periodic $L_v$ direction (including twists for the M[ö]{}bius band and Klein bottle cases) the sequences will always be repeating. Furthermore, for the torus and the cylinder (along the periodic $L_v$ direction), we conjecture that the generating functions are given by the negative of the logarithmic derivative of the characteristic polynomial of their transfer matrices at $z=-1$. This allows us to conjecture the periods of their repeating sequences. Finally, for the M[ö]{}bius band (along the periodic $L_v$ direction) and Klein bottle we conjecture that their generating functions are the logarithmic derivative of products of factors $(1-x^{n_i})^{m_j}$, where $n_i,~m_j$ are integers.
Formulation {#recall}
===========
The hard square lattice gas is defined by a (occupation) variable $\sigma=0,1$ at each site of a square lattice with the restriction that no two adjacent sites can have the values $\sigma=1$ (i.e. the gas has nearest neighbor exclusion). The grand partition function on the finite $L_v\times
L_h$ lattice is defined as the polynomial $$Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)=\sum_{n=0}z^ng(n;L_v,L_h).$$ where $g(n;L_v, L_h)$ is the number of hard square configurations which have $n$ occupied sites. These polynomials can be characterized by their zeros $z_j$ as $$Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)=\prod_j(1-z/z_j),$$ where $z_j$ and the degree of the polynomial will depend on the boundary condition imposed on the lattice. This formulation of the partition function as a polynomial is completely general for lattice models with arbitrary interactions.
The partition function for hard squares may also be expressed in terms of the transfer matrix formalism. For the cylindrical transfer matrix with periodic boundary conditions in the horizontal direction, the transfer matrix for hard squares is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad
T_{C\{b_1,\cdots b_{L_h}\},\{a_1,\cdots.a_{L_h}\}}(z;L_h)
\,\, =\,\,\, \, \prod_{j=1}^{L_h}\, W(a_j,\, a_{j+1};\, b_j,\, b_{j+1}),
\label{tmat}\end{aligned}$$ where the local Boltzmann weights $W(a_j,a_{j+1};b_j,b_{j+1})$ for hard squares of figure \[fig:bw\] may be written as $$\hspace{-0.3in} W(a_j,a_{j+1};b_j,b_{j+1})=0 ~~{\rm for}~~
a_ja_{j+1}=a_{j+1}b_{j+1}=b_jb_{j+1}=a_jb_j=1
\label{bw1}$$ with $a_{L_h+1}\equiv a_1,~b_{L_h+1}\equiv b_1$ and otherwise $$W(a_j,a_{j+1};b_j,b_{j+1})=z^{b_j}.
\label{bw2}$$
For the transfer matrix with free boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
T_{F\{b_1,\cdots b_{L_h}\},\{a_1,\cdots.a_{L_h}\}}(z;L_h)=\nonumber\\
&& \left(\prod_{j=1}^{L_h-2} W(a_j,\, a_{j+1};\, b_j,\, b_{j+1})\right)
W_F(a_{L_h-1},a_{L_h};b_{L_h-1},b_{L_h}),
\label{tmatfree}\end{aligned}$$ where $$W_F(a_{L_h-1},a_{L_h};b_{L_h-1},b_{L_h})=z^{b_{L_h-1}+b_{L_h}}.
\label{bw3}$$ The corresponding transfer matrices for hard hexagons are obtained by supplementing (\[bw1\]) with $$W_{}(a_j,a_{j+1};b_j,b_{j+1})=0 ~~{\rm for}~~a_{j+1}b_{j}
=1.
\label{bw4}$$
We will consider four types of boundary conditions.
The grand partition function for $L_v\times L_h$ lattices with periodic boundary conditions in both the $L_v$ and $L_h$ directions is given in terms of $T_C$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transper}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad \quad
Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z) \,\,\,\, = \,\,\,\, {\rm Tr}\,\, T_C^{L_v}(z;L_h).\end{aligned}$$
For free boundary conditions in the horizontal direction and periodic boundary conditions the vertical direction the partition function is obtained from $T_F$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transcf}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad \quad
Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(z) \,\,\,\, = \,\,\,\, {\rm Tr}\,\, T_F^{L_v}(z;L_h).\end{aligned}$$
For periodic boundary conditions in the horizontal direction and free boundary conditions the vertical direction the partition function is obtained from $T_C$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transfree}
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z) = \langle {\bf v}_B|T_C^{L_v-1}(z;L_h)|{\bf v}'_B\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf v}_B$ and ${\bf v}'_B$ are suitable vectors for the boundary conditions on rows $1$ and $L_v$. For the transfer matrix (\[tmat\]) with Boltzmann weights given by the asymmetrical form (\[bw1\]), (\[bw2\]) the components of the vectors ${\bf v}_B$ and ${\bf v}'_B$ for free boundary conditions are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
{\bf v}_B(a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{L_h})= \prod_{j=1}^{L_h}\,
z^{a_j},~~~~~{\bf v}'_B(b_1,b_2,\, \cdots,\, b_{L_h})=1.
\label{vector}\end{aligned}$$ These vectors are invariant under translation and reflection.
For free boundary conditions in both directions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{freefree}
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z) = \langle {\bf v}_B|T_F^{L_v-1}(z;L_h)|{\bf v}'_B\rangle, \end{aligned}$$
When the transfer matrix is diagonalizable (\[transper\])-(\[freefree\]) may be written in terms of the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ and eigenvectors ${\bf v}_k$ of the transfer matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z) = \sum_k \lambda_{k;C}^{L_v}(z;L_h),\label{eigent}\\
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(z) = \sum_k \lambda_{k:F}^{L_v}(z;L_h),\label{eigencf}\\
\hspace{-0.9in}&&
Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z) = \sum_k\lambda_{k;C}^{L_v-1}(z;L_h)\cdot
d_{C,k}~~ {\rm where}~~
d_{C,k}\, =(\bf{v}_B\cdot \bf{v}_{C,k})(\bf{v}_{C,k} \cdot \bf{v}'_B),
\label{eigenfc}\\
\hspace{-0.9in}&& Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)=
\sum_k\lambda_{k;F}^{L_v-1}(z;L_h)\cdot d_{F,k}~~
{\rm where}~~
d_{F,k}= (\bf{v}_B\cdot \bf{v}_{F,k})(\bf{v}_{F,k} \cdot \bf{v}'_B).
\label{eigenff}\end{aligned}$$
For hard squares and hard hexagons the transfer matrices $T_C(z;L_h)$ are invariant under translations and reflections and thus momentum $P$ and parity $\pm$ are good quantum numbers. Furthermore the boundary vectors ${\bf v}_B$ and ${\bf v'}_B$ of (\[vector\]) are invariant under translation and reflection, and consequently $d_{C,k}=0$ unless the eigenvectors ${\bf v}_k$ lie in the positive parity sector $P=0^+$.
For hard squares the matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ is invariant under reflection so the eigenvectors in the scalar products are restricted to positive parity states. However for hard hexagons $T_F(z;L_h)$ is not invariant under reflection and all eigenvectors will contribute to (\[eigenff\]).
Note that partition function zeros for all four boundary conditions have previously been studied for antiferromagnetic Potts models [@ss]-[@JS5]. In that case the relations to transfer matrix eigenvalues were similar to (\[eigenfc\]),(\[eigenff\]). However, with periodic boundary conditions along the transfer direction the partition function was defined as a Markov trace, and (\[eigent\]),(\[eigencf\]) were replaced by expressions involving non-trivial eigenvalue multiplicities [@RJ1; @RJ2].
Integrability
-------------
To compare integrable with non-integrable systems a definition of integrability is required.
The notion of integrability originates in the discovery by Baxter that the Ising model and the 6 and 8 vertex models, which have transfer matrices that depend on several variables, have a one parameter subspace for which the transfer matrices with different parameters will commute if cyclic boundary conditions are imposed [@baxbook]. This global property of the transfer matrix follows from a local property of the Boltzmann weights used to construct the transfer matrix, known as the star-triangle or the Yang-Baxter equation.
The hard hexagon model has only one parameter, the fugacity, but is also referred to as integrable because Baxter [@baxterhh; @baxbook] found that it may be realized as a special case of the model of hard squares with diagonal interactions which does have a one parameter family of commuting transfer matrices with cylindrical boundary conditions.
This concept of integrability has been generalized to transfer matrices with boundary conditions which are not cylindrical if special boundary conditions are imposed which satisfy a generalization of the Yang-Baxter equation [@cher; @skl] known as the boundary Yang-Baxter equation. This has been investigated for models closely related to hard hexagons [@behpaul; @ahn] but the specialization to hard hexagons with free boundary conditions has apparently not been made.
The physical free energy {#physicalfree}
------------------------
For thermodynamics we are concerned with the limit $L_v,~L_h\rightarrow \infty$, and in the physical region where $z$ is real and positive the partition function per site $\kappa (z)$, the physical free energy $F(z)$ and the density $\rho(z)$ are defined as limits of the finite size grand partition function as $$\kappa(z) =
\lim_{L_v,L_h\rightarrow \infty}Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)^{1/L_vL_h},
\label{free}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
-F(z)/k_BT=
\lim_{L_v,L_h\rightarrow \infty}(L_vL_h)^{-1} \cdot \, \ln Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)
\label{free}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\rho(z)=-z\frac{d}{dz}F(z).$$ This limit must be independent of the boundary conditions and aspect ratio $0\, <\, L_v/L_h\, <\, \infty$ for thermodynamics to be valid. The free energy vanishes and is analytic at $z=0$. For hard hexagons as $z\rightarrow \infty$ $$F(z)/k_BT=\frac{1}{3}\ln z+{\tilde F}_{HH}(z)~~{\rm
and}~~\rho(z)\rightarrow \frac{1}{3}$$ and for hard squares $$F(z)/k_BT=\frac{1}{2}\ln z+{\tilde F}_{HS}(z)~~
{\rm and}~~\rho\rightarrow \frac{1}{2},$$ where ${\tilde F}_{HH}(z)$ and ${\tilde F}_{HS}(z)$ are analytic at $z\rightarrow \infty$. From this formulation series expansions of the free energy about both $z=0$ and $1/z=0$ are derived. The partition function per site, physical free energy and density for $0\leq z \leq z_c$ and $z_c\leq z \leq \infty$ are different functions which are not related to each other by analytic continuation around the singularity at $z_c$. For hard hexagons the density for both the low and the high density regime may be continued to the full $z$ plane which for low density is cut from $-\infty \leq z \leq
z_{d;hh}$ and $z_{c;hh}\leq z \leq \infty$ and for high density cut from $z_{d;hh}\leq z
\leq z_{c;hh}$. Indeed, both the low and high density partition functions per site and the density for hard hexagons are algebraic functions [@joyce; @assis] and thus have analytic continuations even beyond the cuts in the $z$ plane.
To study the possibility of analytic continuation for hard squares of the physical partition function per site and density from the positive $z$ axis into the complex $z$ plane we consider both the formulation in terms of the transfer matrix and the zeros of the partition function.
Analyticity and transfer matrix eigenvalues {#analyticity}
-------------------------------------------
For $0< z < \infty$ all matrix elements of the transfer matrices are positive so the Perron-Frobenious theorem guarantees that the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm max}$ is positive and the corresponding eigenvector has all positive entries. Thus for all cases $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad \quad
\lim_{L_v\rightarrow \infty}\, L_v^{-1} \cdot \, \ln Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)
\,\, \, =\, \,\, \, \ln \lambda_{\rm max}(z;L_h)\end{aligned}$$ and thus the free energy is $$-F/k_BT=\lim_{L_h\rightarrow \infty}L_h^{-1}\ln \lambda_{\rm max}(z;L_h).
\label{transmax}$$
Furthermore the cylindrical transfer matrices for both squares and hexagons have translation and reflection invariance. Therefore the eigenvalues of the lattice translation operator are $e^{iP}$ where $P$, the total momentum, has the values $2\pi n/L_h$, and the eigenvalues of the reflection operator are $\pm 1$. Each transfer matrix eigenvalue has a definite value of $P$ and parity and $\lambda_{\rm max}$ has $P=0^+$ (where $+$ indicates the reflection eigenvalue). Therefore for $0\leq z \leq
\infty$ the eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm max}$ of the transfer matrix $T_C$ is the eigenvalue of an eigenvector in the sector $P=0^+$.
To obtain the analytic continuation of the density from the positive $z$ axis into the complex $z$ plane we need to continue the limit as $L_h\rightarrow \infty$ of the eigenvalue with $P=0^+$ which is maximum on the positive axis. However, the analytic continuation of $\lambda_{\max}$ off of the segment $0\leq z \leq \infty$ will not, of course, have the largest modulus in the entire complex $z$ plane. The analytic continuation of $\lambda_{\rm max}$ will be maximum only as long as it has the largest modulus of all the eigenvalues and ceases to be maximum when $z$ crosses an equimodular curve where the moduli of two (or more) eigenvalues are the same. It is thus of importance to determine the thermodynamic limit of the equimodular curves of the largest eigenvalues of the transfer matrix. In the thermodynamic limit the regions of $0\leq z \leq z_c$ and $z_c\leq z \leq \infty$ are separated by one or more of these equimodular curves. In [@assis] it was seen that for hard hexagons with finite $L_h$ the equimodular curves separate the $z$ plane into several regions. However, because the eigenvectors with different momentum and parity lie in different subspaces only the eigenvalues corresponding to eigenvectors with $P=0^+$ can affect the analytic continuation of the density.
For the hard square transfer matrix with free boundary conditions, $T_F(z;L_h)$, the eigenvalue $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$ will lie in the positive parity sector for positive $z$ and the analytic continuation off the positive real axis will be constrained to eigenvalues in the positive parity sector. For hard hexagons, where $T_F(z;L_h)$ is not reflection symmetric, $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$ is not constrained to lie in a restricted sub-space.
It is thus clear from the formulation of the physical free energy and the density in terms of the transfer matrix that the process of analytic continuation off of the positive $z$ axis and the taking of the thermodynamic limit do not commute. In the thermodynamic limit it is not even obvious that for a non-integrable model an analytic continuation through the limiting position of the equimodular curves is possible.
Analyticity and partition function zeros
----------------------------------------
The considerations of analytic continuation in terms of partition function zeros is slightly different because by definition polynomials are single valued. However, once the thermodynamic limit is taken the limiting locations of the zeros will in general divide the complex $z$ plane into disconnected zero free regions. For hard squares and hard hexagons the physical segments $0\leq z <z_c$ and $z_c<z<\infty$ lie in two separate zero free regions. The density is uniquely continuable into the zero free region and in these regions the free energy will be independent of boundary conditions and aspect ratio. For hard hexagons the density for both the low and high density cases are further continuable beyond the zero free region into the respective cut planes of section \[physicalfree\]. However, for hard squares there is no guarantee that further continuation outside the zero free regions is possible.
Relation of zeros to equimodular curves {#zerostophase}
---------------------------------------
For finite lattices the partition function zeros can be obtained for $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ from (\[eigent\]) and (\[eigencf\]) if all eigenvalues are known. For $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ both the eigenvalues and eigenvectors are needed to obtain the zeros from (\[eigenfc\]) and (\[eigenff\]).
The limiting case where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emod1}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad \quad \quad
L_v \, \,\, \rightarrow \,\, \,\infty
\quad \quad \quad {\rm with~ fixed} \quad \quad \quad L_h, \end{aligned}$$ is presented in [@ss]-[@JS5],[@wood]-[@baxter1987] with various boundary conditions extending the work of [@bkw1]-[@bkw3]. In this limit (\[emod1\]) the partition function will have zeros when two or more maximum eigenvalues of $T(z;L_h)$ have equal moduli $$\begin{aligned}
\label{emod2}
\hspace{-0.9in}&& \qquad \quad \quad \quad \quad
|\lambda_1(z;L_h)| \, \, =\, \, \, |\lambda_2(z;L_h)|. \end{aligned}$$
Consider first $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and $Z^{CF}_{L_v.L_h}(z)$ where we see from (\[eigent\]) and (\[eigencf\]) that only eigenvalues are needed. Thus, for these two cases, when only two largest eigenvalues $\lambda_{1,2}$ need to be considered we may write $$Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)=\lambda_1^{L_v}\left[1
+\left(\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}\right)^{L_v}+\cdots\right].
\label{tapprox}$$ Then at values of $z$ where $|\lambda_1|=|\lambda_2|$ with $\lambda_2/\lambda_1=e^{i\theta}$ we have for large $L_v$ $$Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)=\lambda_1^{L_v}[1+e^{i\theta L_v}+\cdots]$$ and hence $Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ will have a zero close to this $z$ when $$e^{i\theta L_v}=-1,
\label{thetalv}$$ that is when $$\theta L_v=(2n+1)\pi
\label{thetan}$$ with $n$ an integer. This relation becomes exact in the limit $L_v\rightarrow \infty$. Calling $z_i$ and $z_{i+1}$ the values of $z$ at two neighboring zeros on the equimodular curve we thus obtain from (\[thetan\]) $$\theta(z_{i+1})-\theta(z_{i})=2\pi/L_v.
\label{thetadiff}$$
Let $s(z)$ be the arclength along an equimodular curve. Then the derivative of $\theta(s(z))$ with respect to $s$ is defined as the limit of $$\frac{\Delta\theta}{\Delta s}\equiv
\frac{\theta(s(z_{i+1}))-\theta(s(z_i))}{s(z_{i+1})-s(z_i)},
\label{deltadef}$$ Thus, defining the density of roots on the equimodular curve as $$D(s)=\lim_{L_v\rightarrow \infty}\frac{1}{L_v[s(z_{i+1})-s(z_i)]},$$ we find from (\[thetadiff\]) and (\[deltadef\]) that for $L_v\rightarrow \infty$ with $L_h$ fixed that the density of zeros on an equimodular curve is $$\frac{d\theta(s)}{ds}=2\pi D(s).
\label{phidensity}$$
For $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ from (\[eigenfc\]) and (\[eigenff\]) we have instead of (\[tapprox\]) $$Z_{L_v,L_h}(z)=\lambda_1^{L_v}d_1\left[1
+\left(\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}\right)^{L_v}\frac{d_2}{d_1}+\cdots\right],$$ with $$\frac{d_2}{d_1}=re^{i\psi},$$ where in general $r\neq 1$. Thus writing $$\frac{\lambda_2}{\lambda_1}=\epsilon e^{i\theta},$$ the condition for a zero in the limit $L_v\rightarrow \infty$ which generalizes (\[thetalv\]) is $$\epsilon^{L_v}e^{i\theta L_v}re^{i\psi}=-1,$$ from which we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon= r^{-1/L_v}=e^{-\ln r/L_v}\sim 1-\frac{\ln r}{L_v},\\
&&\theta L_v+\psi=(2n+1)\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Thus as $L_v\rightarrow \infty$ the locus of zeros approaches the equimodular curve as $\ln r/L_v$ and the limiting density is still given by (\[phidensity\]).
These considerations, however, are in general not sufficient for the study of the thermodynamic limit where instead of (\[emod1\]) we are interested in the limit $$L_v\rightarrow \infty,~~L_h\rightarrow \infty,~~~{\rm with~~
fixed}~~L_v/L_h
\label{thermolimit}$$ and the physical free energy must be independent of the aspect ratio $L_v/L_h$.
To study the limit (\[thermolimit\]) there are several properties of the dependence of the equimodular curves on $L_h$ which need to be considered:
1. The derivative of the phase $\theta(s)$ on a curve can vanish as $L_h\rightarrow \infty$ on some portions of the curve;
2. The number of equimodular curves can diverge as $L_h\rightarrow \infty$ and there can be regions in the $z$ plane where they become dense;
3. The length of an equimodular curve can vanish as $L_h\rightarrow
\infty$.
The first of these properties is illustrated for hard hexagons in [@assis]. The second and third properties have been observed for antiferromagnetic Potts models in [@CJSS].
We will see that all three phenomena are present for hard squares. The roots of the $L\times L$ partition function in the limit $L\rightarrow \infty$ converge to lie on the $L_h \rightarrow \infty$ limit of the equimodular curves.
Global comparisons of squares and hexagons {#compare}
==========================================
In [@assis] we computed for hard hexagons the zeros for $L\times L$ lattices of $Z^{CC}_{L,L}(z)$ for toroidal boundary conditions, and for cylindrical boundary conditions where $$Z^{FC}_{L,L}(z)=Z^{CF}_{L,L}(z).$$ We also computed the equimodular curves for both the full transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ relevant to $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and the restriction to the subspace $P=0^+$ relevant for $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$. In this paper we compute the same quantities for hard squares and compare them with the results of [@assis]. We also compute the equimodular curves for $T_F(z;L_h)$ relevant for $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ and $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$. For hard hexagons we restricted attention to $L_v,~L_h$ multiples of three which is commensurate with hexagonal ordering. Similarly for hard squares we restrict attention here to $L_v,~L_h$ even to be commensurate with square ordering.
Comparisons of partition function zeros
---------------------------------------
We have computed zeros of the hard square partition function in the complex fugacity $z$ plane for $L\times L$ lattices with cylindrical and free boundary conditions for $L\leq 40$ and for toroidal boundary conditions for $L\leq 26$ using the methods of [@assis]. In figure \[fig:cf\] we compare partition function zeros for cylindrical boundary conditions of hard squares on the $40\times 40$ lattice with hard hexagons on the $39\times 39$ lattice and in figure \[fig:free\] the comparison is made for free boundary conditions. In figure \[fig:torus\] we compare for toroidal boundary conditions hard squares on the $26\times 26$ lattice with hard hexagons on the $27\times 27$ lattice.
For both hard squares and hard hexagons there is a line of zeros on the negative real axis ending at $z_d$ and $z_{d;hh}$, respectively. The ratio of real roots to complex roots for hard squares is roughly 1/2:1/2 while for hard hexagons the ratio is roughly 2/3:1/3.
The most obvious difference between hard squares and hard hexagons in figures \[fig:cf\]-\[fig:free\] is that the zeros of hard squares are seen to lie in an area instead of being confined to a few well defined curves as is seen for hard hexagons.
For cylindrical boundary conditions the filling up of this area proceeds in a remarkably regular fashion.
For the lattices $4N\times 4N$ there are $N-1$ outer arcs each of $4N$ points, then there is a narrow arclike area with close to $4N$ zeros and finally there is an inner structure that is connected to $z=-1$. For the innermost of the $N-1$ arcs the zeros appear in well defined pairs.
For lattices $(4N+2)\times (4N+2)$ there are $N-1$ outer arcs each of $4N+2$ points, then a narrow arclike area which has close to $4N+2$ zeros and finally an inner structure that is connected to $z=-1$.
For all boundary conditions the zeros of hard squares appear to converge in the $L\rightarrow
\infty$ limit to a wedge which hits the positive $z$ axis at $z_c$. This is distinctly different from the behavior of hard hexagons where the zeros appear to approach $z_{c;hh}$ on a well defined one dimensional arc.
In figure \[fig:hsall\] we illustrate the dependence on $L$ of the hard square zeros of $Z^{FC}_{L,L}(z)=Z^{CF}_{L,L}(z)$ of the $L\times L$ lattice by giving a combined plot of all the zeros for $12\leq L \leq 40$. This reveals that the three cases of $L=6n+4,~6n+2$ and $6n$ approach the common limit in three separate ways. There is one well defined curve whose position does not depend on $L$ which consists only of the points of $L=6n+4$ lattices. In table \[tab:endpoints\] we list the value of the zero closest to the three endpoints $z_c,~z_d$ and $-1$ for the $L\times L$ cylindrical lattices with $24\leq L\leq 40$. We also list the number $N_L$ of zeroes in $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ plus the number of zeroes $z< -1$. For $L=40$ we note that ${\rm Re}[z_c(40)]>z_c$ whereas for $L\leq 38$ we have ${\rm Re}[z_c(L)]<z_c$. This behavior of $z_c(L)$ in relation to $z_c$ is similar to what is seen for hard hexagons in table 5 of [@assis] where ${\rm Re }[z_c(L)]>z_c$ for $L\geq 21$ and only starts to approach $z_c$ from the right for $L=36$.
$L$ $z_c(L)$ $z_d(L)$ $z_{-1}(L)$ $N_L$
---------- -------------------------- ------------- ------------- ---------
$24$ $3.690334\pm i 1.324109$ $-0.119976$ $-0.956723$ $128+0$
$26$ $3.718433\pm i 1.226238$ $-0.119871$ $-0.979835$ $153+5$
$28$ $3.739986\pm i 1.141529$ $-0.119788$ $-0.986589$ $176+0$
$30$ $3.756751\pm i 1.067554$ $-0.119723$ $-0.991656$ $201+5$
$32$ $3.769947\pm i 1.002431$ $-0.119671$ $-0.992168$ $231+1$
$34$ $3.780438\pm i 0.944686$ $-0.119628$ $-0.989045$ $259+9$
$36$ $3.788852\pm i 0.893150$ $-0.119592$ $-0.976523$ $288+0$
$38$ $3.795647\pm i 0.846884$ $-0.119563$ $-0.994325$ $325+9$
$40$ $3.801169\pm i 0.805129$ $-0.119538$ $-0.991673$ $358+0$
$\infty$ $3.796255$ $-0.119338$ $-1$
: The endpoints $z_c(L),~z_d(L)$ and $z_{-1}(L)$ for the $L\times L$ cylindrical lattices with $24\leq L\leq 40$. The number of zeros $N_L$ on the segment $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ as well as the very small number of points $z\leq -1$ which do not contribute to the density.[]{data-label="tab:endpoints"}
Comparisons of equimodular curves with partition zeros
------------------------------------------------------
We have computed equimodular curves for the hard square transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ in the sector $P=0^+$ for even $L_h\leq 26$ and for the full transfer matrix for $L_h\leq 18$. For hard squares we have computed the equimodular curves for the full $T_F(z;L_h)$ and the restriction to the positive parity sector for $L_h\leq 16$. For hard hexagons the equimodular curves of $T_C(z;L_h)$ were computed in [@assis] for $L_h\leq 21$ and in the sector $P=0^+$ for $L_h\leq
30$. Equimodular curves for the hard hexagon transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ are computed here for $L_h\leq 21$.
In figure \[fig:evzeroshs\] we plot the equimodular curves and zeros for hard squares. This is to be compared with the similar plot for hard hexagons in figure \[fig:evzeroshh\]. In both cases we note that the zeros for $Z^{FC}_{L,L}(z)$ and $Z^{CF}_{L,L}$ are identical while the corresponding equimodular curves are different.
The equimodular curves of hard squares are strikingly different from those of hard hexagons for all cases considered. The hard hexagon plots consist of a few well defined sets of curves which, with the exception that the curves for $P=0^+$ do not have rays extending to infinity, are qualitatively very similar for all four cases. For hard squares, on the other hand, the four different plots are qualitatively different from each other and are far more complicated than those for hard hexagons. The cylinder partition function $Z^{FC}_{L,L}(z)=Z^{CF}_{L,L}(z)$ allows a direct comparison between the equimodular curves of $T_F(z)$ and $T_{C0^+}(z)$ in figures \[fig:evzeroshs\] and \[fig:evzeroshh\], since both transfer matrices can be used to construct the same partition function. For both hard squares and hard hexagons these figures show that the zeros of the $L\times L$ cylindrical partition function lie much closer to the equimodular curves of $T_F(z)$ rather than $T_{C0^+}$. It is only for much larger aspect ratios that the cylinder zeros lie close to the $T_{C0^+}$ equimodular curves, as can be seen, for example, in figure \[fig:anisozeros\], where we plot the hard square $Z^{FC}_{26n,26}(z)$ roots for $n=1,~2,~3,~4,~5,~10$ along with the $L_h=26$ equimodular curves of $T_{C0^+}(z)$.
For hard squares, the arclike structures noted above for figure \[fig:cf\] are in remarkable agreement with the $T_F(z)$ curves which originate near $z=-1$ and extend to infinity. There are $L_h$ such equimodular curves which is exactly the number of points seen above to lie on each of the arclike structures of zeros.
For hard squares both $T_C(z;L_h)$ and $T_F(z;L_h)$ shown in figure \[fig:evzeroshs\] have equimodular curves which extend out to $|z|=\infty$. In \[appc\] we present an analytical argument that both the $T_C(z;L_h)$ and $T_F(z;L_h)$ curves have $L_h$ branches going out to infinity at asymptotic angles $\arg z = \frac{(1+2k) \pi}{L_h}$ with $k=0,1,\ldots,L_h-1$.
For hard hexagons it was seen in [@assis] that when $L_h\equiv 0~({\rm mod}~3)$ the curves for $T_C(z;L_h)$ as illustrated in figure \[fig:evzeroshh\] have $2L_h/3$ rays extending to infinity which separate regions with $P=0^+$ from regions with $\pm 2\pi/3$. However, for the hard hexagon matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ it is evident in figure \[fig:evzeroshh\] there is much more structure in the curves which extend to infinity. This is shown on a much larger scale in figure \[fig:hhlargez\]. This more complicated structure for the equimodular curves of $T_F(z;L_h)$ presumably results from the fact that for hard hexagons $T_F(z;L_h)$ is neither translation nor reflection invariant.
Just as for hard hexagons it is only possible for hard squares to identify an endpoint of an equimodular curve approaching $z_c$ for the transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ in the $P=0^+$ sector. We give the location of the $z_c(L_h)$ and $z_d(L_h)$ endpoints for $P=0^+$ in table \[tab:curveend\].
For hard squares the transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ with free boundary conditions is invariant under parity in contrast with hard hexagons where there is no parity invariance. The maximum eigenvalue for hard squares has positive parity and in figure \[fig:hstfcomp\] we compare for $L_h=16$ the equimodular curves of $T_F(z;L_h)$ with the restriction to positive parity. We also compare the equimodular curves for $L_h=16$ of $T_C(z;L_h)$ and its restriction to $P=0^+$.
$L_h$ $z_c(L_h)~ {\rm endpoint}$ $z_d(L_h)~ {\rm endpoint}$
---------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
$4$ $-0.8806\pm i 3.4734$ $-0.1259$
$6$ $1.6406\pm i 3.2293$ $-0.1216$
$8$ $2.5571\pm i 2.6694$ $-0.1204$
$10$ $2.9955\pm i 2.2264$ $-0.1200$
$12$ $3.2374\pm i 1.8961$ $-0.1197$
$14$ $3.3845\pm i 1.6461$ $-0.1196$
$16$ $3.479\pm i 1.4547$
$18$ $3.544\pm i 1.3032$
$20$ $3.591\pm i 1.1780$
$22$ $3.627\pm i 1.0722$
$24$ $3.654\pm i 0.9841$
$26$ $3.675\pm i 0.9117$
$\infty$ $3.796255$ $-0.119338$
: The endpoints of the equimodular curves of $T_C(z;L_h)$ with $P=0^+$ which approach $z_c$ and $z_d$ as $L_h$ increases. For $L_h\leq 14$ the endpoints are computed from the vanishing of the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial and have been computed to 50 decimal places. For $L_h\geq 16$ they are determined numerically to 3 decimal places and consequently the deviation from $z_d$ is too small to be accurately determined.[]{data-label="tab:curveend"}
Comparisons on $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ {#negz}
==================================
A much more quantitative comparison of hard squares and hard hexagons can be given on the interval $-1\leq z\leq z_d$. We treat both transfer matrix eigenvalues and partition function zeros.
Transfer matrix eigenvalue gaps {#tmezm}
-------------------------------
The eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ for hard hexagons for $P=0^+$ have two very remarkable properties discovered in [@assis]
1. The characteristic polynomial of $T_C(z)$ in the sector $P=0^+$ for $L_h=9,~ 12,~15,~18$ factorizes into the product of two irreducible polynomials with integer coefficients.
2. The roots of the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial which lie on the real axis for $z<z_{d;hh}(L)$ all have multiplicity two for $L_h\leq 18$. In particular on the negative real axis the maximum eigenvalue is real only at isolated points. We conjecture this is valid for all $L_h$.
The hard hexagon transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ for $L_h=3,~6,~ 9$ also has the remarkable property that all the roots of the resultant on the interval $-1<z <z_d$ have multiplicity two. This is very strong evidence to support the conjecture that hard hexagons with free boundary conditions in one direction and cyclic in the other direction is obtained as a limit from a model which obeys the boundary Yang-Baxter equation of [@cher; @skl].
Neither property i) nor ii) can be considered as being generic and neither property holds for hard squares where there are small gaps in the equimodular curves where the maximum eigenvalues of both $T_c(z;L_h)$ and $T_F(z;L_h)$ are real and non-degenerate. These gaps are caused by the collision of a complex conjugate pair of eigenvalues at the boundaries of the gaps. On $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ the maximum eigenvalue of $T_C(z;L_h)$ is in the sector $P=0^+$. We have computed these gaps numerically for $L_h\leq 20$ and more accurately from the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial for $L_h\leq
14$. We give these gaps in table \[tab:gaps1\] for $L_h\leq 20.$ For $L_h\geq22$ most of the gaps are too small to actually observe their width, but their locations can still be determined numerically and are given in table \[tab:gaps2\] for $22\leq L_h \leq
30$.
$L_h$ $z_l(L_h)$ $z_r(L_h)$ gap eigenvalue sign
------- ---------------- ---------------- -------------------------- -----------------
$6$ $-0.52385422$ $-0.47481121$ $4.904301\times 10^{-2}$ $-$
$8$ $-0.30605227$ $-0.30360084$ $2.35243\times 10^{-3}$ $-$
$10$ $-0.23737268$ $-0.23720002$ $1.7266\times 10^{-4}$ $-$
$-0.77929238$ $-0.73645527$ $4.283711\times 10^{-2}$ $+$
$12$ $-0.20401756$ $-0.20400239$ $1.517\times10^{-5}$ $-$
$-0.49539291$ $-0.49352002$ $1.87289\times 10^{-3}$ $+$
$14$ $-0.18464415$ $-0.18464265$ $1.50\times 10^{-6}$ $-$
$-0.37193269$ $-0.37180394$ $1.2875 \times 10^{-4}$ $+$
$-0.92551046$ $-0.91949326$ $6.01721\times 10^{-3}$ $-$
$16$ $-0.17211444$ $-0.1721143$ $1.4\times 10^{-7}$ $-$
$-0.305086$ $-0.305078$ $8\times 10^{-6}$ $+$
$-0.64336$ $-0.64204$ $1.32\times 10^{-3}$ $-$
$18$ $-0.163389012$ $-0.163388998$ $1.4\times 10^{-8}$ $-$
$-0.2643054$ $-0.2643045$ $9\times 10^{-7}$ $+$
$-0.494482$ $-0.494388$ $9.4\times 10^{-5}$ $-$
$20$ $-0.156991031$ $-0.156991029$ $2\times 10^{-9}$ $-$
$-0.23723539$ $-0.23723530$ $9\times 10^{-8}$ $+$
$-0.404127$ $-0.494120$ $7\times 10^{-6}$ $-$
$-0.7537$ $-0.7523$ $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ $+$
: The gaps on the segment $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ where the maximum eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ for hard squares on cylindrical chains of length $L_h$ is real for $6\leq L_h \leq 20$.[]{data-label="tab:gaps1"}
The gaps of $T_F(z;L_h)$ are not the same as those of $T_C(z;L_h)$. The gaps of $T_F(z;L_h)$ are given in table \[tab:gaps1f\] where we see that with increasing $L_h$ they approach the gaps of $T_C(z;L_h)$ of table \[tab:gaps1\].
The location of gaps for larger values of $L_h$ may be extrapolated by observing that when the maximum eigenvalues $\lambda_{\rm max}$ are complex they may be written as $|\lambda_{\rm max}|e^{\pm i\theta/2}$ where $\theta$ is defined in section \[zerostophase\]. The eigenvalues collide and become real when $\theta/\pi$ is an integer. In principle each of the separate equimodular curves on $-1\leq z\leq z_d$ could be independent of each other, but as long as we are to the right of any equimodular curve which intersects the $z$ axis, we define by convention the eigenvalue phase at the right of a gap to be the same as the phase at the left of the gap. We then choose $\theta$ not to be restricted to the interval $0$ to $\pi$ but to continuously increase as $z$ decreases from $z_d$ to the first crossing of an equimodular curve. This convention preserves the alternation of the signs of the real eigenvalues seen in table \[tab:gaps1\]. For $L_h=6$ we illustrate the behavior of this phase in figure \[fig:philh6\]. At the boundaries of the gaps the derivative of the phase diverges as a square root, and for $L_h=6$ this derivative is also plotted in figure \[fig:philh6\].
$L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$22$ $-0.152$ $-0.218$ $-0.346$ $-0.598$
$24$ $-0.148$ $-0.204$ $-0.305$ $-0.494$ $-0.844$
$26$ $-0.145$ $-0.193$ $-0.276$ $-0.423$ $-0.683$
$28$ $-0.143$ $-0.184$ $-0.254$ $-0.371$ $-0.574$ $-0.93$
$30$ $-0.140$ $-0.178$ $-0.237$ $-0.334$ $-0.495$ $-0.75$
$32$ $-0.1388$ $-0.172$ $-0.223$ $-0.305$ $-0.435$ $-0.642$ $-0.972$
$34$ $-0.1373$ $-0.167$ $-0.213$ $-0.282$ $-0.390$ $-0.558$ $-0.815$
$36$ $-0.1360$ $-0.163$ $-0.204$ $-0.264$ $-0.355$ $-0.494$ $-0.701$
$38$ $-0.1348$ $-0.160$ $-0.196$ $-0.249$ $-0.327$ $-0.444$ $-0.616$ $-0.871$
$40$ $-0.1338$ $-0.157$ $-0.190$ $-0.237$ $-0.305$ $-0.405$ $-0.548$ $-0.752$
: The location of the very small gaps on the segments $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ where the maximum eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$ for hard squares is real. For $L_h=22,~24,~26,~ 28,~30$ the values are obtained from the data; for $L_h\geq 32$ the values are obtained from extrapolation using figure \[fig:phi\]. []{data-label="tab:gaps2"}
$L_h$ $z_l(L_h)$ $z_r(L_h)$ gap eigenvalue sign
------- ---------------- ---------------- --------------------- -----------------
$6$ $-0.4517$ $-0.4439$ $7.8\times 10^{-3}$ $-$
$8$ $-0.3004$ $-0.2999$ $5\times 10^{-4}$ $-$
$10$ $-0.23987$ $-0.23983$ $4\times 10^{-5}$ $-$
$-0.6933$ $-0.6868$ $6.6\times 10^{-3}$ $+$
$12$ $-0.2079551$ $-0.2079504$ $4.6\times 19^{-6}$ $-$
$-0.46977$ $-0.46908$ $6.9\times 10^{-4}$ $+$
$14$ $-0.18864888$ $-0.8864835$ $5.3\times 10^{-7}$ $-$
$-0.362749$ $-0.362722$ $2.7\times 10^{-5}$ $+$
$-0.85376$ $-0.85315$ $6.1\times 10^{-4}$ $-$
$16$ $-0.175819604$ $-0.175819540$ $6.4\times 10^{-8}$ $-$
$-0.3024077$ $-0.3024052$ $2.5\times 10^{-6}$ $+$
$-0.61069$ $-0.61049$ $2.0\times 10^{-4}$ $-$
: The gaps on the segment $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ where the maximum eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ for hard squares on the free chain of length $L_h$ is real for $6\leq L_h \leq 16$.[]{data-label="tab:gaps1f"}
For any given value of $z$ this unrestricted phase grows linearly with $L_h$ and thus we define a normalized phase $$\phi=\frac{\theta}{2\pi L_h}.
\label{phasephi}$$ The gaps occur when $L_h\phi=1$. In figure \[fig:phi\] we plot the normalized phases $\phi_C$ of $T_C(z;L_h)$ for $4\leq L_h\leq 26$ and observe that they fall remarkably close to a common limiting curve. We may thus use this curve to extrapolate the locations of the gaps for $L_h\geq 32$. These values are given in table \[tab:gaps2\] for $32\leq L_h \leq 40$. We also plot in figure \[fig:phi\] the normalized phase $\phi_F$ for $T_F(z;L_h)$ and note that $\phi_F\rightarrow \phi_C$ as $L_h$ becomes large.
The density of partition zeros of $L\times L$ lattices on the negative $z$ axis {#density}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both hard squares and hard hexagons the zeros on the negative real axis are sufficiently dense that a quantitative comparison in terms of a density is possible.
The density of partition function zeros on $L_v\times L_h$ lattices with $L_v/L_h$ fixed and $L_v,~L_h\rightarrow \infty$ is the limit of the finite lattice quantity $${\tilde D}_{L_v,L_h}(z_j)=\frac{1}{L_vL_h(z_{j+1}-z_j)}>0
\label{densdef}$$ and the positions of the zeros $z_j$ increase monotonically with $j$. To analyze this density we will also need the $n^{\rm th}$ order lattice derivative $${\tilde D}^{(n)}_{L_v,L_h}(z_j)=\frac{{\tilde D}^{(n-1)}_{L_v,L_h}(z_{j+1})
-{\tilde D}^{(n-1)}_{L_v,L_h}(z_j)}{z_{j+1}-z_j}.$$
As long as the density on $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ is the boundary of the zero free region which includes the positive real axis (and where the thermodynamic limiting free energy is independent of the aspect ratio $L_v/L_h$), the limiting density computed directly for the $L_v\times L_h$ lattice is given in terms of the normalized phase angle (\[phasephi\]) $\phi(z)$ on the interval $-1\leq z \leq z_d$ by use of (\[phidensity\]) as $$\lim_{L_h,L_v\rightarrow \infty}{\tilde
D}_{L_v,L_h}(z)=-\lim_{L_h\rightarrow \infty}\frac{d \phi(z)}{dz}.
\label{pzequality}$$
Partition function zeros have been computed for systems much larger than it has been possible to compute eigenvalues and the largest lattices are for the $L\times L$ cylinders. In figure \[fig:der40\] we plot the density and the first three lattice derivatives for hard squares for the $40\times 40$ cylindrical lattice on $-1\leq z \leq z_d$. On this scale the density appears to be quite smooth and a local maximum is seen in the first derivative.
Partition zeros versus phase derivatives
----------------------------------------
For hard hexagons the density of partition function zeros on the negative $z$ axis lie very close to the density computed from the derivative of the phase angle (\[pzequality\]). Moreover all the lattice derivatives are smooth and featureless except very near $z_{d;hh}$ and also agree remarkably well with the derivatives computed from the phase angle. This is in significant contrast to hard squares.
In figure \[fig:dphcomp20\] we compare the density of zeros and its first two lattice derivatives with the same quantities computed from the normalized phase derivative curves of the corresponding transfer matrix for the $22\times 22$ toroidal lattice and the $14\times 14$ cylindrical lattice. For the density almost all zeros are seen to fall remarkably close to the normalized phase derivative curves. In the first derivative of the normalized phase derivative curve we see the divergences due to the gaps at $-0.60$ for $T_C(z;22)$ and at $-0.85$ and $-0.36$ for $T_F(z;14)$. In the second derivative, the divergences become more pronounced and the gap at $-0.35$ of $T_C(z;22)$ becomes noticeable.
The derivatives of the normalized phase derivative curves all exhibit oscillations in the vicinity of $z=-1$ which become larger and cover an increasing segment of the $z$ axis as the order of the derivative increases. In these oscillatory regions noticeable discrepancies between the lattice derivative of the zeros and the derivatives of the normalized phase are apparent.
Glitches in the density of zeros {#glitch}
--------------------------------
The gaps in the equimodular curves of hard squares on $-1\leq z
\leq z_d$ which caused the divergences in the normalized phase curves in figure \[fig:dphcomp20\] lead to irregularities in the density of the $L\times L$ partition function zeros which we refer to as “glitches”. These glitches upset the smoothness of the density of zeros on the finite lattice and become increasingly apparent in the higher derivatives of the density. The glitch at $z=-0.752$ is quite visible in the second and third derivatives in figure \[fig:der40\].
To illustrate further the relation of gaps to glitches in the density of zeros we plot the third derivatives of the density of cylindrical $L\times L$ lattices on an expanded scale in figure \[fig:expder3\] where we indicate with solid arrows the positions of the corresponding gaps in the $T_C(z;L_h)$ equimodular curves of table \[tab:gaps2\]. On these expanded scales we observe that as the size of the $L\times L$ lattice increases the number of glitches increases, they move to the right and their amplitude decreases. These properties follow from the properties of the gaps of table \[tab:gaps2\] and the normalized phase curve of figure \[fig:phi\].
There also appear to be deviations of the zeros from a smooth curve at values of $z$ where the phases of the complex conjugate pair of maximum modulus eigenvalues are $\pm \pi/2$. These deviations have no relation to gaps in the equimodular curves and are indicate with dashed arrows in figure \[fig:expder3\].
Hard square density of zeros for $z\rightarrow z_d$. {#sec:hszd}
----------------------------------------------------
As $z\rightarrow z_d$ the density diverges as $$D(z)\sim (z_d-z)^{-\alpha},$$ where from the universality of the point $z_d$ with the Lee-Yang edge it is expected that $\alpha=1/6$, which was also found to be the case for hard hexagons. We investigate the exponent $\alpha$ using the method used in [@assis] by plotting in figure \[fig:nearzd\] the quantity $D_L(z)/D^{(1)}_L(z)$ for $L=40$ and compare this with $$D(z)/D'(z)\sim (z_d-z)/\alpha~~{\rm with}~~ \alpha=1/6,$$ which is expected to hold for $z\rightarrow z_d$.
As was the case for hard hexagons this limiting form is seen to hold only for $z$ very close to $z_d$ and for comparison we also plot a fitting function $$f(z)=(z_f-z)/\alpha_f ~~{\rm with}~~
z_f=-0.058,~~\alpha_f=1/0.88,$$ which well approximates the curve in the range $-0.30\leq z \leq
-0.16$. This same phenomenon has been seen in [@jesper equation (4.8) and figure 41] for Hamiltonian chains.
The point $z=-1$
----------------
Hard squares have the remarkable property, which has no counterpart for hard hexagons, that at $z=-1$ all roots of the characteristic equation are either roots of one, or minus one, with various multiplicities. These roots have been computed for the full transfer matrix $T_C(-1;L_h)$ either directly [@fse], [@baxneg] to size $15$ or using a mapping to rhombus tilings [@jon1] to size $L_h=50$. In \[appa\] we present factorizations of the characteristic polynomial $T_C(-1;L_h)$ for the reduced sector $P=0^+$ for $L_h\leq 29$, and of $T_F(-1;L_h)$ for $L_h\leq 20$ both for the unrestricted and positive parity sectors. In \[appb\] we give the partition function values at $z=-1$.
Behavior near $z=-1$
--------------------
The density of zeros of figure \[fig:der40\] for the $40\times 40$ cylinder is finite as $z\rightarrow -1$. However the first derivative is sufficiently scattered for $z\leq -0.95$ that an estimate of the slope is impracticable.
Furthermore there is a great amount of structure in the equimodular curves near the point $z=-1$ where all eigenvalues are equimodular and which is not apparent on the scale of the plots in figure \[fig:evzeroshs\]. We illustrate this complexity for $L_h=12$ for $P=0^+$ in figure \[fig:hszm112\] where we see that there are equimodular curves which intersect the $z$ axis for $z\geq -1$. These level crossings are a feature also for $T_C(z)$ without the restriction to $P=0^+$ and for $T_F(z)$ and $T_F(z)$ with $+$ parity as well. In general there are several such crossings for a given $L_h$. We give the values of the crossing furthest to the right in table \[tab:crossing\]. It is not clear whether these level crossings will persist to the right of $z=-1$ as $L_h\rightarrow\infty$. We also note that often there are more than one such level crossing, as illustrated in figure \[fig:hszm112\] for $T_F(z;12)$.
$L$ $P=0^+$ $T_C$ parity $=+$ $T_F$
------ ------------ ------------ -- ------------- -------------
$12$ $-0.9973$ $-0.91295$ $-0.9988$ same
$14$ none $-0.9195$ $-0.999296$ $-0.999092$
$16$ none $-0.96$ none none
$18$ $-0.99994$ $-0.9990$
$20$ $-0.9995$
$22$ $-0.9999$
$24$ $-0.9974$
$26$ $-0.9990$
$28$ $-0.9996$
: Positions of the right-most equimodular curve crossings of the negative $z$-axis for hard squares of $T_C(z)$ in the sector $P=0^+$ and unrestricted and of $T_F(z)$ in the plus parity sector and unrestricted. []{data-label="tab:crossing"}
Discussion
==========
The three different techniques of series expansions, transfer matrix eigenvalues and partition function zeros give three quite different perspectives on the difference between the integrable hard hexagon model and non-integrable hard squares.
Series expansions
-----------------
Consider first the series expansion of the physical free energy of hard squares [@chan; @jensen], which is analyzed by means of differential approximants, as compared with the exact solution of hard hexagons [@baxterhh].
The hard hexagon free energy for both the high and low density regimes satisfies Fuchsian differential equations which can be obtained from a finite number of terms in a series expansion [@assis].
For an non-integrable model like hard squares, the best kind of differential approximant analysis to be introduced is not clear. For integrable models, even if one has a small number of series coefficients, restricting to Fuchsian ODEs has been seen to be an extremely efficient constraint. However for a (probably non-integrable) model like hard squares, there is no reason to restrict the linear differential equations annihilating the hard square series to be Fuchsian. In [@jensen] the existing 92 term series are analyzed by means of differential approximants but the series is too short to determine whether $z=-1$ is, or is not, a singular point.
The method of series expansions and differential approximants are not well adapted to analyze qualitative differences between hard squares and hard hexagons. This is to be compared with the transfer matrix eigenvalues and partition function zeros presented above which show dramatic differences between the two systems.
Transfer matrices
-----------------
The clearest distinction between integrable hard hexagons and non-integrable hard squares is seen in the factorization properties of the discriminant of the characteristic polynomials of the transfer matrices $T_C(z;L_h)$ and $T_F(z;L_h)$. At the zeros of the discriminant the transfer matrix in general fails to be diagonalizable and the eigenvalues may have singularities.
For hard hexagons these discriminants contain square factors which exclude the existence of gaps in the equimodular curves and singularities of the maximum eigenvalue on the negative $z$-axis. This was observed for $T_C(z;L_h)$ in [@assis]. In the present paper these square factors and lack of gaps has been observed for the transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ of hard hexagons for all value of $L_h$ studied and supports the conjecture that integrability can be established by extending the methods of [@cher]-[@ahn]. For hard squares there are no such factorizations, so that its equimodular curves have gaps and the maximum eigenvalue has singularities on the negative real $z$-axis.
Partition function zeros
------------------------
In [@assis] we qualitatively characterized the partition function zeros as either being on curves or being part of a necklace, and in the present paper we have characterized the zeros as filling up areas. However, further investigation is required to determine if these characterizations of the qualitative appearance of zeros of the finite system characterize the thermodynamic limit. In [@assis] we initiated such a study by examining the dependence of the right-hand endpoints of the necklace on the size of the lattice and observed that the endpoints move to the right as the lattice size increases. However, there is not sufficient data to reliably determine the limiting behavior. Thus, if in the thermodynamic limit the endpoint moved to $z_{c;hh}$ the notion of zeros being on a curve might not persist. Similarly, it needs further investigation to determine if the zeros of hard squares, which we have characterized as filling up an area, will fill the area in the thermodynamic limit or whether further structure develops.
On the negative $z$-axis both hard hexagons and hard squares have a line of zeros which has been investigated in detail in section \[negz\]. The density of zeros for $z<z_{d:hh}$ for hard hexagons is mostly featureless and smooth, which is quite consistent with the low density free energy having a branch cut starting at $z_{d;hh}$. Hard squares zeros, on the other hand, have a series of “glitches” whose number increases as $z$ approaches $z_d$ and which correspond to the locations of the gaps in the equimodular curves. A rigorous analysis of behavior of these glitches needs to be made.
Behavior near $z_c$
-------------------
The equimodular curves of hard hexagons were extensively studied in [@assis]. The equimodular curves, as illustrated for $L_h=21$ in figure \[fig:evzeroshh\], consist of the curve where the low and high density physical free energy are equimodular and a necklace region which surrounds this equimodular curve in part of the left half-plane.
For hard hexagons there is only one unique curve of zeros of the $L\times L$ partition function which is converging towards $z_{c;hh}$ as $L\rightarrow \infty$. However, for hard squares the partition function zeros in figures \[fig:cf\]-\[fig:free\] do not lie on a single unique curve near $z_c$. This is clearly seen in the plots of figure \[fig:hsall\] where the zeros appear to be converging to a wedge behavior as $L\rightarrow
\infty$ which is analogous to the behavior of the equimodular curves of figure \[fig:equimodall\].
The behavior of the equimodular curves of hard squares near $z_c$ in figure \[fig:evzeroshs\] is qualitatively different from the behavior of hard hexagons in figure \[fig:evzeroshh\]. This is vividly illustrated in figure \[fig:equimodall\] where we plot the equimodular curves for $T_c(z;L_h)$ with $P=0^+$ for all values $4\leq
L_h \leq 26$. We see in this figure that there is an ever increasing set of loops in the equimodular curves which approach $z_c$ as $L_h\rightarrow \infty$.
It needs to be investigated if this behavior of both the zeros and the equimodular curves for hard squares will have an effect on the singularity at $z_c$ beyond what is obtained from the analysis of the series expansion of [@chan; @jensen].
Behavior near $z=-1$
--------------------
Finally we note that the relation of the equimodularity of all eigenvalues at $z=-1$ to the analytic behavior of the physical free energy is completely unknown, as is the curious observation for $12\leq L_h\leq 28$ found in table \[tab:crossing\] that there are equimodular curves of $T_C(z;L_h)$ and for $T_F(z;L_h)$ which cross the negative $z$-axis to the right of $z=-1$. There are many values of $L_h$ for which there are more than one such curve. It would be of interest to know if this feature persists for $L_h>28$ and if it does, does the point of rightmost crossing move to the right. If such a phenomenon does exist it would cause a re-evaluation of the role of zeros on the negative $z$-axis.
Conclusions
===========
The techniques of series expansions, universality and the renormalization group apply equally well to describe the dominant behavior at $z_c$ and $z_d$ of hard hexagons and hard squares. However the results of this paper reveal many differences between integrable hard hexagons and non-integrable hard squares which have the potential to create further analytic properties in hard squares which are not present in hard hexagons.
The renormalization group combined with conformal field theory predicts that both $z_c$ and $z_d$ will be isolated regular singularities where the free energy will have a finite number of algebraic or logarithmic singularities, each multiplied by a convergent infinite series. This scenario is, of course, far beyond what can be confirmed by numerical methods. Indeed hard squares are predicted to have the same set of 5 exponents at $z_d$ which hard hexagons have [@joyce],[@assis] even though only two such exponents can be obtained from the 92 terms series expansion [@jensen].
The emergence of the critical singularities predicted by the renormalization group at either $z_c$ or $z_d$ is a phenomenon which relies upon the thermodynamic limit and we have seen that hard squares approach this limit in a more complicated manner than do hard hexagons.
Near $z_c$ the limiting position of the zeros for hard squares appears to be a wedge. This is far more complex than the behavior of hard hexagons.
Near $z_d$ the zeros of both hard hexagons and hard squares are observed to lie on a segment of the negative $z$-axis. If this indeed holds in the thermodynamic limit it would be satisfying if a genuine proof could be found which incorporates the fact that some level crossings have been observed to the right of $z=-1$.
On the negative $z$-axis hard squares have glitches in the density of zeros and gaps in the equimodular curves which hard hexagons do not have. In the thermodynamic limit the glitches and gaps may become a dense set of measure zero by the analysis leading to table \[tab:gaps2\] . Does this give a hint of the analytical structure of non-integrable models?
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
We are pleased to acknowledge fruitful discussions with C. Ahn, A.J. Guttmann, and P.A. Pearce. One of us (JJ) is pleased to thank the Institut Universitaire de France and Agence Nationale de la Recherche under grant ANR-10-BLAN-0401 and the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics for their hospitality. One of us (IJ) was supported by an award under the Merit Allocation Scheme of the NCI National facility at the ANU and by funding under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects scheme by the grant DP140101110. We also made extensive use of the High Performance Computing services offered by ITS Research Services at the University of Melbourne.
Characteristic polynomials at $z=-1$ {#appa}
====================================
In [@jon1] it was proven that all of the eigenvalues of the $T_C(-1;L_h)$ transfer matrix at $z=-1$ are roots of unity and the characteristic polynomials were given in that paper up to $L_h=50$. Below we give the factorized characteristic polynomials $P^{C0+}_{L_h}$ in the $0^+$ sector at $z=-1$ up to $L_h=29$. The transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$ has not been considered before in the literature, and below we give the factorized characteristic polynomials $P^F_{L_h}$ and $P^{F+}_{L_h}$ of the full $T_F(-1;L_h)$ and the restricted positive parity sector, respectively, at $z=-1$ up to $L_h=20$. In all cases divisions are exact.
Characteristic polynomials $P_{L_h}^F$
--------------------------------------
The degree of $P_{L_h}^F$ is exactly the Fibonacci number $F(n)$ defined by the recursion relation $$F(L_h+2) = F(L_h+1) + F(L_h)
\label{fib}$$ with the initial conditions $F(-1)=0$, $F(0)=1$, so that its generating function is $$G^{F} = \frac{(2+t)}{(1-t-t^2)}$$ and thus as $L_h\rightarrow \infty$ the degree of the polynomial $P_{L_h}^F$ grows as $N_G^{L_h}$, where $N_G=(1+{\sqrt 5})/2\sim 1.618\cdots$ is the golden ratio.
The first 20 polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{1} &=&
(x^{6}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)
\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{2} &=& (x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{3} &=& (x^{8}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{4} &=& (x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{5} &=& (x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)/(x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{6} &=& (x^{14}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{7} &=& (x^{18}-1)(x^{12}-1)(x^{8}-1)(x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-2}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{8} &=& (x^{22}-1)(x^{16}-1)^{2}(x^{8}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1)^{2}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{9} &=& (x^{26}-1)(x^{20}-1)^{3}(x^{14}-1)(x^{10}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-2}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{10} &=& (x^{30}-1)(x^{24}-1)^{3}(x^{18}-1)^{2}(x^{8}-1)^{-1}(x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{3}(x^{3}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{11} &=& (x^{34}-1)(x^{28}-1)^{3}(x^{22}-1)^{4}(x^{16}-1)(x^{14}-1)(x^{8}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-3}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{12} &=& (x^{38}-1)(x^{32}-1)^{4}(x^{26}-1)^{6}(x^{20}-1)^{2}(x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1)^{3}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{13} &=& (x^{42}-1)(x^{36}-1)^{5}(x^{30}-1)^{8}(x^{24}-1)^{5}(x^{12}-1)(x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{2}(x^{6}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)^{-3}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{14} &=& (x^{46}-1)(x^{40}-1)^{5}(x^{34}-1)^{11}(x^{28}-1)^{11}(x^{22}-1)^{3}(x^{14}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad
(x^{4}-1)^{4}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{15} &=& (x^{50}-1)(x^{44}-1)^{5}(x^{38}-1)^{14}(x^{32}-1)^{18}(x^{26}-1)^{8}(x^{22}-1)(x^{20}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{16}-1)^{-2}(x^{8}-1)^{2}(x^{4}-1)^{-4}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{16} &=& (x^{54}-1)(x^{48}-1)^{6}(x^{42}-1)^{17}(x^{36}-1)^{25}(x^{30}-1)^{17}(x^{24}-1)^{4}(x^{18}-1)(x^{14}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{12}-1)^{-1}(x^{10}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)^{-1}(x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{4}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{17} &=& (x^{58}-1)(x^{52}-1)^{7}(x^{46}-1)^{21}(x^{40}-1)^{35}(x^{34}-1)^{31}(x^{28}-1)^{11}
(x^{26}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{22}-1)(x^{20}-1)^{3}(x^{14}-1)^{-1}(x^{10}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)^{2}(x^{4}-1)^{-4}(x^{2}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{18} &=& (x^{62}-1)(x^{56}-1)^{7}(x^{50}-1)^{25}(x^{44}-1)^{50}(x^{38}-1)^{52}(x^{32}-1)^{24}(x^{26}-1)^{4} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{22}-1)^{-1}(x^{16}-1)^{2}(x^{8}-1)^{-2}(x^{4}-1)^{5}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{19} &=& (x^{66}-1)(x^{60}-1)^{7}(x^{54}-1)^{29}(x^{48}-1)^{67}(x^{42}-1)^{82}(x^{36}-1)^{50}(x^{30}-1)^{14} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{24}-1)^{-2}(x^{18}-1)^{3}(x^{14}-1)^{-1}(x^{12}-1)(x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{2}(x^{6}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad
(x^{4}-1)^{-5}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F}_{20} &=& (x^{70}-1)(x^{64}-1)^{8}(x^{58}-1)^{34}(x^{52}-1)^{84}(x^{46}-1)^{122}(x^{40}-1)^{97}(x^{34}-1)^{35} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{28}-1)^{4}(x^{26}-1)(x^{20}-1)^{-3}(x^{14}-1)(x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{-2}(x^{4}-1)^{5} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x-1)\end{aligned}$$ and from these we see that the degrees of the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+1$ are $$\hspace{-1.in} 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 3, 8, 9, 17, 20, 33, 45, 74, 105, 167, 250,389,\ldots$$ where we find a “mod 4” effect.
Characteristic polynomials $P_{L_h}^{F+}$
-----------------------------------------
The degrees of $P_{L_h}^{F+}$ follow the sequence A001224 in the OEIS [@oeis] and they are related to the Fibonacci sequence $F(n)$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F(L_h+1)+F(\frac{L_h+1}{2}+1)}{2}, &\qquad& L_h=\mathrm{odd}\\
\frac{F(L_h+1)+F(\frac{L_h}{2})}{2}, &\qquad& L_h=\mathrm{even}\end{aligned}$$ This sequence has the following generating function $$G^{F+} = \frac{G^F}{2} + \frac{t^3+t^2+t+2}{2(1-t^2-t^4)}$$ so that the degree of the polynomials $P_{L_h}^{F+}$ grow as $N_G^{L_h}$ with a sub-dominant growth of $N_G^{L_h/2}$.
The first 20 polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{1} &=& (x^{6}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{2} &=& (x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{3} &=& (x^{8}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{4} &=& (x^{6}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{5} &=& (x^{8}-1)(x^{5}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{6} &=& (x^{7}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)^{-2}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{7} &=& (x^{18}-1)(x^{9}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)(x^{6}-1)^{2}(x^{4}-1)^{-1}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{8} &=& (x^{22}-1)(x^{16}-1)^{2}(x^{11}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1)^{-2}(x^{2}-1)(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{9} &=& (x^{20}-1)^{3}(x^{14}-1)(x^{13}-1)(x^{10}-1)^{-3}(x^{8}-1)(x^{7}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1)^{-2} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{10} &=& (x^{18}-1)^{2}(x^{15}-1)(x^{12}-1)^{3}(x^{9}-1)^{-2}(x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{2}(x^{3}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{-2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{11} &=& (x^{34}-1)(x^{17}-1)^{-1}(x^{16}-1)(x^{14}-1)^{4}(x^{11}-1)^{4}(x^{4}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{12} &=& (x^{38}-1)(x^{32}-1)^{4}(x^{19}-1)^{-1}(x^{16}-1)^{-4}(x^{13}-1)^{6}(x^{10}-1)^{3}(x^{2}-1)^{2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{13} &=& (x^{36}-1)^{5}(x^{30}-1)^{8}(x^{21}-1)(x^{18}-1)^{-5}(x^{15}-1)^{-8}(x^{12}-1)^{6}
(x^{10}-1)(x^{9}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{8}-1)(x^{6}-1)(x^{5}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1)^{-2}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{14} &=& (x^{34}-1)^{11}(x^{28}-1)^{11}(x^{23}-1)(x^{20}-1)^{5}(x^{17}-1)^{-11}(x^{14}-1)^{-11}
(x^{11}-1)^{3} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)^{3}(x^{2}-1)^{-3}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{15} &=& (x^{50}-1)(x^{32}-1)^{18}(x^{26}-1)^{8}(x^{22}-1)^{6}(x^{25}-1)^{-1}(x^{19}-1)^{14}
(x^{16}-1)^{-18} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{13}-1)^{-8}(x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-2}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{16} &=& (x^{54}-1)(x^{48}-1)^{6}(x^{30}-1)^{17}(x^{27}-1)^{-1}(x^{24}-1)^{-2}(x^{21}-1)^{17}(x^{18}-1)^{26} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{15}-1)^{-17}(x^{12}-1)^{-4}(x^{10}-1)^{-1}(x^{7}-1)(x^{6}-1)(x^{5}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{2}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{17} &=& (x^{52}-1)^{7}(x^{46}-1)^{21}(x^{29}-1)(x^{28}-1)^{11}(x^{26}-1)^{-7}(x^{23}-1)^{-21}
(x^{22}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{20}-1)^{38}(x^{17}-1)^{31}(x^{14}-1)^{-11}(x^{11}-1)^{-1}(x^{10}-1)^{-1}(x^{8}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)^{-3}(x^{2}-1)(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{18} &=& (x^{50}-1)^{25}(x^{44}-1)^{50}(x^{31}-1)(x^{28}-1)^{7}(x^{26}-1)^{4}(x^{25}-1)^{-25}
(x^{22}-1)^{-50} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{19}-1)^{52}(x^{16}-1)^{26}(x^{13}-1)^{-4}(x^{8}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1)^{4}(x^{2}-1)^{-3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{19} &=& (x^{66}-1)(x^{48}-1)^{67}(x^{42}-1)^{82}(x^{33}-1)^{-1}(x^{30}-1)^{8}(x^{27}-1)^{29}
(x^{24}-1)^{-66} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{21}-1)^{-82}(x^{18}-1)^{52}(x^{15}-1)^{13}(x^{14}-1)^{-1}(x^{12}-1)^{-1}(x^{9}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{8}-1)(x^{7}-1)(x^{6}-1)^{2}(x^{5}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{-1}(x^{3}-1)^{-1}(x^{2}-1)^{-2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{F+}_{20} &=& (x^{70}-1)(x^{64}-1)^{8}(x^{46}-1)^{122}(x^{40}-1)^{97}(x^{35}-1)^{-1}(x^{32}-1)^{-8}(x^{29}-1)^{34} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{26}-1)^{85}(x^{23}-1)^{-122}(x^{20}-1)^{-97}(x^{17}-1)^{35}(x^{14}-1)^{5}(x^{8}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{3}\end{aligned}$$ and from these we find that the degrees of the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+1$ are $$\hspace{-1.in} 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 7, 11, 8, 10, 20, 47, 69, 86, 103, 162, \ldots$$ where again there is a “mod 4” effect.
Characteristic polynomials $P^C_{L_h}$
--------------------------------------
The characteristic polynomials $P^C_{L_h}$ for $T_C(-1;L_h)$ have been well analyzed in [@jon1] and are listed in appendix A of that paper to $L_h=50$. The degree of the polynomials are the Lucas numbers which satisfy the recursion relation (\[fib\]) with initial conditions $L(0)=2,~L(1)=1$ and which have the generating function $$G^C = \frac{1+2t}{(1-t-t^2)}$$ From the long list of [@jon1] we find that the degrees of the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+ 1$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} 1,1,2,3,0,4,1,7,8,13,2,26,9,49,38,107,28,228,49,501,324,1101,258,2766,469, \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} 5845,3790,13555,2376,35624,5813,75807,38036,180213,30482,480782,69593, \nonumber\\\hspace{-1.in} 1047429,485658,2542453,385020,6794812,914105,15114481,9570844,36794329,\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} 5212354,101089306,12602653,222317557, \ldots\end{aligned}$$ where we find a “mod 6” effect.
Characteristic polynomials $P_{L_h}^{C0+}$
------------------------------------------
The degrees of the polynomials $P_{L_h}^{C0+}$ are discussed in appendix B of [@ree] and are the series A129526 in the OEIS [@oeis]. However, an explicit form is not known.
We have computed the characteristic polynomials in the less restrictive case of the momentum $P=0$ sector. The degrees of the polynomials follow the series A000358 in the OEIS [@oeis], which is given by the formula $$\frac{1}{L_h}\sum_{n|L_h}\phi\left(\frac{L_h}{n}\right)
[F(n-2)+F(n)]
\label{p0}$$ where $\phi(n)$ is Euler’s totient function (the number of positive integers $<n$ which are relatively prime with $n$). In particular when $L_h$ is prime (\[p0\]) specializes to $$1+\frac{F(L_h-2)+F(L_h)-1}{L_h}$$ which grows as $N_G^{L_h}$.
The order of the restricted positive parity polynomial $P^{C0+}$ is greater than the negative parity polynomial $P^{C0-}$ and thus $P^{C0+}$ also grows as $N_G^{L_h}$.
The first 29 polynomials are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{1} &=& (x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{2} &=& (x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{3} &=& (x^{3}-1)(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{4} &=& (x^{2}-1)^{2}(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{5} &=& (x^{2}-1)^{2}(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{6} &=& (x^{4}-1)(x^{3}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{7} &=& (x^{4}-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)^{-2}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{8} &=& (x^{10}-1)(x^{5}-1)^{-1}(x-1)(x^{2}-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{9} &=& (x^{3}-1)(x-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)^{2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{10} &=& (x^{8}-1)(x^{7}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{11} &=& (x^{5}-1)^{2}(x^{4}-1)^{3}(x^{2}-1)^{-3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{12} &=& (x^{18}-1)(x^{9}-1)^{-1}(x^{6}-1)(x^{4}-1)(x^{3}-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{13} &=& (x^{7}-1)^{3}(x^{2}-1)^{6}(x-1)^{-2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{14} &=& (x^{16}-1)^{3}(x^{11}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{-3}(x^{5}-1)(x^{4}-1)(x^{2}-1)^{3}(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{15} &=& (x^{9}-1)^{4}(x^{6}-1)^{2}(x^{4}-1)^{4}(x^{3}-1)^{3}(x^{2}-1)^{-4}(x-1)^{-1}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{16} &=& (x^{26}-1)(x^{14}-1)^{3}(x^{13}-1)^{-1}(x^{10}-1)^{3}(x^{7}-1)^{-2}(x^{5}-1)^{3}(x^{4}-1)^{5} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{-4}(x-1)\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{17} &=& (x^{11}-1)^{6}(x^{8}-1)^{8}(x^{4}-1)^{-2}(x^{2}-1)^{4}(x-1)^{3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{18} &=& (x^{24}-1)^{6}(x^{18}-1)^{3}(x^{15}-1)(x^{12}-1)^{-5}(x^{9}-1)^{3}(x^{6}-1)^{-1}(x^{4}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad
(x^{3}-1)^{4}(x^{2}-1)^{8}(x-1)^{3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{19} &=& (x^{13}-1)^{8}(x^{10}-1)^{18}(x^{7}-1)^{3}(x^{5}-1)^{-6}(x^{4}-1)^{5}(x^{2}-1)^{-3}(x-1)^{2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{20} &=& (x^{34}-1)(x^{22}-1)^{15}(x^{17}-1)^{-1}(x^{16}-1)^{2}(x^{14}-1)^{6}(x^{11}-1)^{-8}(x^{8}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad
(x^{7}-1)^{4}(x^{4}-1)^{17}(x^{2}-1)^{-12}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{21} &=& (x^{15}-1)^{10}(x^{12}-1)^{27}(x^{9}-1)^{12}(x^{6}-1)^{3}(x^{5}-1)(x^{4}-1)^{9}(x^{3}-1)^{7} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{-1}(x-1)^{-3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{22} &=& (x^{32}-1)^{10}(x^{26}-1)^{14}(x^{20}-1)^{15}(x^{19}-1)(x^{16}-1)^{-10}(x^{13}-1)^{14} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad
(x^{10}-1)^{-9}(x^{7}-1)(x^{5}-1)^{6}(x^{4}-1)^{2}(x^{2}-1)^{22}(x-1)^{-2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{23} &=& (x^{17}-1)^{13}(x^{14}-1)^{45}(x^{11}-1)^{43}(x^{8}-1)^{4}(x^{7}-1)^{15}(x^{4}-1)^{5} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{2}-1)^{16}(x-1)^{-3}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{24} &=& (x^{42}-1)(x^{30}-1)^{45}(x^{24}-1)^{27}(x^{21}-1)^{-1}(x^{18}-1)^{16}(x^{15}-1)^{-20} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{12}
-1)^{9}(x^{10}-1)^{10}(x^{9}-1)^{2}(x^{8}-1)^{3}(x^{6}-1)^{9}(x^{5}-1)^{-10} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)^{27}(x^{3}-1)^{12}(x^{2}-1)^{-23}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{25} &=& (x^{19}-1)^{16}(x^{16}-1)^{92}(x^{13}-1)^{116}(x^{10}-1)^{20}(x^{8}-1)^{-8}(x^{5}-1)^{5} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{4}-1)^{41}(x^{2}-1)^{-33}(x-1)^{2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{26} &=& (x^{40}-1)^{15}(x^{34}-1)^{42}(x^{28}-1)^{105}(x^{23}-1)(x^{22}-1)^{20}(x^{20}-1)^{-15} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{17}-1)^{36}(x^{16}-1)(x^{14}-1)^{-45}(x^{11}-1)^{9}(x^{8}-1)^{-1} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{7}-1)^{28}(x^{4}-1)^{16}(x^{2}-1)^{26}(x-1)^{4}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{27} &=& (x^{21}-1)^{19}(x^{18}-1)^{155}(x^{15}-1)^{263}(x^{12}-1)^{92}(x^{9}-1)^{-27}(x^{7}-1) \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{5}-1)^{26}(x^{4}-1)^{17}(x^{3}-1)^{19}(x^{6}-1)^{7}(x-1)^{9}(x^{2}-1)^{67}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{28} &=& (x^{50}-1)(x^{38}-1)^{120}(x^{32}-1)^{168}(x^{26}-1)^{110}(x^{25}-1)^{-1}(x^{22}-1)^{15} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{20}-1)^{5}(x^{19}-1)^{-54}(x^{16}-1)^{42}(x^{13}-1)^{-26}(x^{11}-1)^{6} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{10}-1)(x^{8}-1)^{43}(x
^{5}-1)^{4}(x^{4}-1)^{55}(x^{2}-1)^{-10}(x-1)^{2}\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} P^{C0+}_{29} &=& (x^{23}-1)^{23}(x^{20}-1)^{205}(x^{17}-1)^{581}(x^{14}-1)^{364}(x^{11}-1)^{36}
(x^{7}-1)^{-14} \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\qquad (x^{10}-1)^{15}(x^{5}-1)^{-5}(x^{4}-1)^{131}(x^{2}-1)^{-115}\end{aligned}$$ and from these we find that the degrees of the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $+1$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} 1,2,2,3,3,5,5,8,9,14,16,26,31,49,64,99,133,209,291,455,657,
1022,1510,2359,\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} 3545,5536,8442,13201,20319,31836,49353,77436,
120711,189674,296854,467160,\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} 733363,1155647,1818594,2869378,4524081,7146483, \ldots\end{aligned}$$ where we find there is a “mod 6” effect.
Partition functions at $z=-1$ {#appb}
=============================
Successive powers of transfer matrices always satisfy a linear recursion relation, since any matrix satisfies its own characteristic polynomial. Therefore, any linear function of the matrix or its components which is independent of the power of the matrix will also satisfy the same linear recursion relation. The usual functions involved in creating partition functions from transfer matrices, the trace of the matrix, dot products with boundary vectors, and modified traces to account for M[ö]{}bius and Klein bottle boundary conditions, all cause the respective partition functions to satisfy the same linear recursion relation as their transfer matrix, its characteristic polynomial. In particular, the Klein bottle partition function $Z^{KC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ satisfies the same linear recursion relation in $L_v$ as the torus $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$, since it is constructed from the same transfer matrix $T_C(z;L_h)$, and the cylinder partition function $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ satisfies the same recursion relation in $L_v$ as the M[ö]{}bius partition function $Z^{MF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ since they are both constructed from the same transfer matrix $T_F(z;L_h)$.
Therefore, the generating functions for the partition functions for a given $L_h$ and for general $z$ are rational functions in $z$ and $x=L_v$ whose denominators are the characteristic polynomials of the $L_h$ transfer matrix and whose numerators are polynomials given by the product of the characteristic polynomial and the initial terms of the series (the numerator has degree 1 less in $x$ than the degree of the characteristic polynomial).
When the transfer matrix can be block diagonalized and the boundary vector dot products cause the partition function to be a function of only a restricted set of matrices in the direct sum, the partition function will satisfy a recursion relation of smaller order than the order of the full transfer matrix. As an example, $T_C(z;L_h)$ can be block diagonalized into different momentum sectors, and $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ is only a function of the reflection symmetric zero momentum sector $0^+$, so that the cylinder $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ will satisfy a recursion relation in $L_v$ of the order of the $0^+$ sector and not the order of the full $T_C(z;L_h)$ matrix. Likewise, $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ satisfies a recursion relation in $L_v$ of the order of the positive parity sector of $T_F(z;L_h)$.
Beyond restrictions to particular matrix sectors, however, in general the polynomials in the numerator and denominator of the generating functions do not partially cancel, regardless of the initial conditions of the recursion relation, so that partition functions in $z$ generally satisfy a recursion relation of the same order as its transfer matrix. This holds generically for hard hexagons and hard squares even if at particular values of $z$ some cancellations can occur in the generating function.
For hard squares at $z=-1$ the denominators of the generating functions simplify to the expressions given in appendix A, whose orders grow according to the order of the transfer matrices. The numerators, however, are such that massive cancellations occur, so that the partition functions as a function of $x=L_v$ at $z=-1$ satisfy linear recursion relations of much smaller degree than than the partition function does for general $z$. The form of the numerator is dependent on the initial conditions of the recursion relation, that is, the partition function value at $z=-1$ for the first several values of $L_v$. This, in turn, is dependent on boundary conditions: both the torus and the Klein bottle partition functions satisfy the same linear recursion relation of their transfer matrix $T_C(-1;L_h)$, but the numerators of their generating functions are different, so that the Klein bottle exhibits much more massive cancellations than the torus for a given $L_h$. Likewise, the cylinder $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ and the M[ö]{}bius band have different recursion relation orders due to different amounts of cancellations at $z=-1$.
The cylinder has the property that for odd $L_h$, $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)=-2$ whenever $\mathrm{gcd}(L_h-1,L_v)=0\quad\mathrm{mod}~3$, and $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)=1$ otherwise [@jon3]. Therefore, the linear recursion relation of $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ for odd $L_h$ is always of order 1 or 2, even though for generic $z$ the partition function $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(z)$ satisfies a linear recursion relation of the order of the $0^+$ sector of the $T_C(z;L_h)$ transfer matrices, which grows as $N_G^{L_h}$. The initial conditions for the cylinder for odd $L_h$, therefore, are able to effect incredible cancellations to its generating function whose denominators are given in Appendix A.
In [@jon1] it was proven that for the torus partition function, $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)=1$ whenever $L_v,L_h$ are co-prime. Since for each $L_h$ the torus at $z=-1$ satisfies a linear recursion relation, its initial conditions happen to be exactly suited to allow for this number theoretic property. This property does not extend to other boundary conditions even when they satisfy the same overall linear recursion relation. The Klein bottle satisfies the same $T_C(-1;L_h)$ linear recursion relation that the torus also satisfies, but its initial conditions do not cause it to share in the torus’ co-primality property.
A repeating sequence with period $n$ will have a generating function of the form $p(x)/(1-x^n)$. Therefore, since all of the eigenvalues of the transfer matrices $T_C(-1
;L_h)$ and $T_F(-1;L_h)$ are roots of unity, as long as the denominators have only square-free factors, the sequences of partition function values at $z=-1$ will be repeating, with a period given by the lcm of the exponents $n_j$ in the factors $(1-x^{n_j})$. Most sequences below are repeating, with a period often much larger than the order of the transfer matrix. For the limited cases considered below, all generating functions along a periodic direction (including a twist for M[ö]{}bius bands and Klein bottles) are repeating. Along the free direction, the sequences are not always repeating; the cylinder for $L_h=0$ mod 4 is non-repeating and the free-free partition function is non-repeating for four of the $L_h$ considered. In [@adam] a general form for the generating functions of $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ for even $L_h$ is conjectured, along with the conjecture that for even $L_h$ the only repeating sequences for $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ are when $L_h=2$ mod 4. We make the following conjecture:
Along a periodic direction (including twists) all generating functions are repeating.
We further find below that along the periodic direction, all repeating sequences are sums of repeating sub-sequences of period $p_j$ which have value zero except at locations $p_j-1$ mod $p_j$ where their value is an integer multiple of $p_j$. Often the value is exactly $p_j$. Therefore, the generating functions along a periodic direction are logarithmic derivatives of a product of factors of the form $(1-x^{p_j})^{m_j}$, where $m_j$ is an integer. We conjecture that this always holds:
Along a periodic direction (including twists), all generating functions are logarithmic derivatives of products of the form $\prod_j
(1-x^{p_j})^{m_j}$, where $p_j$ and $m_j$ are integers.
As it turns out, for the limited cases considered below, we find surprisingly that the generating functions for the torus and the cylinder along the periodic direction are exactly the negative of the logarithmic derivative of the characteristic polynomial of their transfer matrices at $z=-1$, so that we have the further conjecture:
The generating functions of the torus and cylinder (along the periodic direction) are equal to the negative of the logarithm of their characteristic polynomials, that is, $G^{CC}_{L_h}=-\frac{d}{dx}\ln\left(P^{CC}_{L_h}\right)$ and $G^{CF}_{L_h}=-\frac{d}{dx}\ln\left(P^{CF}_{L_h}\right)$, respectively.
This is similar to a conjecture in [@aab]. We note that this does not hold for general $z$, nor for M[ö]{}bius bands or Klein bottles at $z=-1$. Due to this conjecture, we can use the results from appendix \[appa\] to further the tables of periods for the sequences $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ and $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$, where we notice a mod 3 pattern.
For $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$, for $L_h=0$ mod 3 we conjecture that the periods are given by the $\mathrm{lcm}(L_h, 2L_h, \ldots, nL_h)$, where $n$ is often given by $n=L_h/3-1$.
For $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$, for $L_h=1$ mod 3 we conjecture that the periods are given by the $\mathrm{lcm}(6,12, \ldots, 6n)$, where $n$ is often $2(L_h-4)/3+1$.
We also note that the periods of the cylinder (along the periodic $L_v$ direction), the M[ö]{}bius band, and the free-free plane are all equal, and the periods of the Klein bottle and cylinder (along the free $L_v$ direction) are equal.
Below we list both the generating functions and tables of values for all boundary conditions, since number theoretic properties such as the torus’s co-primality property can be missed by simply considering the generating functions. The periods of repeating sequences are tabulated, along with the minimal order of the recursion relations. All generating functions listed were determined by computing all partition function values up to the order of the transfer matrix and canceling the numerator and denominators of the generating function to arrive at the minimal order linear recursion relation; however, we extend the table of values to higher $L_h$.
The torus $Z^{CC}_{Lv,L_h}(-1)$
-------------------------------
$\mathbf{L_h\backslash L_v}$ **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **17** **18** **19** **20**
------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**1** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**2** 1 -1 1 3 1 -1 1 3 1 -1 1 3 1 -1 1 3 1 -1 1 3
**3** 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1
**4** 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7
**5** 1 1 1 1 -9 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 -9 1 1 1 1 11
**6** 1 -1 4 3 1 14 1 3 4 -1 1 18 1 -1 4 3 1 14 1 3
**7** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -27 1 1 1 1 1 1
**8** 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 43 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 47
**9** 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 40 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 76 1 1
**10** 1 -1 1 3 11 -1 1 43 1 9 1 3 1 69 11 43 1 -1 1 13
**11** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**12** 1 3 4 7 1 18 1 7 4 3 1 166 1 3 4 7 1 126 1 7
**13** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -51 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**14** 1 -1 1 3 1 -1 -27 3 1 69 1 3 1 55 1 451 1 -1 1 73
**15** 1 1 4 1 -9 4 1 1 4 11 1 4 1 1 174 1 1 4 1 11
: $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$
The generating functions $G^{CC}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_1 = \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{CC}_2 = G^{CC}_1 + \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)}, \qquad G^{CC}_3 = G^{CC}_1 + \frac{3x^2}{(1-x^3)}, && \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_4 = G^{CC}_2 + \frac{4x}{(1-x^2)}, \qquad G^{CC}_5 = G^{CC}_1 + \frac{20x^9}{(1-x^{10})} - \frac{10x^4}{(1-x^5)}, \qquad &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_6 = G^{CC}_3 -G^{CC}_1 + G^{CC}_2 + \frac{12x^5}{(1-x^6)}, \qquad G^{CC}_7 = G^{CC}_1 + \frac{56x^{27}}{(1-x^{28})} - \frac{28x^{13}}{(1-x^{14})}, && \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_8 = G^{CC}_4 + \frac{40x^9}{(1-x^{10})}, \qquad G^{CC}_9 = G^{CC}_3 + \frac{36x^{17}}{(1-x^{18})} + \frac{36x^8}{(1-x^9)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_{10} = G^{CC}_2 + \frac{70x^{13}}{(1-x^{14})} +
\frac{10x^4}{(1-x^5)} + \frac{40x^7}{(1-x^8)}, \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CC}_{11} = G^{CC}_1 + \frac{110x^{54}}{(1-x^{55})} + \frac{176x^{43}}{(1-x^{44})} - \frac{88x^{21}}{(1-x^{22})}. &&\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{CC}$ $L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
---------------- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
$T_C$ order 2 3 4 7 11 18 29 47 76 123 199
min rec order 1 3 3 4 6 8 15 12 18 24 77
period 1 4 3 4 10 12 28 20 18 280 220
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{CC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
The Klein bottle $Z^{KC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ with twist in $L_v$ direction
---------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{L_h\backslash L_v}$ **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **17** **18** **19** **20**
------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**1** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**2** -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1
**3** -1 -1 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1 2 -1 -1
**4** -1 5 -1 1 -1 5 -1 1 -1 5 -1 1 -1 5 -1 1 -1 5 -1 1
**5** -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3
**6** 1 -5 4 -1 1 -2 1 -1 4 -5 1 2 1 -5 4 -1 1 -2 1 -1
**7** 1 -3 1 5 1 -3 1 5 1 -3 1 5 1 -3 1 5 1 -3 1 5
**8** 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3 1 7 1 3
**9** 1 5 4 5 1 8 1 5 4 5 1 8 1 5 4 5 1 8 1 5
**10** -1 -7 -1 -3 -1 -7 13 5 -1 -7 -1 -3 -1 -7 -1 5 -1 -7 -1 -3
**11** -1 -5 -1 3 9 -5 -1 3 -1 5 -1 3 -1 -5 9 3 -1 -5 -1 13
**12** -1 9 2 5 -1 12 -1 5 2 9 -1 8 -1 9 2 5 -1 12 -1 5
**13** -1 7 -1 7 -1 7 13 7 -1 7 -1 7 -1 21 -1 7 -1 7 -1 7
**14** 1 -9 1 3 1 -9 1 -29 1 1 23 3 1 -9 1 3 1 -9 1 13
: $Z^{KC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$
The generating functions $G^{KC}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{KC}_{1} = \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{KC}_{2} = -G^{KC}_{1} + \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)}, \qquad G^{KC}_{3} = -G^{KC}_{1} + \frac{3x^2}{(1-x^3)}, && \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{KC}_{4} = -G^{KC}_{2} - 2G^{KC}_{1} + \frac{4x}{(1-x^2)}, \qquad G^{KC}_{5} = G^{KC}_{4} + G^{KC}_{2} + G^{KC}_{1}, && \nonumber\\ \hspace{-1.in} G^{KC}_{6} = -G^{KC}_{4} + G^{KC}_{3} + G^{KC}_{1}, \qquad G^{KC}_{7} = 2G^{KC}_{2} + 3G^{KC}_{1}, \qquad G^{KC}_{8} = G^{KC}_{4} + 2G^{KC}_{1}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{KC}_{9} = G^{KC}_{5} + G^{KC}_{3} + 3G^{KC}_{1}, \qquad G^{KC}_{10} = -G^{KC}_{8} - \frac{14x^{13}}{(1-x^{14})} + \frac{8x^7}{(1-x^8)} + \frac{14x^6}{(1-x^7)}, && \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{KC}_{11} = G^{KC}_{7} - 2G^{KC}_{1} + \frac{10x^4}{(1-x^5)}. &&\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{KC}$ $L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
---------------- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
$T_C$ order 2 3 4 7 11 18 29 47 76 123 199
min rec order 1 3 2 4 2 5 3 4 4 20 7
period 1 4 3 4 2 12 4 4 6 56 20
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{KC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
The cylinder $Z^{FC}_{Lv,L_h}(-1) = Z^{CF}_{Lh,L_v}(-1)$
--------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{L_h\backslash L_v}$ **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **17** **18** **19** **20**
------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**1** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**2** -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1
**3** -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1
**4** -1 3 -3 5 -5 7 -7 9 -9 11 -11 13 -13 15 -15 17 -17 19 -19 21
**5** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**6** 2 -1 1 4 -1 -1 4 1 -1 2 1 1 2 -1 1 4 -1 -1 4 1
**7** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**8** -1 3 5 5 3 7 1 1 -1 3 -3 5 3 7 1 9 -1 3 -3 5
**9** -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1
**10** -1 -1 1 1 9 -1 1 1 -11 -1 1 11 9 -1 1 -9 -11 -1 11 11
**11** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**12** 2 3 -3 8 -5 7 8 9 -9 14 -11 13 2 15 -15 8 -17 19 -4 21
**13** 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
**14** -1 -1 1 1 -1 13 1 1 13 -1 15 1 -1 -15 1 15 -15 -1 -13 15
**15** -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1 1 -2 1
**16** -1 3 5 5 3 7 1 33 -1 3 13 5 3 7 -31 9 -1 35 -3 5
: $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1) = Z^{CF}_{L_h,L_v}(-1)$
The generating functions $G^{FC}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. For odd $L_h$ there are only two cases: $$\begin{aligned}
G^{FC}_{3n\pm1} = \frac{1}{(1-x)} \qquad G^{FC}_{3n} = G^{FC}_{3n\pm1} -\frac{3}{(1-x^3)} && \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For even $L_h$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_2 = G^{FC}_1 - \frac{2(1+x)}{(1-x^4)}, \qquad G^{FC}_4 = \frac{x}{(1-x^2)} - \frac{(1-x)^2}{(1-x^2)^2}, \qquad G^{FC}_6 = -G^{FC}_3 + G^{FC}_2 + G^{FC}_1, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_{8} = \frac{1}{5}G^{FC}_{4} - \frac{4}{5}\frac{(1+x)(1-x^5)^2}{(1-x^{10})(1-x)^2} + \frac{8}{5}\frac{x(1+x)(x^3+3)(1-x^5)}{(1-x^{10})(1-x)}, && \nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_{10} = G^{FC}_{2} + \frac{10x(1+x)(1+x^2)}{(1-x^8)} - \frac{10x(x^2+x+1)}{(1-x^7)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_{12} = \frac{7}{9}G^{FC}_{4} - \frac{4(1-x^6)(1-x^9)}{(1-x^{18})} + \frac{2}{3}\frac{(1+x)(1-x^2)(1-x^3)^2}{(1-x^6)^2} + \frac{(2x^5+2x^4+55x^3+55)}{9(1-x^6)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_{14} = G^{FC}_{2} + \frac{28x^3p^{FC}_{14}}{(1-x^{16})} - \frac{14x^3(x^7+x^6+x^2+x+1)}{(1-x^{11})} - \frac{14x^3(1+x)}{(1-x^5)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FC}_{16} = \frac{243G^{FC}_{4}+2108G^{FC}_{1}}{455}
+ \frac{16(1+x)(1-x^{13})p^{FC}_{16;1}}{13(1-x^{26})} +
\frac{32(1+x)(1-x^7)p^{FC}_{16;2}}{7(1-x^{14})} +
\frac{8(1-x^2)p^{FC}_{16;3}}{5(1-x^{10})}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FC}_{14} &=& x^{12}+x^{11}+x^7+x^6+x^5+x^2+x+1, \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FC}_{16;1} &=& -2x^{11}+6x^9-3x^8+4x^7-9x^6+5x^5-5x^4+9x^3-4x^2+3x-6, \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FC}_{16;2} &=& -x^5+3x^3-x^2+x-3, \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FC}_{16;3} &=& 7x^7+7x^6-3x^5+x^4-5x^3+12x^2+6x+10.\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{FC}$ $L_h$ 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
------------------ --- --- ---- --- ---- ---- ----- ----
$T_{C0^+}$ order 2 3 5 8 14 26 49 99
min rec order 2 3 5 7 13 15 25 29
period 4 – 12 – 56 – 880 –
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{FC}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
The generating functions $G^{CF}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{1} = \frac{6x^5}{(1-x^6)} - \frac{3x^2}{(1-x^3)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} + \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{CF}_{2} = \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} + \frac{1}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{3} = \frac{8x^7}{(1-x^8)} - \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} + \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{CF}_{4} = G^{CF}_{1} + G^{CF}_{2} + \frac{4x}{(1-x^2)} - \frac{1}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{5} = G^{CF}_{3} + \frac{10x^9}{(1-x^{10})} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)}, \qquad G^{CF}_{6} = 2G^{CF}_{2} + \frac{14x^{13}}{(1-x^{14})} + \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} - \frac{1}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{7} = G^{CF}_{3} - G^{CF}_{2} + G^{CF}_{1} + \frac{18x^{17}}{(1-x^{18})} + \frac{12x^{11}}{(1-x^{12})}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{8} = -G^{CF}_{3} + \frac{22x^{21}}{(1-x^{22})} + \frac{32x^{15}}{(1-x^{16})} + \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} + \frac{2}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{9} = G^{CF}_{6} - G^{CF}_{5} + G^{CF}_{2} + \frac{26x^{25}}{(1-x^{26})} + \frac{60x^{19}}{(1-x^{20})} + \frac{16x^7}{(1-x^8)} - \frac{24x^3}{(1-x^4)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{CF}_{10} = G^{CF}_{4} - G^{CF}_{3} + G^{CF}_{2} + \frac{30x^{29}}{(1-x^{30})} + \frac{72x^{23}}{(1-x^{24})} + \frac{36x^{17}}{(1-x^{18})}. &&\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{CF}$ $L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
---------------- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ------ -----
$T_F$ order 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
min rec order 2 3 5 6 13 16 26 36 60 60
period 6 4 8 12 40 28 72 176 3640 360
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{CF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
The M[ö]{}bius band $Z^{MF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ with twist in the $L_v$ direction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{L_h\backslash L_v}$ **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **17** **18** **19** **20**
------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**1** 1 -1 -2 -1 1 2 1 -1 -2 -1 1 2 1 -1 -2 -1 1 2 1 -1
**2** -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1
**3** -1 -1 -1 -5 -1 -1 -1 3 -1 -1 -1 -5 -1 -1 -1 3 -1 -1 -1 -5
**4** -1 3 -4 -1 -1 6 -1 -1 -4 3 -1 2 -1 3 -4 -1 -1 6 -1 -1
**5** -1 1 -1 -3 9 1 -1 5 -1 1 -1 -3 -1 1 9 5 -1 1 -1 -3
**6** 1 -5 1 3 1 -5 15 3 1 -5 1 3 1 -5 1 3 1 -5 1 3
**7** 1 -3 -2 -3 1 12 1 5 -20 -3 1 0 1 -3 -2 5 1 12 1 -3
**8** 1 5 1 -3 1 5 1 -27 1 5 -21 -3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 -3
**9** 1 3 1 -5 1 3 -13 3 1 -47 1 -5 27 3 1 3 1 3 1 5
**10** -1 -7 -4 -3 -1 -4 -1 5 -40 -7 -1 72 -1 -7 26 5 -1 -4 -1 -3
**11** -1 -5 -1 -1 -1 -5 -1 -9 -1 -5 87 -1 -1 93 -1 7 -35 -5 -1 -1
**12** -1 7 -1 -5 -1 7 -1 3 -1 57 -1 -5 155 7 -1 -125 -1 7 -39 5
: $Z^{MF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$
The generating functions $G^{MF}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{1} = \frac{6x^5}{(1-x^6)} - \frac{3x^2}{(1-x^3)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} + \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{MF}_{2} = \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} - \frac{1}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{3} = \frac{8x^7}{(1-x^8)} - \frac{4x^3}{(1-x^4)} - \frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{MF}_{4} = -G^{MF}_{2} + G^{MF}_{1} + \frac{4x}{(1-x^2)} - \frac{3}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{5} = G^{MF}_{3} - \frac{10x^9}{(1-x^{10})} + \frac{10x^4}{(1-x^5)} + \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{6} = 2G^{MF}_{2} -\frac{14x^{13}}{(1-x^{14})} + \frac{14x^6}{(1-x^7)} - \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} + \frac{3}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{7} = G^{MF}_{3} + G^{MF}_{2} + G^{MF}_{1} +\frac{18x^{17}}{(1-x^{18})} - \frac{12x^{11}}{(1-x^{12})} -\frac{18x^8}{(1-x^9)} +\frac{12x^5}{(1-x^6)} +\frac{2}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{8} = -3G^{MF}_{3} -5G^{MF}_{2} + \frac{22x^{21}}{(1-x^{22})} +\frac{32x^{15}}{(1-x^{16})} -\frac{22x^{10}}{(1-x^{11})} -\frac{6x}{(1-x^2)} -\frac{7}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{9} = -G^{MF}_{6} + G^{MF}_{3} + G^{MF}_{2} -\frac{26x^{25}}{(1-x^{26})} +\frac{60x^{19}}{(1-x^{20})} +\frac{26x^{12}}{(1-x^{13})} -\frac{50x^9}{(1-x^{10})} -\frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} +\frac{4}{(1-x)}, && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{MF}_{10} = 2G^{MF}_{7} -G^{MF}_{3} -G^{MF}_{1}
-\frac{30x^{29}}{(1-x^{30})} -\frac{72x^{23}}{(1-x^{24})}
+\frac{30x^{14}}{(1-x^{15})} +\frac{96x^{11}}{(1-x^{12})}
-\frac{24x^5}{(1-x^6)} -\frac{3}{(1-x)}. && \nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} &&\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{MF}$ $L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
---------------- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ------ -----
$T_F$ order 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
min rec order 2 3 5 5 13 16 23 35 60 59
period 6 4 8 12 40 28 72 176 3640 360
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{MF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
The free-free plane $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$
------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{L_h\backslash L_v}$ **1** **2** **3** **4** **5** **6** **7** **8** **9** **10** **11** **12** **13** **14** **15** **16** **17** **18** **19** **20**
------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
**1** 0 -1 -1 0 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 1 1 0 -1 -1 0 1 1 0 -1
**2** -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1
**3** -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1
**4** 0 1 -1 2 -1 3 -2 3 -3 4 -3 5 -4 5 -5 6 -5 7 -6 7
**5** 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 3 -1 1 1 -3 3 -1 1 3 -3 3 -1 -1
**6** 1 -1 -1 3 1 -3 1 5 -1 -5 3 5 -3 -3 5 3 -5 -1 5 1
**7** 0 1 1 -2 -1 1 2 3 -1 -2 -1 -1 4 3 -1 -2 -3 3 4 1
**8** -1 1 1 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 -1 1 -3 -1 -3 1 -3 1 1 5
**9** -1 -1 -1 -3 -1 -1 -1 3 3 1 5 1 5 5 1 1 -3 -5 -5 -5
**10** 0 -1 1 4 1 -5 -2 3 1 2 -1 3 -4 -7 7 10 -1 -7 -4 5
**11** 1 1 -1 -3 1 3 -1 -1 5 -1 1 1 -1 -3 -1 7 -1 -3 -3 3
**12** 1 1 -1 5 -3 5 -1 1 1 3 1 5 -1 17 -1 5 1 -1 -1 3
**13** 0 -1 1 -4 3 -3 4 -3 5 -4 -1 -1 2 1 -1 0 5 -3 10 -9
: $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$
The generating functions $G^{FF}_{L_h}$ as a function of $x=L_v$ are given below. $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{1} = \frac{2x^4 (1+x)}{(1-x^6)} + \frac{1}{(1-x^3)} -\frac{1}{(1-x)}, \qquad G^{FF}_{2} = \frac{2x^2(1+x)}{(1-x^4)} -\frac{1}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{3} = \frac{2x^3(x-1)(1+x^2)}{(1-x^8)} + \frac{2x}{(1-x^2)} -\frac{1}{(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{4} = \frac{1}{3}G^{FF}_{1} -\frac{(1-x)^2}{3(1-x^2)^2} +\frac{x}{3(1-x^2)} +\frac{1}{3(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{5} = G^{FF}_{3} + \frac{10x^3(1-x)+4(1-x)^2(2x^2+x+2)}{5(1-x^5)} + \frac{2}{5(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{6} = 2G^{FF}_{2}+\frac{2(1-x)(5x^5+10x^4+x^3-x^2+11x+9)}{7(1-x^7)} +\frac{3}{7(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{7} = G^{FF}_{3} + \frac{p^{FF}_7 (x^6+x^3+1)(1-x^2)}{3(1-x^{18})} + \frac{(1-x)(1-x^2)^2(x^2+x+1)^2}{3(1-x^6)^2} + \frac{1}{3(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{8} = \frac{-3G^{FF}_{4}+G^{FF}_{1}}{11} +\frac{2(1+x)(1-x^{11})p^{FF}_{8;1}}{11(1-x^{22})} +\frac{2(1-x^8)p^{FF}_{8;2}}{(1-x^{16})} -\frac{15}{11(1-x)}, &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{9} = G^{FF}_{3}+\frac{p^{FF}_{9;1}}{(1-x^{20})} +\frac{p^{FF}_{9;2}}{(1-x^{14})} +\frac{2(1-x)p^{FF}_{9;3}}{13(1-x^{13})} +\frac{2}{13(1-x)}, &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{10} = \frac{1}{9}G^{FF}_{4} +\frac{4p^{FF}_{10;1}}{3(1-x^{18})} +\frac{2p^{FF}_{10;2}}{5(1-x^{15})} -\frac{p^{FF}_{10;3}}{2(1-x^{12})} -\frac{p^{FF}_{10;4}}{90(1-x^6)^2} +\frac{p^{FF}_{10;5}}{90(1-x^6)} +\frac{4}{15(1-x)}, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} G^{FF}_{11} = G^{FF}_{3} +\frac{p^{FF}_{11;1}}{(1-x^{34})} +\frac{p^{FF}_{11;2}}{(1-x^{16})} -\frac{2(1-x^2)p^{FF}_{11;3}}{7(1-x^{14})} +\frac{(1-x)p^{FF}_{11;4}}{11(1-x^{11})} +\frac{27}{77(1-x)}, &&\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_7 = x^9+x^8+2x^6-7x^5+4x^4-4x^3+7x^2-2x+1, &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{8;1} = 8x^9+9x^7-2x^6+x^5+5x^4-5x^3-x^2+2x-9, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{8;2} = -x^7-x^6-2x^5-x^4+x+2, &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{9;1} = 2(2x^5+x^4-x-2)(1+x^2)(1-x^{10}), &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{9;2} = 2(-x^5-x^3+x^2-x+1)(1+x)(1-x^7), &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{9;3} = 14x^{11}+28x^{10}+16x^9+17x^8-8x^7-7x^6+7x^5+21x^4+35x^3+36x^2+11x+12, &&\nonumber\\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{10;1} = x(1-x)(x^6+x^3+1)(1-x^6), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{10;2} = (1+x)(1-x^3)(2x^{10}-4x^8+4x^7+4x^6-7x^5+x^4+7x^3-4x^2-2x+4), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{10;3} = (1-x^6)(5x^5+5x^4-4x^3-7x^2+7x+4), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{10;4} = (1-x)(1-x^2)^2(37x^4+86x^3+111x^2+86x+37), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{10;5} = (97x^3+97x^2+48x+49)(1-x^2), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{11;1} = 2x^2(1+x)(1-x^{17})(x^{13}-2x^9+x^8+x^6+x^5-x^4-x^3-x+2), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{11;2} = (1-x^8)(x^7+x^6+x^5-3x^4-x^3+x^2+3x-1), &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{11;3} = 8x^{11}+8x^{10}+2x^9+9x^8-4x^7-4x^6-3x^5+11x^4+12x^3+12x^2-x+6, &&\nonumber \\
\hspace{-1.in} p^{FF}_{11;4} = -4x^9-8x^8-56x^7-16x^6+24x^5+20x^4-28x^3-32x^2+8x+48. &&\end{aligned}$$
$Z^{FF}$ $L_h$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
---------------- --- --- --- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ------ ---- -------
$T_{F+}$ order 2 2 4 5 9 12 21 30 51 76 127
min rec order 2 2 4 5 9 9 17 21 31 35 51
period 6 4 8 – 40 28 – – 3640 – 20944
: The minimal order of the recursion relation and the period of the repeating sequence of $Z^{FF}_{L_v,L_h}(-1)$ as a function of $L_v$.
Hard square equimodular curves as $|z| \to \infty$ {#appc}
==================================================
Consider hard squares for a system of width $L_h = 2 L$ sites. The boundary conditions can be free or periodic, but not restricted by parity or momentum. We wish to show that the transfer matrices $T_C(z;L_h)$ and $T_F(z;L_h)$ both have $2L$ branches of equimodular curves going out to $|z|\rightarrow\infty$.
Let $A$ (resp. $B$) denote the maximally packed state with $L$ particles occupying the even (resp. odd) numbered sites. Similarly, for $k \ll L$, let $A_k$ denote the classes of states having $L-k$ particles of which $O(L)$ have positions overlapping with those of $A$ and $O(1)$ overlap with those of $B$. More loosely, the states $A_k$ have the same order as $A$, up to small local perturbations. The states $B_k$ are similarly defined from $B$.
To discuss the $|z| \to \infty$ limit we replace $z$ by $z^{-1}$ and consider a perturbation theory for $|z| \ll 1$. After division by an overall factor, the Boltzmann weight of state $A$ is 1, and each of the states in the class $A_k$ have weight $z^k$.
To order zero (i.e., considering only states $A$ and $B$) the transfer matrix is the permutation matrix of size $2$, with eigenvalues $\lambda_1 = 1$ and $\lambda_2 = -1$.
To order $k \ll L$ it is easy to see that the only non-zero matrix elements connect an $A$-type state to a $B$-type state and vice versa. Physically this means that if we start from a state which has predominantly particles on the even sublattice, it will remain so forever: we stay in the same ordered phase. Mathematically it is not hard to see that this implies that the eigenvalues $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ will continue to just differ by an overall sign, order by order in perturbation theory. Other eigenvalues are $O(z)$, hence play no role since then cannot be equimodular with $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$.
The perturbative result $\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = 0$ breaks down at an order $k$ which is sufficiently high to create a domain wall across the strip/cylinder/torus between the two different ordered states. This happens precisely for $k=L$. It follows that $\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 = O(z^L)$, implying that $$\lambda_2 / \lambda_1 = -1 + O(z^L) \,.$$ To obtain equimodularity, the left-hand side must be on the unit circle. For $|z| \ll 1$ this will happen when $z^L$ is perpendicular to $-1$, so that $\arg(z^L) = \pm \pi/2$. It follows that there are $2L$ equimodular curves going out of $z=0$ with the angles $$\arg(z) = \frac{(1+2k) \pi}{2L} \mbox{ with $k=0,1,\ldots,2L-1$}.$$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Onsager L 1944 Crystal statistics I: a two dimensional model with an order disorder transition Phys. Rev. 65, 117-149.
Nickel B 1999 On the singularity structure of the 2D Ising model susceptibility J. Phys. A 32, 3889-3906.
Nickel B 2000 On the singularity structure of the 2D Ising model susceptibility: addendum J. Phys. A 33, 1693-1711.
Orrick W P, Nickel B, Guttmann A J and Perk J H H 2001 The susceptibility of the square lattice Ising model: New developments J. Stat. Phys. 102, 795-841.
Chen Y, Guttmann A J, Nickel B and Perk J H H 2011 The Ising susceptibility scaling function J. Stat. Phys. 145, 549-590.
Baxter R J 1980 Hard hexagons: Exact Solution J. Phys. A 13 L61-L70.
Baxter R J 1982 Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics (New York: Academic Press).
Baxter R J and Pearce P A 1982, Hard hexagons: interfacial tension and correlation length J. Phys. A15, 897-910.
Gaunt D S and Fisher M E 1965 Hard-sphere lattice gasses. I. plane square lattice J. Chem. Phys. 43 2840.
Runnels L K and Combs L L 1965 Exact finite method of lattice statistics. I. Square and triangular lattice gases of hard molecules J. Chem. Phys. 45 2482.
Baxter R J, Enting I G and Tsang S K 1980 Hard-square lattice gas J. Stat. Phys. 22 465-489.
Ree F H and Chestnut D A 1966 Phase transition of a hard-core lattice gas. The square lattice with nearest-neighbor exclusion J. Chem. Phys. 45, 3983–4003.
Chan Y 2012 Series expansions from corner transformation renormalization group method: the hard-squares model J. Phys. A 45, 0850013.
Kamieniarz G.and Bl[ö]{}te H W J 1993 The non-interacting hard-square lattice gas: Ising universality J. Phys. A 26, 6679–6689.
Guo W and Bl[ö]{}te H W 2002 Finite size analysis of the hard square lattice gas Phys. Rev. E 66, 046140.
Guttmann A J 1987 Comment on ‘The exact location of partition function zeros; a new method for statistical mechanics’ J. Phys. A 20, 511-512.
Jensen I 2012, Comment on ‘Series expansions from corner transformation renormalization group method: the hard-squares model’ J.Phys. A 45,508001 (5pp).
Fendley P, Schoutens K and van Eerten H 2005 Hard squares with negative activity J. Phys. A 38 315-322.
Jonsson J 2006 Hard squares with negative activity and rhombus tilings of the plane Electron. J. Combin. 13 (1) \#R67.
Jonsson J 2006 Hard squares with grids with diagonal boundary conditions http:www.math.kth.se/$\sim$ jakob/combin.html
Jonsson J 2009 Hard squares with negative activity on cylinders with odd circumference Electron. J. Combin. 16, no 2 \#R5.
Adamaszek M 2012 Hard squares on cylinders revisited arXiv:1202.1655.
Baxter R.J, 2011 Hard squares for $z=-1$ Ann. Comb. 15 185-195.
Assis M, Jacobsen J L, Jensen I, Maillard J-M and McCoy B M 2013 The hard hexagon partition function for complex fugacity J. Phys. A 46, 445202 (46pp).
Salas J and Sokal A.D 2001 Transfer matrices and partition-function zeros for antiferromagnetic Potts models. I. General theory and square lattice chromatic polynomial J. Stat. Phys. 104 609-699.
Jacobsen J L and Salas J 2001 Transfer matrices and partition-function zeros for antiferromagnetic Potts models. II. Extended results for square-lattice chromatic polynomial J. Stat. Phys. 104, 701-723.
Jacobsen J L, Salas J and Sokal A D 2003 Transfer matrices and partition-function zeros for antiferromagnetic Potts models. III. Triangular-lattice chromatic polynomial J. Stat. Phys. 112, 921-1017.
Jacobsen J Land Salas J 2006 Transfer matrices and partition-function zeros for antiferromagnetic Potts models. IV. Chromatic polynomial with cyclic boundary conditions J. Stat. Phys. 122, 705-760
Jacobsen J L and Salas J 2007 Phase diagram of the chromatic polynomial on a torus Nucl. Phys. B 783, 238-296 (2007)
Richard J-F and Jacobsen J L, 2006 Character decomposition of Potts model partition functions, I: Cyclic geometry Nucl. Phys. B 750, 250-264
Richard J-F and Jacobsen J L 2007 Eigenvalue amplitudes of the Potts model on a torus Nucl. Phys. B 769, 256-274.
Cherednik I V 1984 Factorizing particles on a half-line and root systems Teor. Mat. Fiz 61, 35.
Sklyanin E K 1988 Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems J. Phys. A21, 2375.
Behrand R E and Pearce P A 1996 A construction of solutions to reflection equations for interaction-round-a-face models J. Phys. A29, 7827-7835.
Ahn C and You C-K 1998 Complete non-diagonal reflection matrices of RSOS/SOS and hard hexagon models J. Phys. A31, 2109-2121.
Joyce G S 1988 On the hard-hexagon model and the theory of modular functions Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 326, 643-702.
Wood D W 1985, The exact location of partition function zeros; a new method for statistical mechanics J. Phys. A 18, L917-L921.
Wood D W 1987 The algebraic construction of partition function zeros: universality and algebraic cycles J. Phys. A 20, 3471-3493.
Baxter R J 1987 Chromatic polynomials of large triangular lattices J. Phys. A 20, 5241-5261.
Beraha S, Kahane J and Weiss N.J 1975 Limits of zeros of recursively defined polynomials Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 72 4209.
Beraha S, Kahane J and Weiss N.J 1978 in [*Studies in Foundations and Combinatorics*]{} (Advances in Mathematics Supplementary Studies, vol. 1) ed. G.–G. Rota (Academic Press, New York).
Beraha S, Kahane J and Weiss N.J 1980 Limits of chromatic zeros of some families of maps. J. Combin. Theory B 28 52-65.
Chang S-C, Jacobsen J L, Salas J and Shrock R 2004 Exact Potts model partition functions for strips of the triangular lattice J. Stat. Phys. 114, 763-823
Jacobsen J L 2007 Exact enumeration of Hamiltonian circuits, walks and chains in two and three dimensions J. Math. Phys 40 14667-78.
The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences at http://oeis.org.
Abarenkova N, Angles d’Auriac J-Ch, Boukraa S, Hassani S, Maillard J-M, 1999 Rational dynamical zeta functions for birational transformations Physica A 264, 264-293.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Århus C, Denmark'
author:
- Steen Hannestad and Jes Madsen
date: 27 June 1996
title: 'Nucleosynthesis and the Mass of the $\tau$ Neutrino—Erratum'
---
In a recent [*Letter*]{}[@han96] we presented the first numerical treatment of the full set of Boltzmann equations for the evolution of an MeV Majorana $\tau$ neutrino in the early Universe and concluded that mass limits from Big Bang nucleosynthesis were significantly weakened compared to previous investigations.
An error in our numerical code unfortunately invalidates the results. As noticed by several people[@thanks] one should expect a strengthening rather than a weakening of earlier mass limits based on the integrated Boltzmann equation[@kolb; @dolrot] because our inclusion of the full neutrino spectra should reduce the annihilation of high-momentum neutrinos, thereby permitting more $\tau$ neutrinos to survive. This is indeed the case as shown in the revised Fig. 1[@kawa]. Our neutrino distribution functions now differ less from kinetic equilibrium than found in[@han96]. A typical case for $\nu_\tau$ is shown in Fig. 2. Deviations by a factor of 2 appear frequently when compared to a kinetic equilibrium distribution, $f_\nu =\left[\exp\left( (E-\mu)/T\right) +1\right] ^{-1}$, with the same number density and $T=T_\gamma$, as often assumed, whereas the distribution is close to that of a kinetic distribution with $T$ and $\mu$ determined by the number- and energy densities.
The resulting $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ distributions are still significantly heated relative to the standard case with a massless $\nu_\tau$. For eV-mass $\nu_\mu$ or $\nu_e$ this changes the present day contribution to the cosmic density to $\Omega_\nu h^2=\alpha m_\nu
/93.03$eV with $\alpha =1$ for a massless $\nu_\tau$, and $\alpha
=$1.10(1.13), 1.09(1.14), 1.03(1.05), 1.01(1.02) for $\nu_e$($\nu_\mu$) for $m_{\nu_\tau}=$5, 10, 15, 20 MeV ($h$ is the Hubble-parameter in units of 100km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$). Later decay of $\nu_\tau$ can further increase the value of $\alpha$.
Fig. 3 illustrates the consequences for Big Bang nucleosynthesis in terms of the equivalent number of massless neutrinos, $N_{\text{eq}}$, needed to give a similar production of $^4$He at a baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta =3\times 10^{-10}$. The revised results with and without inclusion of the change in the $\nu_e$ number density are in fine agreement with recent results based on the integrated Boltzmann equation by Fields, Kainulainen, and Olive[@fields]. Including also the actual shape of the $\nu_e$ distribution to some extent compensates for the effect on the energy density, a result also found by Dolgov, Pastor, and Valle[@dolgov; @kimmo], though we disagree by several equivalent neutrino species with the total $N_{\text{eq}}$ found in [@dolrot], and to some extent also with the differential changes in $N_{\text{eq}}$ quoted in [@dolgov].
In conclusion our revised results show that no MeV $\tau$-neutrino with mass below the experimental limit of 24 MeV is permitted unless more than 4 equivalent massless neutrino flavors become allowed by future observations of the primordial element abundances.
S. Hannestad and J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2848 (1996). We thank Sasha Dolgov, Georg Raffelt, and Mike Turner for useful discussions, and in particular Kimmo Kainulainen for comments that led us to find the error. E. W. Kolb [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 533 (1991). A. D. Dolgov and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 476 (1993). The limits are still weaker than those obtained without scattering reactions, as in M. Kawasaki [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B419**]{}, 105 (1994). B. D. Fields, K. Kainulainen, and K. A. Olive, Report no. hep-ph/9512321 (1995). A. D. Dolgov, S. Pastor, and J. W. F. Valle, Report no. hep-ph/9602233 (1996). In the published version of Ref. [@fields] the same effect will be accounted for, with very good agreement with our results (Kimmo Kainulainen, private communication).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose an efficient and accurate numerical method, which combine the high order adaptive virtual element method (VEM) and spectral deferred correction (SDC) scheme together, to simulate the self-consistent field theory (SCFT) model on arbitrary domains. The VEM is very flexible in handling rather general polygonal elements, which is more suitable to discrete the model defined on complex geometric domain, and the SDC scheme can efficiently improve the approximation order of contour derivative. Moreover, an adaptive method equipped with a new marking strategy is developed to efficiently solve the SCFT for strong segregation systems. Results indicate that our approaches can efficiently produce high-accuracy numerical results.'
address: ' School of Mathematics and Computational Science, Hunan Key Laboratory for Computation and Simulation in Science and Engineering, Xiangtan University, Xiangtan, Hunan, P.R. China, 411105. '
author:
- Kai Jiang
- Xin Wang
- Huayi Wei
title: ' High order numerical simulations for the polymer self-consistent field theory using the adaptive virtual element and spectral deferred correction methods '
---
=1
Introduction {#sec:intrd}
============
Block polymers have attracted tremendous attention for many years due to their industrial applications that rely on the customized microstructures. In practical environment, geometric restriction strongly influences the formation of microstructures, which also provides a new opportunity to engineer novel structures. Concretely speaking, the confining geometries, resulting in structural frustration, confinement-induced entropy loss, and surface interactions, can lead to novel morphologies which are not obtained in the bulk. There are many industrial applications for the block-copolymer ordered structures at the nanoscale, such as the construction of high-capacity data storage devices, waveguides, quantum dot arrays, dielectric mirrors, nanoporous membranes, nanowires, and interference lithography[@charlotte2011interplay; @segalman2005patterning].
Modeling and numerical simulation provide an effective means to investigate the phase separation behavior of polymer systems. Fully atomistic and coarse-graining approaches are both computational intensive methods for calculating equilibrium microstructures of polymer systems, especially for larger and more complicated geometries[@wang2015molecular; @sethuraman2014]. A more and effective continuum approach is the self-consistent field theory (SCFT), which is one of the most successful modern tools for studying the phase behaviors of inhomogeneous polymer systems, such as self-assembly, thermodynamic stability. SCFT can efficiently describe polymer architecture, molecular composition, polydispersity, polymer subchain types, interaction potential and related information as a series of parameters. SCFT modeling is started with a coarse grained chain and microscopic interaction potentials used in particle model, then transforms the particle-based model into a field-theoretic framework, finally obtains a mean-field equations system within saddle-point approximation [@fredrickson2006equilibrium].
From the viewpoint of mathematics, the SCFT model is a complicated variational problem with many challenges, such as saddle-point, nonlinearity, multi-solutions, and multi-parameters. It is difficult to obtain an analytical solution for this model. Numerical simulation is a feasible tool to study of the polymer SCFT, which usually contains four parts: screening initial values[@xu2013strategy; @jiang2010spectral; @jiang2013discovery], solving time-dependent partial differential equations (PDEs)[@ouaknin2016scft; @ceniceros2019efficient], evaluating (monomer) density operators[@ceniceros2019efficient], and finding saddle-points[@ceniceros2004numerical; @thompson2004improved; @jiang2015analytic]. The equilibrium state solution of the SCFT corresponds to an ordered microstructure. Due to the delicate energy difference among different ordered patterns in polymer systems, a high order numerical method is strongly needed.
In the past several decades, spectral methods, especially the Fourier spectral method, have been the predominant tool for solving SCFT model[@matsen1994stable; @rasmussen2002improved; @cochran2006stability]. This approach has high order precision and is efficient if a spectral collocation method can be found. However, the spectral method uses the global basis functions to discrete the spatial functions, which limits its applications on the model defined on complex geometric domains and complex boundary conditions. An alternative approach is using local basis functions to discretize spatial functions, such as the finite element method (FEM)[@ackerman2017finite; @wei2019finite]. The precision of the FEM depends on the size and quality of the mesh and the order of local polynomial basis functions. Combined with adaptive method [@binev2004], FEM can obtain better numerical accuracy with less calculation cost. However, there exist some inconvenience in the use of the FEM with adaptive method, especially when the adaptive mesh contains hanging nodes [@carstensen2009], polygonal or concave mesh elements.
To address these problems, in this work, we develop a novel approach to solve SCFT model based on the virtual element method (VEM) [@B2013vem; @L2013vem; @lfal2013vem] and spectral deferred correction (SDC) method. The VEM can be considered as an extension of conforming finite element methods to polyonal meshes, which has been developed for solving a variety of partial differential equations, see [@Antonietti2014vem; @Zhao2016vem; @Chen2017vem] and references therein. The SDC method is a high order time discrete scheme developed recently, see [@ceniceros2019efficient; @Dutt2000sdc]. Our contribution in this paper contains: (a) formulating the SCFT problem in real space using a high order VEM based variational form, (b) incorporating the SDC scheme into VEM for polymer systems which guarantees the high-order precision for the contour variable, (c) proposing a new adaptive VEM to solve the SCFT model, especially for highly segregated systems.
The remaining sections are organized as follows. In Sec.\[sec:scft\] we give the SCFT model defined on the general domain using the diblock Gaussian chains as an example. In Sec.\[sec:method\], we present our numerical approach, including the (adaptive) VEM and the SDC method to solve SCFT. In Sec.\[sec:rslt\], we demonstrate the precision and the efficiency of our method by several numerical experiments. In the Sec.\[sec:conclusion\], we summarize this work.
Self-consistent field theory {#sec:scft}
============================
In this section, we give a brief introduction to the SCFT model for an incompressible AB diblock copolymer melt on the general domain $\Omega$. We consider a system with $n$ conformationally symmetric diblock copolymers and each has $A$ and $B$ arms joined together with a covalent bond. The total degree of polymerization of a diblock copolymer is $N$, the $A$-monomer fraction is $f$, and the $B$-monomer fraction is $1-f$. The field-based Hamiltonian within mean-field approximation for the incompressible diblock copolymer melt is[@fredrickson2006equilibrium; @cochran2006stability] $$\begin{aligned}
H =
\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_{\Omega} \left\{-w_+({\bm{r}}) + \frac{w_-^2({\bm{r}})}{\chi
N}\right\}\,d{\bm{r}}-\log Q[w_+({\bm{r}}), w_-({\bm{r}})],
\label{Eqn:hamilton:2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi$ is the Flory-Huggins parameter to describe the interaction between segments $A$ and $B$. The terms $w_+({\bm{r}})$ and $w_-({\bm{r}})$ can be viewed as fluctuating pressure and exchange chemical potential fields, respectively. The pressure field enforces the local incompressibility, while the exchange chemical potential is conjugate to the difference of density operators. $Q$ is the single chain partition function, which can be computed according to $$\begin{aligned}
Q = \frac{1}{|\Omega|}\int_\Omega q({\bm{r}},s)q^{\dag}({\bm{r}},s)\,d{\bm{r}},
\quad \forall s\in[0,1].
$$ The forward propagator $q({\bm{r}},s)$ represents the probability weight that the chain of contour length $s$ has its end at position ${\bm{r}}$. The variable $s$ is used to parameterize each copolymer chain such that $s = 0$ represents the tail of the $A$ block and $s = f$ is the junction between the $A$ and $B$ blocks. According the flexible Gaussian chain model[@fredrickson2006equilibrium], $q({\bm{r}}, s)$ satisfies the following PDE
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial s}q({\bm{r}},s) &=
R_g^2\nabla^2_{{\bm{r}}} q({\bm{r}},s)-w({\bm{r}},s)q({\bm{r}},s), \quad {\bm{r}}\in\Omega,
\label{Eqn:PDE:PDE}
\\
w({\bm{r}},s) &= \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
w_A({\bm{r}}) = w_+({\bm{r}})-w_-({\bm{r}}), & \quad 0\leq s \leq f,
\\
w_B({\bm{r}}) = w_+({\bm{r}}) +w_-({\bm{r}}), & \quad f\leq s \leq 1,
\end{array}
\label{Eqn:PDE:w}
\right.
\end{aligned}$$
\[Eqn:PDE\]
with the initial condition $q({\bm{r}}, 0)=1$ and $R_g$ being the radius of gyration. The above PDE is well-defined through possessing an appropriate boundary condition. In this work, we consider the homogeneous Neumann boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial }{\partial \bm{n}}q({\bm{r}},s) = 0, \quad
{\bm{r}}\in\partial\Omega.
\label{Eqn:PDE:bd}\end{aligned}$$ The reverse propagator $q^{\dag}({\bm{r}},s)$, which represents the probability weight from $s=1$ to $s=0$, satisfies Eqn.(\[Eqn:PDE\]) only with the right-hand side of Eqn. multiplied by $-1$. The initial condition is $q^{\dag}({\bm{r}},1)=1$. The normalized segment density operators $\phi_A({\bm{r}})$ and $\phi_B({\bm{r}})$ follow from functional derivatives of $Q$ with respect to $w_A$ and $w_B$ and the familiar factorization property of propagators $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phiA}
& \phi_A({\bm{r}}) = -\frac{V}{Q}\frac{\delta Q}{\delta w_A} =
\frac{1}{Q}\int_0^f q({\bm{r}},s)q^{\dag}({\bm{r}},s)\,ds,
\\
\label{eq:phiB}
& \phi_B({\bm{r}}) = -\frac{V}{Q}\frac{\delta Q}{\delta w_B} =
\frac{1}{Q}\int_f^1 q({\bm{r}},s)q^{\dag}({\bm{r}},s)\,ds.\end{aligned}$$ The first variations of the Hamiltonian with respect to fields $w_+$ and $w_-$ lead to the mean-field equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqn:modelII:incomp}
&\frac{\delta H}{\delta w_+} = \phi_A({\bm{r}}) + \phi_B({\bm{r}}) -1 = 0,
\\
\label{Eqn:modelII:muMinus}
&\frac{\delta H}{\delta w_-} = \frac{2 w_-({\bm{r}})}{\chi N} - [\phi_A({\bm{r}})-\phi_B({\bm{r}})] = 0.\end{aligned}$$
The equilibrium state, i.e., $\delta H/\delta w_\pm = 0$, of the SCFT model corresponds to the ordered structure. Within the standard framework of SCFT, finding the stationary states requires the self-consistent iterative procedure as shown in the following flowchart.
\[fig:scftiter\] = \[rectangle, rounded corners, minimum width=3cm, minimum height=1cm, text centered, text width=5.5cm, draw=black, fill=yellow!20\] = \[rectangle, rounded corners,minimum width=4cm,minimum height=1cm,text centered,draw=black,fill=blue!30\] = \[rectangle, rounded corners,minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1cm,text centered,draw=black,fill=blue!40\] = \[rectangle, rounded corners, minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1cm,text width=7cm, text centered,draw=black,fill=orange!30\] = \[rectangle, rounded corners, minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1cm,text width=5.5cm, text centered,draw=black,fill=green!25\] = \[trapezium, trapezium left angle=80, trapezium right angle=110, rounded corners, minimum width=3cm,minimum height=1cm,text centered,text width=3cm, draw=black,fill=red!30\] = \[thick=50cm,->,>=stealth\]
minimum (start) \[startstop\] [Given an arbitrary domain $\Omega$ and initial fields $w_+$, $w_{-}$]{}; (input1) \[io,below of=start\] [Calculate propagators $q({\bm{r}},s)$ and $q^\dag({\bm{r}}, s)$]{}; (process1) \[process1,below of=input1,yshift=-0.1cm\] [Compute $Q$, density operators $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$, and evaluate the Hamiltonian $H$]{}; (process2) \[process2,below of=process1,yshift=-0.1cm\] [Update fields $w_+({\bm{r}})$ and $w_-({\bm{r}})$]{}; (decision) \[decision,right of =process2,xshift=5cm\] [Is Hamilton difference less than a prescribed tolerance ?]{}; (out1) \[ioo,below of=process2\] [Converged result]{}; (start) – (input1); (input1) – (process1); (process1) – (process2); (decision.east) to \[out=-400,in=-50\] node \[right=1cm\][yes]{} (out1.east); (decision.east) to \[ out=400,in=50\]node\[right=0.1cm\][no]{} (input1.east); (process2) – (decision);
[Flowchart of SCFT iteration.]{}
The propagator equation is dependent on the potential fields, $w_+({\bm{r}})$ and $w_-({\bm{r}})$. In order to start the process, the values of $w_+({\bm{r}})$ and $w_-({\bm{r}})$ must be initialized. If the initial values are homogeneous, the gradient term in the modified diffusion equation goes to zero, leaving no driving force for the formation of a microstructure. To prevent this, there must be some spatial inhomogeneity in the initial values. For a targeted periodic structure, using the space group symmetry is a useful strategy to screen the initial configuration[@jiang2010spectral; @jiang2013discovery]. Once initial values are ready, high-accuracy numerical methods to solve the propagator equation, and evaluate the density functions, are required to solve the SCFT model, which is also the main work in this paper. We will detail our approach in the Sec.\[sec:method\].
The iteration method to update fields is dependent on the mathematical structure of SCFT. An important fact is that the effective Hamiltonian of diblock copolymers can reach its local minima along the exchange chemical field $w_-({\bm{r}})$, and achieve the maxima along the pressure field $w_+({\bm{r}})$[@fredrickson2006equilibrium]. Thus alternative direction gradient approaches, such as the explicit Euler method, can be used to find the saddle point. In particular, the explicit Euler approach is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
w_+^{k+1}({\bm{r}}) &= w_+^k({\bm{r}}) + \lambda_+
\Big(\phi_A^k({\bm{r}})+\phi_B^k({\bm{r}})-1 \Big),
\\
w_-^{k+1}({\bm{r}}) &= w_-^k({\bm{r}}) - \lambda_-
\left(\frac{2 w_-^k({\bm{r}})}{\chi N} - [\phi_A({\bm{r}}) - \phi_B({\bm{r}})]
\right).
\end{aligned}
$$ An accelerated semi-implicit scheme has been developed to find the equilibrium states[@ceniceros2004numerical; @jiang2015analytic]. However, the existing semi-implicit method is based on the asymptotic expansion and global Fourier transformation and can not be straightforwardly applied to the local basis discretization schemes.
Numerical methods {#sec:method}
=================
Solving the propagator equations is the most time-consuming part of the entire numerical simulation, and we will discuss its implementation in detail in this section, which include the (adaptive) VEM and the SDC method. In the following, we use the $\|\cdot\|_{B}$ to denote the common $L^2$ norm over a finite domain $B$.
VEM discretization for the spatial variable {#subsec:VEM}
-------------------------------------------
VEM is a generalization of the finite element method that is inspired from the modern mimetic finite difference scheme[@L2013vem]. Compared with FEM, VEM can handle very general (even non-convex) polygonal elements with an arbitrary number of edges. Furthermore, VEM can naturally treat the handing nodes appearing in the mesh adaptive process as the vertices of the polygonal elements, which greatly simplifies the design and implementation of mesh adaptive algorithms. Fig.\[fig:example\] gives a schematic mesh which the VEM can deal with.
![\[fig:example\] A schematic mesh of the VEM including hanging nodes and concave polygons.](flo.pdf){width="0.35\linewidth"}
Subsequently, we will introduce the virtual element space, and discretize propagator equations based on the variational formulation.
### Virtual element space {#subsubsec:vem}
Let $\Omega_h$ be the polygonal decomposition of a given domain $\Omega \subset
{\mathbb{R}}^2$ including a finite number of non-overlapping polygons. For any polygon element $E \in \Omega_h$, let $\partial E$ be the set of all edges $E$, $e \in
\partial E$ edges of each element, ${\bm{r}}_E$ the centroid, $h_E$ the diameter, and $|E|$ the area of the element $E$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_k(E)$ be the polynomials space of degree up to $k$ on $E$, $n_k=\dim{\mathcal{P}}_k(E)$, and ${\mathcal{M}}_k(E) : = \{m_{{\bm{\alpha}}} : 0 \leq |{\bm{\alpha}}| \leq k\}$ be the scaled monomial basis set of ${\mathcal{P}}_k(E)$ with form [@lfal2013vem] $$m_{{\bm{\alpha}}} : = \left(\dfrac{{\bm{r}}- {\bm{r}}_E}{h_E}\right)^{{\bm{\alpha}}}
=
\dfrac{(r_1-{r_1}_{E})^{\alpha_1}(r_2-{r_2}_{E})^{\alpha_2}}{{h_E}^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}},
\quad \alpha_1,~ \alpha_2\in{\mathbb{Z}}_0^+,$$ and $|{\bm{\alpha}}|=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$. We will also use $m_\alpha$ instead of $m_{{\bm{\alpha}}}$, where $\alpha$ is a one-dimensional index of the nature correspondence of ${\bm{\alpha}}$, for example, $$(0,0) \leftrightarrow 1,\ (1,0) \leftrightarrow 2,\ (0,1) \leftrightarrow 3,\ (2,0)
\leftrightarrow 4,\ \ldots$$ The local virtual element space can be defined as [@B2013vem; @lfal2013vem] $$V_{h,E} :=\{v \in H^1(E):~\Delta v \in {\mathcal{P}}_{k-2}(E) \
\text{in} \ E; ~ v|_{e} \in {\mathcal{P}}_k(e), \forall e \in \partial E\},$$ where $\Delta$ denotes the common Laplace operator. ${\mathcal{P}}_k(e)$ is a set of polynomials of degree up to $k$ on $e$. The dimension of $V_{h,E}$ is $$N_{dof} = \dim V_{h,E} = n_V +n_V(k-1)+n_{k-2}$$ where $n_V$ is the number of vertices of $E$. The function $v_h \in V_{h,E}$ can be defined through satisfying the following three conditions:
- $v_h|_e \in {\mathcal{P}}_k(e)$ is a polynomial of degree $ k$ on each edge $e$;
- $v_h|_{\partial E} \in C(\partial E)$ is globally continuous on $\partial E$;
- $\Delta v_h\in {\mathcal{P}}_{k-2}(E)$ is a polynomial of degree $ k-2$ in $E$.
Correspondingly, the degree of the freedom of the $V_{h,E}$ contains:
- the value of $v_h$ at the vertices of $E$;
- the value of $v_h$ at the $k-1$ internal Gauss-Lobatto quadrature points on e;
- the moments up to order $k-2$ of $v_h$ in $E$: $(1/E)\int_E v_h m_{\alpha}\,d{\bm{r}}, \alpha = 1,\cdots,n_k$.
Then the global virtual element space can be defined based on the local space $V_{h,E}$ $$V_{h} =\{v \in H^1(E):~v|_E \in V_{h,E}, ~\mbox{for all}~ E \in \Omega_h\}.$$ The dimension of $V_h$ is $$N = \dim{V_h} = N_V + N_E(k-1)+N_P \frac{(k-1)k}{2},$$ where $N_V$, $N_E $ and $N_P$ are the total number of vertices, edges, and elements of $\Omega_h$, respectively. Since $H^1(V_h)$ is a separable Hilbert space, it can give a set of basis functions $\{\varphi_i({\bm{r}})\}_{i=1}^N$ for $V_h$ such that, for each $u_h({\bm{r}})\in V_h$ $$\begin{aligned}
u_h({\bm{r}}) = \sum_{i=1}^N u_i \varphi_i({\bm{r}}),
\label{eq:VhBasisExp}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_i$ is coefficient of the degree of the freedom corresponding to $\varphi_i({\bm{r}})$. It should be emphasized that the basis functions $\varphi_i({\bm{r}})$ in the VEM do not have explicit expression as the FEM has. In practical implementation, the quantities related to the basis functions can be obtained through polynomial space, as discussed in the subsequent sections. We name $k$ order VEM by the order of polynomial space ${\mathcal{P}}_k$. For example, the linear and quadrature VEMs mean that the order of the projection polynomial space ${\mathcal{P}}_k$ is $k=1$ and $k=2$, respectively.
### Variational formulation {#subsubsec:weak}
Using VEM to solve PDEs is based on the variational formulation whose continuous version is: find $q({\bm{r}},s)\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that, for all $v({\bm{r}}) \in H^1(\Omega)$, $$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s}q({\bm{r}},s), v({\bm{r}})\right) =
-(\nabla q({\bm{r}},s) ,\nabla v({\bm{r}})) - (w({\bm{r}},s) q({\bm{r}},s),
v({\bm{r}})),
\label{eq:continWF}$$ where $(\cdot , \cdot)$ represents the $L^2(\Omega)$ inner product. In numerical computation, the spatial function must be discretized in the finite dimensional virtual element space $V_h$. Then the continuous variational formulation is discretized as: find $q_h({\bm{r}},s) \in V_h$ such that $$\label{eqn:discretization}
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial s}q_h({\bm{r}},s), v_h({\bm{r}})\right) =
-(\nabla q_h({\bm{r}},s) ,\nabla v_h({\bm{r}})) - (w({\bm{r}},s) q_h({\bm{r}},s) ,
v_h({\bm{r}})) , ~ \text{for all} \ v_h({\bm{r}}) \in V_h.$$ Let $v_h({\bm{r}}) = \varphi_j({\bm{r}})$, using the expression , $q_h({\bm{r}},s) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} q_i(s) \varphi_i({\bm{r}})$. The discretized variational formulation has the matrix form $$\label{eq:matrix:form}
{\boldsymbol{M}}\frac{\partial}{\partial s}{\bm{q}}(s) = -({\boldsymbol{A}}+{\boldsymbol{F}}){\bm{q}}(s),$$ where $${\bm{q}}(s) = (q_1(s), q_2(s), \cdots, q_{N}(s))^T,$$ and $${\boldsymbol{M}}_{ij} = (\varphi_i,\varphi_j),\ {\boldsymbol{A}}_{ij} = (\nabla
\varphi_i, \nabla \varphi_j), \ {\boldsymbol{F}}_{ij} = (w({\bm{r}},s) \varphi_i,\varphi_j).$$ The stiffness matrix ${\boldsymbol{A}}$, the mass matrix ${\boldsymbol{M}}$, and the cross mass matrix ${\boldsymbol{F}}$ can be obtained through projecting local virtual element space $V_{h,E}$ onto polynomial space. In the sequential subsections, we will present the construction methods for local stiffness, mass, and cross mass matrices. The corresponding global matrices ${\boldsymbol{A}}$, ${\boldsymbol{M}}$ and ${\boldsymbol{F}}$ can be obtained as the standard assembly process of FEM once we have the local ones.
### Construction of the stiffness matrix {#subsubsec:stiff}
The stiffness matrix in the VEM can be computed by the local $H^1$ project operator $\Pi^\nabla$, $$\label{H1proj}
\Pi^\nabla :V_{h,E} \rightarrow {\mathcal{P}}_k(E),$$ which projects the local virtual element space $V_{h,E}$ onto the polynomial space with degree up to $k$. For each $v_h \in V_{h,E}$, we have the orthogonality condition $$\label{Eqn:projection}
(\nabla p , \nabla (\Pi^\nabla v_h -v_h))=0, ~\text{for all}~ p \in {\mathcal{P}}_k(E).$$ The above condition defines $\Pi^\nabla v_h$ only up to a constant. It can be fixed by prescribing a projection operator onto constants $P_0$ requiring $$\label{Eqn:P0}
P_0 (\Pi^\nabla v_h -v_h) =0.$$ $P_0$ can be chosen as $$\begin{aligned}
P_0 v_h : &= \frac{1}{n_V}\sum_{i=1}^{n_V} v_h({\bm{r}}_i), ~\text{when} \ k=1,\\
P_0 v_h : &= \frac{1}{|E|}\int_E v_h
\,d{\bm{r}}=\frac{1}{|E|}(1,v_h)_E, ~\text{when} \quad k \geq
2,\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $n_V$ is the number of vertices of $E$.
Next we compute local stiffness matrix $({\boldsymbol{A}}^{E})_{ij}$ on the polygon $E$, $$\label{Eqn:stiffness matrix}
({\boldsymbol{A}}^E)_{ij} = (\nabla \varphi_i, \nabla \varphi_j), ~i,j = 1,\cdots,
N_{dof}.$$ With the projector $\Pi^{\nabla}$, $\varphi_i$ can be splitted into $$\varphi_i = \Pi ^{\nabla} \varphi_i + (\bm{I} - \Pi ^{\nabla}) \varphi_i,$$ then Eqn.(\[Eqn:stiffness matrix\]) becomes $$({\boldsymbol{A}}^E)_{ij} = (\nabla \Pi ^{\nabla}\varphi_i, \nabla \Pi^{\nabla}\varphi_j)
+(\nabla ({\bm{I}}-\Pi ^{\nabla})\varphi_i, \nabla ({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla})\varphi_j).$$ Replacing the second term as $$S^{E}\left(\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big)
\varphi_i,\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big) \varphi_j\right):=\sum_{r=1}^{N_{dof}}
\operatorname{dof}_{r}\left(\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big)\varphi_i\right)
\operatorname{dof}_{r}\left(\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big) \varphi_j\right),$$ we can obtain the approximate local stiffness matrix $$({\boldsymbol{A}}_h^E)_{ij} := (\nabla \Pi ^{\nabla}\varphi_i, \nabla \Pi^{\nabla}\varphi_j)
+S^{E}\left(\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big)
\varphi_i,\big({\bm{I}}-\Pi^{\nabla}\big) \varphi_j\right).$$
### Construction of the mass matrix {#subsubsec:mass}
The mass matrix in the VEM can be obtained from the local $L^2$ projection, $\Pi:
V_{h,E}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P}}_k(E)$. For each $v_h\in V_{h,E}$, $$(\Pi v_h,p_k) = (v_h,p_k), ~\forall p_k\in{\mathcal{P}}_k(E).$$ $(v_h,p_k)$ can not be calculated directly. Next, we show how to compute the local mass matrix ${\boldsymbol{M}}^E$ [@L2013vem] $$({\boldsymbol{M}}^E)_{ij} = (\varphi_i, \varphi_j), \qquad i,j = 1,\cdots,N_{dof}.$$ Similar to the construction method of stiffness matrix, we can define the basis function $\varphi_i$ through $L^2$ projection operator $\Pi$ $$\varphi_i = \Pi \varphi_i + (\bm{I}-\Pi)\varphi_i,$$ Then $$({\boldsymbol{M}}^E)_{ij} = (\Pi \varphi_i, \Pi \varphi_j)+((\mathrm{I}-\Pi)\varphi_i, (\mathrm{I} - \Pi)\varphi_j).$$ Replacing the second term in the above equation as $$S^{E}\left(\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right)
\varphi_i,\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right) \varphi_j\right):=
|E|\sum_{r=1}^{N_{dof}}
\operatorname{dof}_{r}\left(\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right)\varphi_i\right)
\operatorname{dof}_{r}\left(\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right) \varphi_j\right)$$ the local mass matrix can be approximated as $$({\boldsymbol{M}}_h^E)_{ij} := (\Pi\varphi_i,\Pi\varphi_j)
+S^{E}\left(\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right)
\varphi_i,\left({\bm{I}}-\Pi\right) \varphi_j\right)$$
### Cross mass matrix {#subsubsec:cross}
The local cross mass matrix ${\boldsymbol{F}}_{ij}$ on $E$ can be defined as $$({\boldsymbol{F}}_E)_{ij} = (w\varphi_i, \varphi_j), \qquad i,j = 1,\cdots,N_{dof}.$$ Applying the $L^2$ projection $\Pi: V_{h,E}\rightarrow {\mathcal{P}}_k(E)$, as defined in the above Sec.\[subsubsec:mass\], into the cross term, the local mass matrix can be calculated as $$({\boldsymbol{F}}_E)_{ij} := (\Pi w\Pi \varphi_i, \Pi \varphi_j).$$
### Space integral {#subsubsec:spaceint}
In this section, we present the integration approach over an arbitrary polygon $E$. We divide the polygon $E$ into triangles $\tau$ by linking two endpoints of each edge and the barycenter. Then we apply the common Gaussian quadrature in each triangle, and summarize these integration values. $$\begin{aligned}
\int _E f({\bm{r}})\,d{\bm{r}}&=\sum_{\tau} \int _{\tau} f({\bm{r}}) \,d{\bm{r}}\approx |E|\sum_{\tau}\sum_{j} w_{\tau, j} f({\bm{r}}_{\tau,j}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\{{\bm{r}}_{\tau,j}\}$ is the set of quadrature points of $\tau$, and $\{w_{\tau,j}\}$ the corresponding quadrature weights.
SDC method for the contour variable {#subsec:sdc}
-----------------------------------
The deferred correction approach [@Dutt2000sdc] first solves the PDE with an appropriate method, then uses the residual equation to improve the approximation order of numerical solution. The key idea of SDC is to use a spectral quadrature [@ceniceros2019efficient], such as a Gaussian or a Chebyshev-node interpolatory quadrature, to integrate the contour derivative, which can achieve a high-accuracy numerical solution with a largely reduced number of quadrature points. The detail will be presented in the sequential content.
In this work, we use the variable step Crank-Nicholson (CN) scheme to solve the semi-discretize propagator equation , and obtain the initial numerical solution ${\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s)$. $$\label{Eqn:CN}
{\boldsymbol{M}}\frac{{\bm{q}}^{n+1}-{\bm{q}}^n}{\delta s_n} =
-\frac{1}{2}({\boldsymbol{A}}+{\boldsymbol{F}})({\bm{q}}^{n+1}+{\bm{q}}^n),$$ where $\delta s_n=s_{n+1}-s_{n}$ is the time step size, $s_n$ ($n=0,2,\dots,N_s-1$) is the Chebyshev node[@clen1960integral]. It should be pointed out that other stable time schemes can be employed to solve semi-discretize propagator equation , such as second-order operator-splitting method[@rasmussen2002improved], implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta scheme[@ascher1997rungekutta].
Then we use the deferred correction scheme to achieve a high-accuracy numerical solution. We can give the exact semi-discretize solution of propagator by integrating along the contour variable $s$ $$\label{Eqn:integral}
{\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}(s)={\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}(0)+\int_{0}^{s}\left[(-{\boldsymbol{A}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}) {\bm{q}}(\tau)\right] d \tau.$$ The error between the numerical solution ${\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s)$ and exact semi-discretize solution ${\bm{q}}(s)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm{e}}^{[0]}(s) = {\bm{q}}(s) - {\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s).\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying both sides by ${\boldsymbol{M}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{e}}^{[0]}(s) = & {\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}(s) - {\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s) \\
= & {\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}(0)+\int_{0}^{s}\left[(-{\boldsymbol{A}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}) {\bm{q}}(\tau)\right] d \tau -
{\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s) \\
= & {\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}(0)+\int_{0}^{s}\left[(-{\boldsymbol{A}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}) {\bm{e}}^{[0]}(\tau)\right] d \tau +
\int_{0}^{s}\left[(-{\boldsymbol{A}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}) {\bm{q}}^{[0]}\right] d \tau- {\boldsymbol{M}}{\bm{q}}^{[0]}(\tau)(s) \\
= & \int_{0}^{s}\left[(-{\boldsymbol{A}}- {\boldsymbol{F}}) {\bm{e}}^{[0]}\right] d \tau +
\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{[0]}(s),\end{aligned}$$ the residual $$\boldsymbol{\gamma}^{[0]}(s) =
\boldsymbol{M}\boldsymbol{q}(0)+\int_{0}^{s}
\left[\left(-\boldsymbol{A}
-\boldsymbol{F}\right)\boldsymbol{q}^{[0]}(\tau)\right]
d\tau-\boldsymbol{M}\boldsymbol{q}^{[0]}(s),
\label{eq:residual}$$ can be compute by the spectral integral method with Chebyshev-nodes as presented in the Sec.\[subsec:spint\]. By the definition of residual $\bm{\gamma}^{[0]}$, we have the error integration equation $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{M}}\bm{{\bm{e}}}^{[0]}(s) = \int_0^s
(-{\boldsymbol{A}}-{\boldsymbol{F}})\bm{{\bm{e}}}^{[0]}(\tau) \,d\tau
+ \bm{\gamma}^{[0]}(s) .
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ Taking the first derivative of the above equation with respect to $s$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{M}}\frac{d{\bm{\bm{e}}}^{[0]}}{ds} = (-{\boldsymbol{A}}-{\boldsymbol{F}}){\bm{\bm{e}}}^{[0]}(s)
+\frac{d {\bm\gamma}^{[0]}}{ds},
\label{eq:erreq}\end{aligned}$$ which can be also solved by the CN scheme. Then the corrected numerical solution is $$\begin{aligned}
{\bm{q}}^{[1]}(s) = {\bm{q}}^{[0]}(s) + \bm{{\bm{e}}}^{[0]}(s).
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ Repeating the above process, one can have ${\bm{q}}^{[2]},\dots,{\bm{q}}^{[J]}$, $J$ is the pre-determined number of deferred corrections. The convergent order of deferred correction solution along the contour parameter is $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\bm{q}}(s) - {\bm{q}}^{[J]}(s)\| = O( (\delta s)^{m(J+1)})
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta s = \max\{\delta s_n\}_{n=0}^{N_s-1}$, $m$ is the order of the chosen numerical scheme to solve Eqns. and . For the CN scheme, $m=2$.
In summary, under appropriate regularity hypothesis, one can prove the estimator for the numerical solution $q_{\delta s, h}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|q_e - q_{\delta s, h}\| = O((\delta s)^{m(J+1)} + h^{k+1})
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ $q_e$ is the true solution of propagator, and $h=\max\limits_{E\in\Omega_h}\mbox{diam}\{E\}$.
Spectral integral method along the contour variable $s$ {#subsec:spint}
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the Chebyshev-node interpolatory quadrature method to integrate the residual error $\bm\gamma^{[0]}(s)$ of Eqn. for the contour variable $s$, which has spectral accuracy for smooth integrand[@trefethen2008guass]. The proposed scheme can be also applied to the evaluate the density operators and . These problems can be summarized to the following integral $$\int_{a}^{b} g(s)\, ds,$$ the integrand $g(s)$ is a smooth function. After changing variables, the general integral becomes $$\label{Eqn:theta}
\int_{a}^{b} g(s) \,ds
= \frac{b-a}{2}\int_{0}^{\pi} g(-\cos\theta)\sin\theta \,d\theta,$$ where $\theta \in [0,\pi]$. The interpolate polynomial of $g$ at Chebyshev nodes $\theta_j=j\pi/N_s$, $j=0,1,\dots,N_s$. $$g(-\cos \theta_j) \approx \frac{a_{0}}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{N_s-1}
a_{k} \cos (k \theta_j) + \frac{1}{2} a_{N_s} \cos (N_s
\theta_j),$$ where $$a_{k}=\frac{1}{N_s}g\left(-\cos\theta_{0}\right)\cos (k
\theta_{0})+\frac{2}{N_s}
{\sum_{j=1}^{N_s-1}}g\left(-\cos\theta_{j}\right)\cos (k
\theta_{j})+\frac{1}{N_s}g\left(-\cos\theta_{N_{s}}\right)\cos\left(k\theta_{N_s}
\right),$$ $k=0, \ldots, N_s$. In practice, coefficients $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{N_s}$ are calculated by the fast discrete cosine transform. $$\int_{0}^{\pi} g(-\cos\theta) \sin \theta \, d \theta=\frac{a_{0}}{2}
\int_{0}^{\pi} \sin \theta \,d \theta+\sum_{k=1}^{N_s-1} a_{k} \int_{0}^{\pi} \cos
k \theta \sin \theta \, d \theta+\frac{a_{N_s}}{2} \int_{0}^{\pi}
\cos N_s \theta \sin \theta \,d \theta.$$ Due to $\cos k \theta \sin \theta=\dfrac{1}{2}[\sin (1+k) \theta+\sin (1-k)
\theta]$, we have $$\int_{a}^{b} g(s)\,ds = \frac{b-a}{2}\int_{-1}^{1}g(t)\,dt
\approx
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\dfrac{b-a}{2}\left[ a_0 +
\sum\limits_{k=2 \atop k \text { even }}^{{N_s}-2}
\dfrac{2a_{k}}{1-k^{2}}+\dfrac{a_{N_s}}{1-N_s^{2}}\right],
& \quad N_s \ \text{is even},\\
\\
\dfrac{b-a}{2}\left[ a_0 + \sum\limits_{k=2 \atop k \text { even
}}^{{N_s}-1}\dfrac{2 a_{k}}{1-k^{2}}\right], & \quad N_s \ \text{is odd}.\\
\end{array}\right.$$
Adaptive VEM {#subsec:AVEM}
------------
The adaptive method is an important technique to improve accuracy of the solution and reduce the computational complexity. The following is the adaptive process used in SCFT calculation:
Step 1
: Solve the SCFT model and obtain the numerical solution on the current mesh.
Step 2
: Estimate error on each element from current numerical results.
Step 3
: Mark mesh elements according to the error estimate.
Step 4
: Refine or coarsen the marked elements.
Next we present some implementation details of the above adatpive process.
The estimator is an important part of the adaptive method. Let $\eta_E$ be the error of indicator function $u_h$ over each element $E$, $$\eta_{E} = \|R_h \Pi^\nabla u_h\|_{E},
\label{eq:avem:error}$$ $R_h u_h$ is the harmonic average operator [@huang2012] $$R_h u_h := \frac{1}{\sum_{j=1}^{m_z}1/|
\tau_j|}\sum_{j=1}^{m_z} \frac{1}{|\tau_j|}\nabla \Pi^\nabla u_h \Big|_{\tau_j}.$$ $m_z$ is the number of elements $\tau_j$ with $z$ as a vertex. The indicator function is an essential part in adaptive methods. In SCFT model, several spatial functions can be used as indicator functions, such as field functions, density functions, and propagators. To choose efficient indicator function, we observe the distribution of these spatial functions when the SCFT calculation converges. As an example, Fig.\[fig:estimator\] presents the equilibrium states of $w({\bm{r}})$, $\varphi_A({\bm{r}})$ and propagator function of the last contour point $q({\bm{r}}, 1)$, respectively, with $\chi N =25, f=0.2$. As one can see, the distributions of three spatial functions are similar, however, $q({\bm{r}},1)$ has the sharpest interface. If the numerical error of $q({\bm{r}},1)$ can be reduced through the adaptive method, the error of other spatial functions obviously reduce with it. Therefore, in the current adaptive method, we choose $q({\bm{r}}, 1)$ as the indicator function in the posterior error estimator.
![\[fig:estimator\] The equilibrium distributions of $w_A({\bm{r}})$, $\varphi_A({\bm{r}})$, and $q({\bm{r}},1)$ when $\chi N =25, f=0.2$.](estimator.pdf){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Given an effective and reliable posterior error estimator $\eta_E$, it is required a marking strategy to mark mesh elements. Classical marking strategies such as the maximum [@jarausch1986] and the $L^2$ criterion [@dorfler1996], usually refine or coarsen marked mesh elements one time in one adaptive process. It may make less use of the information of posteriori error estimator. To improve it, we propose a new marking strategy, named $Log$ criterion, as following $$n_E = \left[\log_2\frac{\eta_E}{\theta \bar{\eta}}\right],$$ where $\theta$ is a positive constant, $\bar{\eta}$ is the mean value of all element estimator $\eta_E$, and $[\cdot]$ is the nearest integer function. $n_E = 0$, $n_E > 0$ and $n_E < 0$ represent that cell $E$ is unchanged, refined $n_E$ times, and coarsened $|n_E|$ times, respectively. Obviously, this new $Log$ marking criterion not only denotes which mesh element $E$ needs to be improved, but also provides the times of refinement or coarseness. Due to the limitation of the topic in this paper, we will discuss the $Log$ marking criterion in detail in our further paper[@wei2020new].
In practical implementation, we choose a widely used quadtree approach to refine and coarsen the mesh in our SCFT simulation. Quadtree is a hierarchical data structure commonly used in adaptive numerical simulation [@osher2006level]. Given an initial (maybe unstructured) quadrilateral mesh, quadtree approach takes its every quadrilateral element as a root node of a quadtree, then refines and coarsens every quadtree according to the above posteriori error estimator and marking criterion. Fig.\[fig:refine\] shows the refinement and coarsen process based on the qaudtree structure. Notice that hanging nodes in quadrilateral meshes (e.g. node $0$ in Fig.\[fig:refine\]) in VEM are treated as polygon vertices and do not be specially treated. Therefore adaptive VEM is implemented on general polygonal meshes.
![The adaptive mesh in VEM based on quadtree structure. (a) Refine the root 0 into 4 child nodes. (b) Refine nodes 1 and 3 into 4 child nodes, respectively. (c) Coarsen child nodes 9, 10, 11, and 12 to node 3. []{data-label="fig:refine"}](MeshM.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Numerical results {#sec:rslt}
=================
In the following numerical examples, we use linear ($k=1$) and quadratic ($k=2$) VEMs to discretize the spatial variable. Due to the limitation of spatial discretization order, in time direction, we just correct the initial numerical solution one time in the SDC scheme. All the numerical examples are implemented based on the FEALPy package[@fealpy2020].
The efficiency of the proposed numerical method {#subsec:efficiency}
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed numerical method by solving a parabolic equation and SCFT model.
### The efficiency of solving a parabolic equation {#subsubsec:effHeat}
We apply our apporach to the following parabolic equation $$\label{eq:heat}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}{\dfrac{\partial }{\partial s}u(x,y,s)= \dfrac{1}{2}\Delta
u(x,y,s)},&{(x,y)\in\Omega=[0,2\pi]^2,~ s\in[0,S],}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
\dfrac{\partial}{\partial {\bm{n}}} u(x,y,s)=0, & (x,y) \in \partial\Omega,
\vspace{0.2cm}
\\
{u(x,y,0)=\cos x \cos y,}
\end{array}\right.$$ with exact solution $u^{e}(x,y,s) = e^{-s} \cos x \cos y$.
First we verify the convergent order of the linear and quadratic VEMs. The time discretization is the CN scheme using $\delta s=1\times 10^{-4}$ to guarantee the enough time discretization accuracy. Tab.\[tab:spaceOrder\] gives the error and convergent order of VEM which is consistent with the theoretical result.
------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------- -------
\*[Nodes]{}
(lr)[2-5]{} $\|u^e(\cdot, S) - u_h(\cdot, S)\|_{\Omega}$ order $\|u^e(\cdot, S) - u_h(\cdot, S)\|_{\Omega}$ order
289 4.7737e-02 – 1.2062e-03 –
1089 1.3267e-02 1.84 1.5084e-04 2.99
4225 3.4013e-03 1.96 1.8863e-05 2.99
16641 8.5563e-04 1.99 2.3582e-06 3.00
------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------------- -------
: The error order of VEM.
\[tab:spaceOrder\]
Second we verify the error order of the CN and SDC schemes for solving . For the SDC scheme, we obtain a new solution $u^{[1]}$ by correcting the initial numerical solution $u^{[0]}$ calculated by the CN scheme just once. For the spatial discretization, we use the quadratic VEM with $66049$ nodes to guarantee the spatial discretization accuracy. Tab.\[tab:timeOrder\] gives the convergent order of the time discretization schemes which are also consistent with theoretical results. Notice that the error showed above is the $L^2$ error between the true solution and the VEM numerical solugion at the end time $S=1$.
------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------- -------
\*[$N_s$]{}
(lr)[2-5]{} $\|u^e(\cdot, S) - u_h(\cdot, S)\|_{\Omega}$ order $\|u^e(\cdot, S) - order
u_h(\cdot, S)\|_{\Omega}$
4 6.0605e-03 – 5.7514e-04 –
8 1.5074e-03 2.00 1.0163e-05 5.82
16 3.7637e-04 2.00 6.4626e-07 3.97
32 9.4065e-05 2.00 4.2283e-08 3.94
------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------- ----------------------------------- -------
: The error order of the time discretization schemes.
\[tab:timeOrder\]
Third we verify the integral accuracy of numerical solution along the contour variable $s$ which is required in many places of SCFT simulation, including solving PDEs and evaluating density functions. We use the quadratic VEM (66049 nodes) to discretize the parabolic equation to obtain a semi-discrete system. Correspondingly the exact solution of can be discretized into $u^e_h$. Then we solve the semi-discretize system using the CN and the SDC schemes for $s\in[0,1]$ to obtain the numerical solutions $u^{CN}_{h}$ and $u^{SDC}_h$, respectively. We integrate $u^{CN}_{h}$ and $u^{SDC}_h$ along $s$ from $0$ to $1$ using a modified fourth order integral scheme [@press1992numerical] and the spectral integral quadrature as discussed in the Sec.\[subsec:spint\], respectively. The integrated values are denoted by $U_h^{CN}$ and $U_h^{SDC}$. The exact integral about $u_h^e$ along $s$ from $0$ to $1$ can be obtained as $U^e_h$. The error is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
e^{M} = \| U^e_h - U^{M}_h\|_{\Omega_h},
\label{}\end{aligned}$$ where $M\in\{CN, SDC\}$. Tab.\[tab:intOrder\] presents the numerical results, and one can find that $e^{SDC}$ can achieve about $4\times
10^{-6}$ only requiring $8$ contour discretized nodes, while $e^{CN}$ requiring $256$ nodes.
$N_s$ $e^{CN}$ $e^{SDC}$
------- ------------ ------------
4 4.2343e-03 2.4219e-04
8 1.0728e-03 4.4032e-06
16 2.6970e-04 4.0527e-06
32 6.7675e-05 4.0519e-06
64 1.7401e-05 4.0520e-06
128 5.8778e-06 4.0520e-06
256 4.1963e-06 4.0520e-06
: \[tab:intOrder\] The time integral error between the 4-order integral scheme and the Chebyshev integral method
### The efficiency of SCFT calculations {#subsubsec:effscft}
To further demonstrate the performance of our proposed approach, we apply the numerical schemes to SCFT calculations. To compare results, we need a metric for accuracy that can be readily compared across different calculations. We use the value of the single chain partition function, $Q$, as the metric of accuracy of the solver. Since it is an integration of the end result of the propagator solve, it is a measure of the entire solution process. As a basis for comparison, we use a square with the edge length of $12 R_g$ as the computational domain. The volume fraction of $A$ is $f=0.2$, and the interaction parameter $\chi N=25$. The computation is carried out using a quadrilateral mesh (see Fig.\[fig:scfteff:hex\](a)). Correspondingly, the convergent morphology is a cylindrical structure, as shown in Fig.\[fig:scfteff:hex\](b).
![Cylindrical phase calculated by VEM with uniform grid when $\chi N =25$, $f=0.2$. Red colors correspond to large A-segment fractions. []{data-label="fig:scfteff:hex"}](SquareTotal.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
First, we look at the contour discretization schemes. The goal is to have the fewest number of contour points necessary for a desired accuracy. The quadratic VEM with $32400$ nodes is used to guarantee enough spatial discretization accuracy. $Q_{ref}$ in Fig.\[fig:scfteff\](a) is numerically obtained by the SDC scheme with $320$ contour points. Fig.\[fig:scfteff\](a) shows the convergence of $Q$ for the CN and SDC schemes as discussed above. The SDC method converges faster than the CN scheme to a prescribed precision.
Second we observe the numerical behavior of linear and quadratic VEMs in the SCFT simulation. From the above numerical tests (see Fig.\[fig:scfteff\](a)), one can see that using SDC scheme with $160$ discretization points can guarantee enough accuracy in time direction. So in the following computations, we use a high-precision numerical $Q_{ref}$ as the exact value, which is obtained by the quadratic VEM with $32400$ nodes and SDC scheme with $160$ points. Fig.\[fig:scfteff\] (b) shows the $Q$ values with different spatial discretization points of linear and quadratic VEMs. It is easy to see that the quadratic VEM is more accurate than the linear VEM as theory predicts. Therefore, in the following calculations, we always adopt the quadratic VEM and the SDC scheme.
![\[fig:scfteff\] Convergence of numerically computing single chain partition function $Q$ by different schemes. $E_Q =(Q-Q_{ref})/Q_{ref}$ is the relative error. $Q_{ref}$ is the numerical exact solution $Q_{ref}$. (See text for the details about $Q_{ref}$). (a) shows $Q$ results obtained by the CN and SDC scheme as the contour points $N_s$ increase. Quadratic VEM with $32400$ is employed to discretize the spatial variable. (b) presents $Q$ results computed by the linear and quadratic VEMs with a increase of spatial discretization points. SDC scheme with $160$ nodes is applied to discretize the time variable. ](Qtref-crop.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
![\[fig:scfteff\] Convergence of numerically computing single chain partition function $Q$ by different schemes. $E_Q =(Q-Q_{ref})/Q_{ref}$ is the relative error. $Q_{ref}$ is the numerical exact solution $Q_{ref}$. (See text for the details about $Q_{ref}$). (a) shows $Q$ results obtained by the CN and SDC scheme as the contour points $N_s$ increase. Quadratic VEM with $32400$ is employed to discretize the spatial variable. (b) presents $Q$ results computed by the linear and quadratic VEMs with a increase of spatial discretization points. SDC scheme with $160$ nodes is applied to discretize the time variable. ](Qref-crop.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
General domains with general polygonal meshes
---------------------------------------------
One advantage of the VEM is the capacity of approximating arbitrary geometry domain with general polygonal meshes. This allows us to directly calculate ordered structures on physical domains. Fig.\[fig:general\] presents these results on five different two dimensional domains discreted by quadranglar and polygonal elements, respectively. The same convergent structure and almost the same Hamiltonian value can be obtained for these two kinds of meshes, as shown in Fig.\[fig:general\] and in Tab.\[tab:general\].
![\[fig:general\] The self-assembled patterns in general domains through SCFT simulation including (1). Flower shaped plane; (2). Curved-L shaped plane; (3). Ring domain; (4). Rabbit-shaped plane; and (5). Dumbbell plane. Red colors correspond to large A-segment fractions. The first and second columns present the schematic mesh of quadrangular and polygonal meshes, respectively. The simulating diblock copolymer systems contain (1c) $[\chi N, f]=[25, 0.2]$, (1d) $[\chi N, f]=[15, 0.5]$, (2c) $[\chi N, f]=[25, 0.2]$, (2d) $[\chi N, f]=[15, 0.5]$, (3c) $[\chi N, f]=[30, 0.2]$, (3d) $[\chi N, f]=[14, 0.5]$, (4c) $[\chi N, f]=[30, 0.3]$, (4d) $[\chi N, f]=[14, 0.5]$, (5c) $[\chi N, f]=[25, 0.2]$, and (5d) $[\chi N, f]=[15, 0.5]$. The number of used nodes and converged Hamiltonian values can be found in Tab.\[tab:general\]. ](GeneralTotal.pdf){width="1.02\linewidth"}
---------------- ------------ ------------- --------- ---------
\*[Patterns]{} \*[Grid]{} \*[Nodes]{}
(lr)[4-5]{} (c) (d)
\*[(1)]{} (a) 13041 -2.3742 -1.7388
(b) 22560 -2.3754 -1.7398
\*[(2)]{} (a) 10720 -2.3720 -1.7440
(b) 20273 -2.3765 -1.7382
\*[(3)]{} (a) 7014 -3.1410 -0.1874
(b) 6510 -3.1409 -0.1873
\*[(4)]{} (a) 30182 -3.1440 -0.1900
(b) 34587 -3.1448 -0.1901
\*[(5)]{} (a) 7601 -2.3670 -1.6797
(b) 13824 -2.3718 -1.6883
---------------- ------------ ------------- --------- ---------
: The number of nodes of different meshes used in SCFT calculations for five different domains as shown in Fig.\[fig:general\] and corresponding converged Hamiltonian values.
\[tab:general\]
Adaptive VEM {#subsec:rltsAdaptiv}
------------
In this subsection, we will demonstrate the efficiency of adaptive VEM from two parts: 1) spending less computational cost to obtain prescribed accuracy; 2) application to strong segregation systems. As discussed in Sec. \[subsec:efficiency\] the quadratic VEM is more accurate than the linear one, therefore, only the quadratic VEM is used in the adaptive process. Meanwhile the SDC scheme with $100$ contour discretization points is chosen in time direction.
First, we take $\chi N = 25$ and $f=0.2$ as an example to demonstrate the efficiency of the adaptive method. The computational domain is a square with edge length $12 R_g$. The uniform mesh of square cells with $1089$ nodes is used to model the system at the start stage, then the adaptive method is launched when the iteration reaches the maximum steps $500$ or the reference value of estimator $\eta_{ref}<0.1$ ($\eta_{ref} = \sigma(\eta_E)/(\max(\eta_E)-\min(\eta_E))$, $\sigma(\eta_E)$ is the standard deviation of $\eta_E$, estimator $\eta_E$ see Eqn.). The adaptive process will be terminated when the successive Hamiltonian difference is smaller than $1.0\times 10^{-6}$. Fig.\[fig:avem:eff\] (a) gives the final adaptive meshes which includes $6684$ nodes. Fig.\[fig:avem:eff\] (b) shows the convergent tendency of Hamiltonian $H$ of adaptive process. The finally converged morphology has been shown in Fig.\[fig:scfteff:hex\](b). It can be seen that the Hamiltonian value efficiently converges by the cascadic adaptive grid method and grid elements adaptively increase mainly concentrated on the shape interface.
![\[fig:avem:eff\] (a) The converged adaptive meshes. (b) The numerical behavior of Hamiltonian $H$. The numbers between two dotted lines represent the number of spatial nodes in the adaptive process.](avemlast.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
We also compared the simulation results on the adaptive mesh and the uniform mesh. Fig.\[fig:compare\] shows the numerical behaviors of the single chain partition function $Q$ and Hamiltonian $H$ as the number of mesh nodes increase. Tab.\[tab:avem-uniform\] gives the corresponding converged values of $Q$ and $H$ on the adaptive mesh and the uniform mesh with $16641$ nodes, respectively. From these results, one can find that the uniform mesh results indeed gradually converge to the adaptive results. However there exists a small gap between the results of adaptive mesh and that of uniform mesh. The reason is that, compared with the uniform mesh method, the adaptive method put more mesh nodes in the areas where the solution changes sharply. The minimum element size of the adaptive mesh in the above calculation is $h_{min}=0.0469Rg$. If the same element size is used, the uniform mesh requires about $65000$ nodes which is about ten times than the adaptive method.
![\[fig:compare\] The convergence results on the adaptive mesh and the uniform mesh when $\chi N =25, f=0.2$. The differences of (a) single partition function $Q$, $E_Q =(Q-Q_{adap})/Q_{adap}$ and (b) Hamiltonian value $E_H =
(H-H_{adap})/H_{adap}$. $Q$ and $H$ are obtained on the uniform mesh, while $Q_{adap}$ and $H_{adap}$ are adaptive results. ](Qaref-crop.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
![\[fig:compare\] The convergence results on the adaptive mesh and the uniform mesh when $\chi N =25, f=0.2$. The differences of (a) single partition function $Q$, $E_Q =(Q-Q_{adap})/Q_{adap}$ and (b) Hamiltonian value $E_H =
(H-H_{adap})/H_{adap}$. $Q$ and $H$ are obtained on the uniform mesh, while $Q_{adap}$ and $H_{adap}$ are adaptive results. ](Href-crop.pdf){width="6.5cm"}
Mesh Nodes Q H
---------- ------- ------------ -----------
Adaptive 6684 4.2295e+02 -2.369403
Uniform 16641 4.2373e+02 -2.369448
: \[tab:avem-uniform\] The values of $Q$ and $H$.
Next, we apply the adaptive method to simulate the strong segregation systems, i.e., large interaction parameter $\chi N$, also in the square domain with edge length $12R_g$. For strong segregation case, the interface thickness becomes narrower. Therefore the adaptive mesh is more suitable than the uniform mesh to catch these narrower interface. When simulating the strong segregation system, the initial values are obtained by the converged results of relatively weak segregation system. Tab.\[tab:avem-adaptive\] presents the numerical results of $\chi N$ from $25$ to $60$ and $f=0.2$. From these results, one can find the advantages of the adaptive method as $\chi N$ increases, including a mild increase of mesh nodes, and a less iteration steps. Finally, we apply the adaptive method to strong segregation systems on more complicated domains, including two kinds of structures, cylindrical structures when $\chi
N=50$, $f =0.5$ and lamellar phases when $\chi N = 40$, $f =0.2$. Fig.\[fig:other\] presents the adaptive meshes and converged morphologies. These results demonstrate that the adaptive VEM method indeed can improve precision and reduce the computational cost.
$\chi N$ Step Nodes Q H
---------- ------ ------- ------------ -----------
25 1146 6684 4.2295e+02 -2.369403
30 78 9037 3.7743e+03 -3.149607
35 89 13443 3.1519e+04 -4.020791
40 74 17649 2.5880e+05 -4.946249
45 75 19741 2.0408e+06 -5.907039
50 75 20480 1.5355e+07 -6.892386
55 73 20641 1.0513e+08 -7.895548
60 61 20690 6.5573e+08 -8.911902
: \[tab:avem-adaptive\] Numerical results by the adaptive VEM for strong segregation systems.
![\[fig:other\] The self-assembled patterns of strong segregation systems obtained by the adaptive VEM. Red colors correspond to large A-segment fractions, including (1b) $[\chi N, f]=[50, 0.2]$, (1d) $[\chi N, f]=[50, 0.5]$, (2b) $[\chi N, f]=[40, 0.2]$, and (2d) $[\chi N, f]=[40, 0.5]$. The first and third columns present the corresponding adaptive meshes. ](other.pdf){width="1.03\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we propose a high-accuracy numerical method to solve the polymer SCFT model on arbitrary domains. The approach combines high order VEM and SDC scheme together for solving the propagator equations, which is the most-consuming part of the SCFT simulation. The VEM can use on very general polygonal mesh and is more flexible to approximate complex computational domains. We also develop an adaptive equipped with a new $Log$ marking strategy to efficiently make use of the information of existing numerical results and to significantly save the SCFT iterations. The resulting method achieves high accuracy with fewer number of spatial and contour nodes, and is suitable for solving strong segregation systems. Numerical results demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed approach.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11771368, 11871413), Hunan Science Foundation of China (2018JJ2376), Youth Project (18B057) and Key Project (19A500) of Education Department of Hunan Province of China.
[100]{}
. Interplay of symmetries of block polymers and confining geometries. [Eur. Polym. J]{}. 47 (04) (2011) 630-646.
R. A. Segalman. Patterning with block copolymer thin films. [Mater. Sci. Eng., R]{} 46 (06) (2005) 191-226.
H. Wang, B. Shentu, R. Faller. Molecular dynamics of different polymer blends containing poly(2,6-dimethyl-1,4-phenylene ether). Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17 (06) (2015) 4714-4723.
V. Sethuraman, B.H. Nguyen, V. Ganesan. Coarse-graining in simulations of multicomponent polymer systems. J. Chem. Phys. 141 (2014) 244904.
G. H. Fredrickson. [The equilibrium theory of inhomogeneous polymers]{}. Oxford University Press: New York, (2006).
W. Xu, K. Jiang, P. Zhang, A. C. Shi. A strategy to explore stable and metastable ordered phases of block copolymers. [J. Phys. Chem. B]{} 117 (17) (2013) 5296-5305.
K. Jiang, Y. Huang, P. Zhang. Spectral method for exploring patterns of diblock copolymers. [J. Comput. Phys.]{} 229 (20) (2010) 7796-7805.
K. Jiang, C. Wang, Y. Huang, P. Zhang. Discovery of new metastable patterns in diblock copolymers. Commun. Comput. Phys. 14 (02) (2013) 443-460.
G. Ouaknin, N. Laachi, K. Delaney, G. H. Fredrickson. Self-consistent field theory simulations of polymers on arbitrary domains. J. Comput. Phys. 327 (2016) 168-185.
H. D. Ceniceros. Efficient order-adaptive methods for polymer self-consistent field theory. [J. Comput. Phys.]{} 386 (01) (2019) 9-21.
H. D. Ceniceros, G. H. Fredrickson. Numerical solution of polymer self-consistent field theory. [Multiscale Model. Simul.]{} 2 (03) (2004) 452-474.
R. B. Thompson, K. [Ø]{}. Rasmussen, T. Lookman. Improved convergence in block copolymer self-consistent field theory by anderson mixing. [J. Chem. Phys.]{} 120 (31) (2004) 31-34.
K. Jiang, W. Xu, P. Zhang. Analytic structure of the SCFT energy functional of multicomponent block copolymers. 17 (05) (2015) 1360-1387.
M. W. Matsen, M. Schick. Stable and unstable phases of a diblock copolymer melt. [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} 72 (16) (1994) 2660-2663.
K. [Ø]{}. Rasmussen, G. Kalosakas. Improved numerical algorithm for exploring block copolymer mesophases. [J. Phys.: Condens. Matter]{} 40 (16) (2002) 1777-1783.
E. W. Cochran, C.J. Garcia-Cervera, G. H. Fredrickson. Stability of the gyroid phase in diblock copolymers at strong segregation. [Macromolecules]{} 39 (07) (2006) 2449-2451.
D. M. Ackerman, K. Delaney, G. H. Fredrickson, B. Ganapathysubramaniana. A finite element approach to self-consistent field theory calculations of multiblock polymers. J. Comput. Phys. 331 (2017) 280-296.
H. Wei, M. Xu, W. Si, and K. Jiang. A finite element method of the self-consistent field theory on general curved surfaces. [J. Comput. Phys.]{} 387 (15) (2019) 230-244.
P. Binev, W. Dahmen, and R. DeVore. Adaptive finite element methods with convergence rates. [Numer. Math. (Heidelb)]{}, 97 (02) (2004) 219-268.
C. Carstensen, J. Hu. Hanging nodes in the unifying theory of a posteriori finite element error control. [J. Comput. Math.,]{} (2009) 215-236.
B. Ahmed, A. Alsaedi, F. Brezzi, L.D. Marini, and A. Russo. Equivalent projectors for virtual element methods. Comput. Math. Appl., 66 (03) (2013) 376-391.
L. Beirao da Veiga, F. Brezzi, L.D. Marini, and A. Russo. The hitchhiker’s guide to the virtual element method. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 24 (08) (2014) 1541-1573.
L. Beirao da Veiga, F. Brezzi, A. Cangiani, L. D. Marini, G. Manzini and A. Russo. Basic principles of virtual elements methods. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 23 (2013) 199-214.
P. F. Antonietti, L. Beirão da Veiga, D. Mora, and M. Verani. A stream function formulation of the Stokes problem for the virtual element method. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 52 (2014) 386–404.
J. Zhao, S. Chen, and B. Zhang. The nonconforming virtual element method for plate bending problems. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 26 (2016) 1671–1687.
L. Chen, H. Wei, and M. Wen. An interface-fitted mesh generator and virtual element methods for elliptic interface problems. J. Comput. Phys. 334 (2017) 327–348.
A. Dutt, L. Greengard, and V. Rokhlin. Spectral deferred correction methods for ordinary differential equations. BIT Numer. Math., 40 (02) (2000) 241-266.
C. W. Clenshaw and A. R. Curtis. A method for numerical integration on an automatic computer. [Numer. Math. (Heidelb)]{}, 2 (01) (1960) 197-205.
U. M. Ascher, S. J. Ruuth, and R. J. Spiteri. Implicit-explicit Runge-Kutta methods for time-dependent partial differential equations. Appl. Numer. Math., 25 (1997) 151-167.
L. N. Trefethen. Is Gauss quadrature better than Clenshaw-Curtis? [SIAM Review]{}, 50 (01) (2008) 67-87.
Y. Huang, K. Jiang, N. Yi. Some weighted averaging methods for gradient recovery. [Adv. Appl. Math. Mech.]{} 4 (02) (2012) 131-155.
H. Jarausch. On an adaptive grid refining technique for finite element approximations. SIAM J. Sci. and Stat. Comput., 7(04) (1986) 1105-1120.
W. D[ö]{}rfler. A convergent adaptive algorithm for poisson’s equation. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 33(03) (1996) 1106-1124.
H. Wei and K. Jiang. A new efficient marking strategy for adaptive methods, in preparation.
S. J. Osher, R. P. Ronald. Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces. New York: Springer, (2005).
H. Wei. FEALPy: finite element analysis library in Python. https://github.com/weihuayi/fealpy, Xiangtan University, 2017-2020.
See the formula (4.1.14) on p.160 in [Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing]{}, 3rd edition, W. H. Press, A. S. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Ed. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the power spectrum of a regular binary thermal lattice gas in two dimensions and derive a Landau-Placzek formula, describing the power spectrum in the low-wavelength, low frequency domain, for both the full mixture and a single component in the binary mixture. The theoretical results are compared with simulations performed on this model and show a perfect agreement. The power spectrums are found to be similar in structure as the ones obtained for the continuous theory, in which the central peak is a complicated superposition of entropy and concentration contributions, due to the coupling of the fluctuations in these quantities. Spectra based on the relative difference between both components have in general additional Brillouin peaks as a consequence of the equipartition failure.'
author:
- Ronald Blaak
- David Dubbeldam
title: 'Regular binary thermal lattice-gases'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Lattice-gas automata (LGA), as introduced by Frisch, Hasslacher, and Pomeau [@Fri86], are ideal testing systems for kinetic theory. Although they have a simple structure, which makes them extremely efficient simulation tools, they still address the full many-body particle problem. Much of the efficiency originates from the discretization of the positions and velocities of the point-like particles onto a lattice. The simplified dynamics is a cyclic process: a streaming step, where all particles propagate to neighboring lattice sites, followed by a local collision step. The collisions typically conserve mass and momentum, and in addition energy if the model under consideration is thermal.
Lattice-gases are capable of simulating macroscopic fluid flow [@Fri86; @Boon2001], and can be used for studying flow through porous media [@Chen], immiscible multicomponent fluids [@Gunstensen], reaction-diffusion [@ReactionDiffusion], von Karman streets [@vonKarmanstreet], Rayleigh-Bénard convection [@RayBer], interfaces and phase transitions [@Rothman:1994RMP]. However, there are practical problems when using LGA’s: the models are not Galilean-invariant, temperature is not well-defined, the transport coefficient have unexpected behavior as a function of temperature and density, and many models contain spurious invariants [@Brito:1991JSP; @Das:1992PA; @Ernst:1992JSP]. It is therefore difficult to make connections with realistic systems. Although in the early years the LGA’s were thought to seriously compete with other fluid flow solvers, the main line of research has shifted to a testing ground for concepts in kinetic theory. The main motivation for this paper lies in the exploration of the limits of thermal lattice-gas capabilities concerning diffusion-like phenomena.
Diffusion can be incorporated in LGA’s in several ways. The computational most efficient method is the *color mixture* [@Boon2001; @Ernst:1990JSP; @Hanon], which we have analyzed in detail for a thermal model [@Blaak:2001PRE]. The otherwise identical particles are in such a mixture painted with a probability corresponding to the concentration and a color-blind observer would not notice any difference, i.e. all transport properties are the same as for the single-component fluid. But in addition there is an extra hydrodynamical and color-dependent diffusion mode that does not interfere with the other modes.
In this paper we consider a different way to include diffusion, namely the regular binary mixture [@Ernst:1990JSP]. In the regular binary mixture one has two distinct species of particles, i.e. different mass. For particles of the same species the exclusion principle holds and hence there can be at most one particle of a given species in any velocity channel. There is, however, no mutual exclusion for particles off different species. Consequently, a given velocity channel can be occupied by two particles, provided they both belong to a different species.
One can interpret this as each species living on its own but identical lattice with exclusion. Since each specie is restricted to its own lattice there can be no mass exchange between the two lattices and there is local mass conservation for both species. Upon interaction, however, particles of both lattices corresponding to the same node are able to exchange momentum and energy, provided this does no violate local mass conservation and exclusion for each species. Consequently, the dynamics of the regular binary mixture is much more involved than that of the color mixture, but it is closer to the dynamics of real fluids. For simplicity we here will assume the special case of the two species having the same physical properties, i.e. the same mass, and distinguish both species by a different color label.
We analyze the model at the microscopic level and focus mainly on the behavior of the power spectrum. The coupling between energy transport and diffusion that arises in these systems, results in a more complicated structure of the power spectrum [@Mountain; @BoonYip; @Blaak:2001PREb], in which the central peak now contains combined effects of both entropy fluctuations and concentration fluctuations. Macroscopically this coupling manifests itself as the Dufour effect (a concentration gradient induces a heat-flow) and the Soret effect (a temperature gradient induces a diffusion flux).
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We start by introducing the regular binary thermal lattice gas model in section \[Sec:Model\] and use the molecular chaos assumption to obtain the linearized collision operator. Section \[Sec:Mode Analysis\] is concerned with a mode analysis of the linearized system, revealing the appearance of an extra diffusion mode. The modes related to thermal diffusivity and mass-diffusion are coupled and form two non-propagating, diffusive modes. Furthermore, in section \[Sec:Landau-Placzek\] we derive a Landau-Placzek analogue, a formula which describes the power spectrum in the hydrodynamic limit (long wavelength, small frequency domain), which we check with simulation results performed on this system in section \[Sec:simulation\]. In the final section we give a brief overview of the main results and some concluding remarks.
The regular binary GBL-model {#Sec:Model}
============================
The LGA model we like to consider here is a thermal model consisting of two different interacting species of particles with identical mass. They can be thought of to live on separate two-dimensional hexagonal lattices on which they propagate independently, but red and blue particles corresponding to the same node interact during the collision. The velocities are discretized and have a spatial layout as shown in figure \[Fig:spatial layout\]. They are distributed over four rings: one ring contains a single null-velocity, and three rings each contain six velocities with magnitude $1$, $\sqrt{3}$, and $2$. The velocity set is of size $19$, and equivalent to the GBL-model, proposed by Grosfils, Boon, and Lallemand [@GBL92]. Since the model under consideration is basically a combination of two GBL models, particles of different type (red and blue) can have the same velocity. However, there can not be more than a single particle of each type in a given velocity state. The multiple rings correspond each to a different energy level and are a necessary requirement in order to introduce thermal properties. This particular velocity set guarantees the absence of spurious invariants and results in macroscopically isotropic behavior [@GBL93].
The state of a node can be specified by a set of boolean occupation numbers $n_{i\mu}$, denoting the presence or absence of a particle of type $\mu=\{r,b\}$ in velocity channel $\bm{c}_i$, where $i$ is a label running over all 19 velocities. Due to the boolean nature of the LGA, the ensemble average of the occupation numbers $f_{i\mu}$ in equilibrium, is described by a Fermi-Dirac distribution [@Boon2001] $$\label{Eq:FermiDirac}
f_{i\mu} \equiv \langle n_{i\mu}\rangle = \frac{1}{1 + e^{- \alpha_\mu
+ \frac{1}{2} \beta \bm{c}_i^2 -\bm{\gamma} \cdot \bm{c}_i}},$$ where $\alpha_r$, $\alpha_b$, $\beta$, and $\bm{\gamma}$ are Lagrange multipliers and fixed by setting the value of the average red density $\rho_r=\sum_{ir} f_{ir}$, the average blue density $\rho_b=\sum_{ib} f_{ib}$ (or alternatively the total density $\rho=\rho_r + \rho_b$ and the fraction $P_r$ of red particles), the average velocity $\rho\bm{ u}=\sum_{i\mu} f_{i\mu}\bm{ c}_i$, and the energy density $\rho e=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\mu} f_{i\mu}\bm{
c}_i^2$. Here, $\beta$ is the inverse temperature, $\alpha_r$ and $\alpha_b$ fulfill a chemical potential role, and $\bm{ \gamma}$ is a parameter conjugate to the flow velocity. In the remainder of this paper we will restrict ourselves to the global zero-momentum case by putting $\bm{ \gamma}=0$.
The lattice-gas Boltzmann equation, describing the time-evolution of the average occupation numbers, is given by [@Boon2001] $$f_{i\mu}(\bm{ r}+\bm{ c}_i,t+1)=f_{i\mu}(\bm{ r},t)+\Delta_{i\mu}(f),
\label{Eq:NonlinearBoltzmannequation}$$ where the nonlinear collision term $\Delta_{i\mu}(f)$ is a summation over all pre-and post-collision states $s$ and $s'$ $$\Delta_{i\mu}(f)=\sum_{s,s'}P(s) A(s\rightarrow s') (s_{i\mu}'-s_{i\mu}).$$ The collision rules that are used are taken in to account by the transition matrix $A$, which contains the probability that on collision a state is transformed into an “equivalent” state. We denote the collection of states that can be transformed into each other by an equivalence class $\Gamma=(M_r,M_b,\bm{ P},E)$, i.e. a class having the same red mass $M_r=\sum_i s_{ir}$, the same blue mass $M_b=\sum_i s_{ib}$, the same momentum $\bm{P}=\sum_{i\alpha} s_{i\alpha}\bm{ c}_i$, and the same energy $E=\sum_{i\alpha}\frac{1}{2}s_{i\alpha}\bm{ c}_i^2$. We adopt maximal collision rules, i.e. under collision a state can transform in any other state within the same equivalence class, including itself, thus fulfilling all conservation laws. Hence $A(\Gamma)=\frac{1}{|\Gamma|}$, where we use $|\Gamma|$ to denote the number of elements in the class $\Gamma$. The density and energy density enter the collision operator through $P(s)$, the probability of occurrence of state $s$ in equilibrium. In the Boltzmann approximation, the velocity channels are assumed to be independent, hence $P(s)$ can be written as $$P(s)=\prod_{i\mu} f_{i\mu}^{s_{i\mu}} (1-f_{i\mu})^{1-s_{i\mu}}.$$
If the velocity fluctuations are sufficiently small a Taylor expansion of the collision term in the neighborhood of the equilibrium distribution is justified [@Boon2001], yielding the linearized collision operator $\Omega$ $$\label{Eq:OmegaKappa}
(\Omega\kappa)_{i\mu,j\nu}=\sum_{s,s'} P(s)A(s\rightarrow s')
(s_{i\mu}'-s_{i\mu})s_{j\nu},$$ where the diagonal matrix $\kappa_{i\mu,j\nu}$ is determined by $\kappa_{i\mu,i\mu}=f_{i\mu}(1-f_{i\mu})$, which is the variance in the occupation number of a channel with the corresponding labels. It can easily be checked from Eq. (\[Eq:OmegaKappa\]) that $\Omega\kappa$ is a symmetric $38\times38$ matrix. In contrast with the colored LGA [@Blaak:2001PRE], $\kappa$ is a 38-dimensional diagonal matrix due to the fact that there is no mutual exclusion of a red and blue particle with the same velocity. It also enables us to introduce the colored thermal scalar product [@Hanon; @Blaak:2001PRE; @Ernst:1992JSP], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:inproduct}
\langle A|B\rangle&=\sum_{i\mu}A(\bm{ c}_{i\mu})
B({\mathbf c}_{i\mu}) \kappa_{i\mu},\\
\langle A|\Omega|B\rangle&=\sum_{i\mu j\nu}A(\bm{ c}_{i\mu})
(\Omega\kappa)_{i\mu,j\nu} B(\bm{ c}_{j\nu}),
\label{Eq:thermal inner matrix}\end{aligned}$$ where we adopt the convention that the matrix $\kappa$ is attached to the right vector.
Perturbation theory {#Sec:Mode Analysis}
===================
In first approximation the behavior of the system can be obtained by considering the fluctuations $\delta f_{i\nu}(\bm{ r},t) = f_{i\nu}
(\bm{ r},t)-f_{i\nu}$ and analyze these deviations from the uniform equilibrium state in terms of eigenmodes. The solutions of the Boltzmann equation (\[Eq:NonlinearBoltzmannequation\]) are then of the form $$\delta f_{i\nu} = \psi_\mu(\bm{ k,c_i}) e^{-\imath \bm{ k} \cdot
\bm{ r}+ z_\mu(\bm{ k})t},$$ where $z_\mu(\bm{ k})$ represents the eigenvalue of the mode $\psi_\mu$ at wavevector $\bm{ k}$. The hydrodynamic modes are related to the collisional invariants and satisfy $z_\mu\rightarrow 0$ for $\bm{ k}\rightarrow 0$. There are five independent collision invariants $a_n$ corresponding to the conservation of the red and blue mass, the conservation of momentum, and the conservation of energy $$\label{Eq:Invariantequation}
\langle a_n| \Omega = 0 \qquad \Omega | a_n \rangle = 0,$$ $$\label{Eq:Invariants}
|a_n \rangle = \{ |R\rangle, |B\rangle, |c_x\rangle, |c_y\rangle,
|\frac{1}{2} c^2\rangle\},$$ where $|R\rangle_{i\alpha} = \delta_{\alpha r}$, $|B\rangle_{i\alpha}
= \delta_{\alpha b}$, and can be combined to form $|\rho\rangle =
|R\rangle + |B\rangle$. It turns out that an equivalent and more convenient set of invariants is given by the following five combinations which are mutual orthogonal with respect to the colored thermal scalar product (\[Eq:inproduct\]) $$\label{Eq:Invariantbasis}
|a_n \rangle =\{ |c_x\rangle, |c_y\rangle,
|p\rangle = |\frac{1}{2} c^2\rangle, |s\rangle = |p\rangle - c_s^2
|\rho\rangle,
|d\rangle\},$$ where $|s\rangle$ is the analogue to the microscopic entropy for the GBL model [@GBL93] and $c_s^2=\frac{\langle p|p\rangle}{\langle
p|\rho\rangle}$ the speed of sound following from the orthogonality requirement $\langle p|s\rangle = 0$. The remaining invariant $|d\rangle$ is, contrary to the one in the colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE], not simply the weighted difference between the red and blue densities $\frac{1}{\langle R|R\rangle}|R\rangle-
\frac{1}{\langle B|B\rangle}|B\rangle$, but is given by $$\label{Eq:invariant-d}
|d\rangle = \left( \frac{|R\rangle}{\langle s|R\rangle} -
\frac{|B\rangle}{\langle s|B\rangle}\right) -
\left( \frac{\langle p|R\rangle}{\langle s|R\rangle} -
\frac{\langle p|B\rangle}{\langle s|B\rangle}\right)
\frac{|p\rangle}{\langle p|p\rangle}.$$ This form is determined by the requirement that it is orthogonal to the four other invariants. In the case of equal red and blue density the last term on the righthand side vanishes, but in general this is not the case. The origin of this term is in fact the absence of equipartition in this model due to the exclusion principle, which causes the ratio $f_{ir}/f_{ib}$ to be dependent on the velocity of the particles as can be seen from Eq. (\[Eq:FermiDirac\]). Note that this last invariant is also perpendicular to the density, i.e. $\langle \rho|d\rangle = 0$. Other useful relations between these invariants are $\langle \rho|p\rangle = \langle \rho|c_x^2
\rangle = \langle \rho|c_y^2\rangle$ and $\langle p|p \rangle =
\langle p|c_x^2 \rangle = \langle p|c_y^2\rangle$.
The choice of $|s\rangle$ and $|d\rangle$ made here is based on the correspondence of the definition of $|s\rangle$ with the one made for the GBL model and its colored counterpart [@Blaak:2001PRE; @GBL93]. Since $|s\rangle$ nor $|d\rangle$, with the exception of some special limits, is going to be the zeroth order of an eigenmode the choice is somewhat arbitrary and any two linear combinations that are mutual orthogonal could be used as well. The current choice, however, will facilitate us to make a connection with continuous theory and the proper transport coefficients.
Note that this is similar to what is done in the case of continuous theory and generalized versions of hydrodynamics (See Ref. [@BoonYip] and references therein), where one also needs to obtain a set of variables that are statistically independent based on thermodynamic fluctuation theory. This does not uniquely fix these variables, and the freedom that remains can be used in order to select an appropriate, orthogonal set for the specific problem.
Following the method of Résibois and Leener [@Resibois] we need to find the $\bm{ k}$-dependent eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the single-time step Boltzmann propagator $$\label{Eq:eigenproblem-right}
e^{-\imath \bm{k}\cdot \bm{c}}(\bm{1}+\Omega)
|\psi(\bm{k})\rangle = e^{z(\bm{k})}| \psi(\bm{k})\rangle,$$ $$\label{Eq:eigenproblem-left}
\langle \phi(\bm{k})| e^{-\imath \bm{k}\cdot
\bm{c}}(\bm{1}+\Omega) = e^{z(\bm{k})} \langle \phi(\bm{k})|,$$ where $e^{-\imath \bm{k} \cdot \bm{c}}$ has to be interpreted as a diagonal matrix, and $\bm{1}$ is the identity matrix. The symmetries of the matrices cause the left and right eigenvectors to be related by $\phi_\mu({\bf k})=e^{\imath \bm{k}\cdot \bm{c}} \psi_\mu({\bf
k})/{\cal M}_\mu$, and form a complete biorthonormal set $$\label{Eq:biortho}
\sum_\mu |\psi_\mu\rangle\langle\phi_\mu| = \bm{1} \qquad \langle\phi_\mu |
\psi_\nu\rangle = \delta_{\mu\nu},$$ where we used $\mu$ and $\nu$ to label the different eigenfunctions and introduced the normalization constants ${\cal M}_\mu$.
To obtain the hydrodynamic modes characterized by $z(\bm{k})
\rightarrow 0$ in the limit $\bm{k} \rightarrow 0$, we make a Taylor expansion of the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues $$\psi_\mu(\bm{k}) = \psi_\mu^{(0)} + (\imath k) \psi_\mu^{(1)} +
(\imath k)^2 \psi_\mu^{(2)} + \cdots,$$ $$z_\mu(\bm{k}) = (\imath k) z_\mu^{(1)} + (\imath k)^2 z_\mu^{(2)} + \cdots,$$ where we already used that $z_\mu^{(0)}=0$. The functions $\psi_\mu(\bm{k})$ will be determined up to a normalization factor. As this normalization is not allowed to be observable, and in fact will not be observable, we can choose it in a convenient way by $$\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)}|\psi_\mu(\bm{k})\rangle =
\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle,$$ which leads to $$\label{Eq:normalisation}
\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(n)}\rangle =
\delta_{ n 0} \langle \psi_\mu^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle.$$ Substitution of the expansions in Eq. (\[Eq:eigenproblem-right\]) and grouping according to the same order in $k$ gives $$\Omega |\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle = 0,$$ $$\label{Eq:order-one}
\Omega |\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle = (c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})
|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle,$$ $$\label{Eq:order-two}
\Omega |\psi_\mu^{(2)}\rangle = (c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})
|\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle + \left[ z_\mu^{(2)} + \frac{1}{2} (c_\ell +
z_\mu^{(1)} )^2 \right] |\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle,$$ with $c_\ell = \hat{\bm{k}} \cdot \bm{c}$ and its orthogonal counterpart $c_\perp = \hat{\bm{k}}_\perp \cdot \bm{c}$.
The solution of the zeroth order equation is straightforward and gives $$|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle = \sum_n A_{\mu n} |a_n\rangle,$$ with some unknown coefficients $A_{\mu n}$. Substitution in the first order equation and multiplying with $\langle a_m|$ at the left gives for each $m$ a linear equation in the $A_{\mu n}$ $$\sum_n A_{\mu n} \langle a_m|c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)} |a_n\rangle = 0,$$ where we used that $\langle a_m|\Omega = 0$. This set of equations has a solution provided the determinant is zero, leading to the following eigenvalue equation for $z_\mu^{(1)}$ $$\left(z_\mu^{(1)}\right)^3 \left( \langle p|p\rangle \langle
c_\ell|c_\ell\rangle \left(z_\mu^{(1)}\right)^2 - \langle
p|c_\ell\rangle^2 \right) = 0,$$ where it is used that combinations containing an odd power of $c_\ell$ or $c_\perp$ are necessarily zero. This determines two of the five zeroth order eigenfunctions $$\label{Eq:soundmodes}
|\psi_\sigma^{(0)}\rangle = |p\rangle +\sigma c_s |c_\ell\rangle \qquad
z_\pm^{(1)} = - \sigma c_s,$$ where $\sigma=\pm$ denotes opposite directions parallel to $\bm{ k}$ and $$\left(z_\sigma^{(1)}\right)^2=\frac{\langle p|c_\ell^2\rangle^2}
{\langle p|p\rangle \langle p|\rho\rangle}=c_s^2.$$ For the remaining three eigenfunctions we can only conclude at this level that they satisfy $z_\mu^{(1)} = 0$ and are formed by combinations of $|d\rangle$, $|s\rangle$, and $|c_\perp\rangle$ only. On physical grounds it can be argued that $|c_\perp\rangle$ will be a mode on itself, however, it also will follow in a natural way later on.
The combination $ |j_\mu\rangle = c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)}
|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle$ is called the current. We will extend the definitions of the current $j_\mu$ and $\psi_\mu^{(0)}$ to include $s$ and $d$ as a possible value for $\mu$. This is for convenience, since strictly speaking $|s\rangle$ and $|d\rangle$ will in general not be the source of an eigenfunction, but both will be a linear combination of two “true” modes of the system.
With the introduction of these currents it follows immediately from Eqns. (\[Eq:Invariantequation\]) and (\[Eq:order-one\]) that invariants and currents are orthogonal $$\label{Eq:psi0-j}
\langle\psi_\nu^{(0)}|j_\mu\rangle = 0,$$ hence the currents lie in the complement of the null-space. Since this is not affected by applying $\Omega$ we obtain $$\label{Eq:psi0-j-m}
\langle\psi_\nu^{(0)}|\Omega^m|j_\mu\rangle = 0$$ for any integer $m$, including negative values. Note that for negative values of $m$ the expression $\Omega^m|j_\mu\rangle$ is uniquely determined by the requirement that the result has no component in the null-space. Therefore the solution of the first order equation (\[Eq:order-one\]) can formally be written as $$\label{Eq:solution-one}
|\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle = \frac{1}{\Omega}|j_\mu\rangle + \sum_\nu
B_{\mu \nu} |\psi_\nu^{(0)}\rangle,$$ with yet to be determined coefficients $B_{\mu \nu}$ and also three still unknown currents. The coefficients $B_{\mu\mu}=0$ as follows from the chosen normalization (\[Eq:normalisation\]) of the eigenfunctions.
Multiplying the second order equation (\[Eq:order-two\]) with $\langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|$ at the left side we find $$\begin{aligned}
0 = & \langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}| (c_\ell + z_\lambda^{(1)})
|\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle + (z_\mu^{(1)} - z_\lambda^{(1)})
\langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle + \nonumber\\ &
z_\mu^{(2)} \langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle + \frac{1}{2}
\langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|(c_\ell + z_\lambda^{(1)}) (c_\ell +
z_\mu^{(1)}) |\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle + \nonumber\\ & \frac{1}{2} (z_\mu^{(1)} -
z_\lambda^{(1)}) \langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|(c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})
|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Using the definition of the currents, substitution of the formal solution of the first order equation (\[Eq:solution-one\]), and using the orthogonality relations (\[Eq:psi0-j\]) this leads to $$\label{Eq:second-order}
z_\mu^{(2)} \langle\psi_\lambda^{(0)}|\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle +
(z_\mu^{(1)} - z_\lambda^{(1)}) B_{\mu \lambda} \langle
\psi_\lambda^{(0)} |\psi_\lambda^{(0)}\rangle = - \langle j_\lambda |
\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}| j_\mu\rangle.$$ For $\lambda=\mu$ this gives the five transport coefficients $$\label{Eq:transport}
z_\mu^{(2)} = - \frac{\langle j_\mu | \frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2}| j_\mu\rangle}{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)}
\rangle},$$ and for $\lambda \neq \mu$ $$\label{Eq:B-mu-nu}
(z_\mu^{(1)} - z_\lambda^{(1)}) B_{\mu \lambda} \langle
\psi_\lambda^{(0)} |\psi_\lambda^{(0)}\rangle = - \langle j_\lambda |
\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}| j_\mu\rangle,$$ from which some of the values of $ B_{\mu \lambda}$ can be obtained, provided that $(z_\mu^{(1)} - z_\lambda^{(1)})$ is nonzero, and of which the resulting expressions can be found in Appendix \[Sec:appendix\]. Note that at this stage three of the zeroth order eigenfunctions and their corresponding currents are still undetermined.
In the space of $|d\rangle$, $|s\rangle$, and $|c_\perp\rangle$ one can rewrite Eq. (\[Eq:second-order\]) in the form of a new eigenvalue problem in the still undetermined coefficients $A_{\mu n}$ $$\sum_n \left( \langle j_m | \frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}| j_n\rangle
+ z_\mu^{(2)} \langle a_m | a_n \rangle \right) A_{\mu n} = 0.$$ Equating the determinant to zero we find that there are three different eigenvalues and we can obtain the form of the remaining three zeroth order eigenfunctions. Using the fact that there is no degeneracy we know that we can diagonalize the matrix in terms of the proper functions. Hence the off-diagonal matrix elements $\langle j_\mu |
\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}| j_\nu\rangle$ need to vanish, which could already be seen from Eq. (\[Eq:B-mu-nu\]) since for these modes we have $z_\mu^{(1)}=0$. It can also easily be checked from symmetry considerations that $|c_\perp\rangle$ is one of the modes as was suggested earlier. The solution of the remaining two zeroth order eigenfunctions is straightforward and leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:viscomode}
|\psi_\perp^{(0)}\rangle &= |c_\perp\rangle,\\
\label{Eq:spm}
|\psi_{s_\pm}^{(0)}\rangle &=|s_\pm\rangle =
\frac{|s\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle s|s\rangle}} + \left(-\xi \pm
\sqrt{1+\xi^2}\right)
\frac{|d\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle d|d\rangle}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where the prefactors are determined by the requirements $$\begin{aligned}
\langle s_\pm|s_\mp\rangle&=0,\\
\label{Eq:ortho-js}
\langle j_{s_\pm}| \frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}|j_{s_\mp}\rangle&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ and we have introduced the short hand notation $$\label{Eq:xi}
\xi \equiv\frac{\chi -{\mathcal D}}{2 Q},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:chi}
\chi &\equiv - \frac{\langle j_{s}| \frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2} |j_{s}
\rangle}{\langle s|s\rangle},\\
\label{Eq:D}
{\cal D} &\equiv - \frac{\langle j_{d}| \frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2} |j_{d}
\rangle}{\langle d|d\rangle},\\
\label{Eq:Q}
Q &\equiv - \frac{\langle j_{s}| \frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2} |j_{d}
\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle s|s\rangle \langle d|d\rangle}}.\end{aligned}$$ As the form of the last three quantities suggests by comparison with Eq. (\[Eq:transport\]), these quantities are related to transport coefficients. In the low density limit and in the limit of only one specie, one can identify $\chi$ as being the thermal diffusivity of the GBL model. In the low density limit ${\cal D}$ will correspond to the self-diffusion coefficient. Their interpretation as transport coefficients is justified in Appendix \[Sec:appendixb\]. The remaining value $Q$ can not be interpreted as a transport value, but rather is some measure of the coupling between different modes.
Using Eq. (\[Eq:transport\]) we can evaluate the five transport coefficients corresponding to the hydrodynamic modes. In the case of the two soundmodes (\[Eq:soundmodes\]) this leads to the sounddamping $\Gamma$ $$z_\pm^{(2)} = \Gamma = - \frac{\langle j_\pm |\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}
|j_\pm \rangle}{\langle \psi_\pm^{(0)} |\psi_\pm^{(0)}\rangle},$$ while the perpendicular mode (\[Eq:viscomode\]) gives rise to the viscosity $\nu$ $$z_\perp^{(2)} = \nu = - \frac{\langle j_\perp| \frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2}
|j_\perp \rangle}{\langle c_\perp|c_\perp\rangle}.$$ By writing out the definitions of $|s_\pm\rangle$ and $|j_{s_\pm}
\rangle$ and using the introduced quantities (\[Eq:xi\]) - (\[Eq:Q\]) where needed, we can rewrite the second order eigenvalues of the two non-propagating modes $|s_\pm\rangle$ as $$s^\circ_\pm = - \frac{\langle j_{s_\pm}| \frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2} |j_{s_\pm} \rangle}{\langle s_\pm|s_\pm\rangle}=
\frac{1}{2} (\chi +{\cal D}) \pm Q \sqrt{1 + \frac{(\chi -
{\cal D})^2}{4 Q^2}}.
\label{Eq:smodes}$$ In the low density limit one finds that the two eigenmodes (\[Eq:spm\]) up to a normalization factor will converge to $|s\rangle$ and $|d\rangle$ as defined in Eqns. (\[Eq:Invariantbasis\]) and (\[Eq:invariant-d\]). Consequently one obtains $s^\circ_\pm
\rightarrow \chi, {\cal D}$, which is an illustration of the decoupling of entropy and concentration fluctuations in this limit. In general, however, these two “true” transport coefficients do not seem to correspond with a conventional transport coefficient, but rather they always appear in combination with each other, and it is only in the appropriate limits that they reduce to the thermal diffusivity and diffusion coefficient. This is completely in agreement with the results known for the continuous theory [@BoonYip], where the coupling of fluctuations in concentration and entropy results in the same effect.
In the present model, however, there is some ambiguity in the choice made for the basic invariants. To arrive at this last formula it was only necessary to assume that the invariants $|s\rangle$ and $|d\rangle$, are mutually orthogonal, and span a 2-dimensional subspace in the null-space which is perpendicular to $|c_\ell\rangle$, $|c_\perp\rangle$, and $|p\rangle$. A good choice necessarily leads to the proper modes in the fully known limit of one specie. Although this puts some limitations on the possible choices it will not uniquely fix the basis. The present choice for $|s\rangle$ in (\[Eq:Invariantbasis\]) is however the most natural extension of the conventional formulation [@GBL93] and we will refer to $\chi$ as being the generalized thermal diffusivity.
This problem is more easily identified in the diffusion-like mode $|d\rangle$. In the present formulation (\[Eq:invariant-d\]), it contains in general a contribution proportional to $|p\rangle$, rather than being a weighted difference of the red and blue densities only as found in the colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE]. This already suggests that this vector is not the proper generalization of the self-diffusion mode. This is consistent with the continuous theory [@BoonYip], where the analogue of the $s_\pm^\circ$ also depend on more than the thermal diffusivity and diffusion only. We will address this subject again in a later section.
Similar to the case of the GBL model we can introduce $\gamma$, the ratio of specific heats by $$\gamma = 1 + \frac{\langle s|s\rangle}{\langle p|p\rangle} =
\frac{\langle p|p\rangle \langle \rho|\rho\rangle}{\langle p|\rho\rangle^2}
=\frac{c_s^2}{c_T^2},$$ with $c_s^2=\langle p|p\rangle/\langle p|\rho\rangle$ the adiabatic speed of sound, $c_T^2=\langle p|\rho\rangle/\langle \rho|\rho\rangle$ the isothermal speed of sound. Two additional useful definitions are $\tau_{xy}=c_\ell c_\perp$ and $\tau_{xx}=\frac{1}{2}(c_\ell^2-
c_\perp^2)$. These allow us to rewrite the currents related to the sound modes as $|j_\pm\rangle = |j_s\rangle \pm c_s |\tau_{xx}
\rangle$. Consequently this leads to $$\Gamma = - \frac{ \langle j_s |\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2} |j_s
\rangle + c_s^2 \langle \tau_{xx} |\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}
|\tau_{xx} \rangle \pm 2 c_s^2 \langle j_s |\frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2} |\tau_{xx} \rangle}{\langle p|p\rangle + c_s^2 \langle
c_\ell|c_\ell\rangle \pm 2 c_s \langle p|c_\ell\rangle}.$$ From symmetry considerations it follows that $\langle p|c_\ell\rangle
= 0$ and $\langle j_s |\frac{1}{\Omega} + \frac{1}{2}
|\tau_{xx}\rangle = 0$, and since $\langle \tau_{xx} |\frac{1}{\Omega}
+ \frac{1}{2} |\tau_{xx} \rangle = \langle \tau_{xy} |\frac{1}{\Omega}
+ \frac{1}{2} |\tau_{xy} \rangle$ because of the isotropy of the lattice, we obtain the following relation for the main transport coefficients $$\Gamma=\frac{1}{2}\left(\nu+(\gamma-1)\chi\right).$$
An example of the full wave-vector dependent real eigenvalue spectrum is shown in Fig. \[Fig:eigenvalue\], which also confirms the absence of spurious invariants. Of all eigenvalues only the five related to the hydrodynamic modes go to zero in the limit $\bm{ k}
\rightarrow 0$. It is with these modes that the binary-mixture responds to deviations from thermal equilibrium $$\begin{aligned}
z_\pm(\bm{ k})&= -\pm\imath c_s\bm{ k}-\Gamma \bm{ k}^2, \label{Eq:zpm}\\
z_\perp(\bm{ k})&=-\nu \bm{ k}^2,\\
z_{s_\pm}(\bm{ k})&=-s^\circ_{\pm} \bm{ k}^2. \label{Eq:zspm}\end{aligned}$$ The first two eigenvalues describe sound propagation in the two opposite directions parallel to $\bm{ k}$ with $c_s$ the adiabatic sound speed, the third eigenvalue describes the shear mode, and the last two eigenvalues represent purely diffusive, non-propagating processes. In this hydrodynamic regime characterized by $k \lambda \ll
1$, where $\lambda$ is the mean free path length, one can exploit the fact that the real component of the eigenvalues of the hydrodynamic modes is much smaller than that of the kinetic modes. We will use this in the next section in order to obtain the Landau-Placzek formula (\[Eq:FullLP\]) for the power spectrum.
For larger wavevectors (here roughly $0.5 \leq k \leq 1.5 $) the relations (\[Eq:zpm\])-(\[Eq:zspm\]) start to deviate from the true values. This is the generalized hydrodynamic regime ($k \lambda
\lesssim 1$), and the transport coefficients become $k$ dependent. The hydrodynamic modes are, however, still smaller than the kinetic modes yielding a reasonable accurate Landau-Placzek formula. In the kinetic regime ($k \lambda \gtrsim 1$) the hydrodynamic modes and kinetic modes become of the same order of magnitude. The distinction between fast and slow modes can not be made and all modes contribute to the power spectrum.
In Fig. \[Fig:coupling\] the diffusive transport properties are shown at fixed reduced temperature $\theta=\exp(-\frac{1}{2}\beta)$. The modes $s^\circ_\pm$ are the modes observed in the eigenvalue spectrum and are combinations of $\chi$, ${\cal D}$, and $Q$. In the low density limit these two modes converge to the thermal diffusivity and diffusion, i.e. $s^\circ_+\rightarrow\chi$, $s^\circ_-\rightarrow{\cal
D}$, and is caused by the decoupling of the fluctuations in the concentrations and entropy. In our model this means that the ratio $Q/(\chi - {\cal D})$ vanishes. The value of $Q$, however, will in general remain small but finite due to the divergencies of the transport coefficients in the low density limit of LGA. The same is observed in the high density limit, which is merely an illustration of the duality of the LGA-model if one interchanges particles and holes. In both cases this is a direct consequence of the fact that the fluctuations in the occupation numbers become linear in the average occupation densities, thus leading to equipartition.
As an additional remark we like to mention that the value of $Q$ can be both positive and negative. Therefore the correct curves of $s_\pm^\circ$ need not be continuous as a function of the density, but can contain discontinuities located at points where $Q$ changes sign. Consequently, depending on the system parameters, the role of $s^\circ_+$ and $s^\circ_-$ is interchanged with respect to $\chi$ and ${\cal D}$. This is merely due to the choice in convention we have used in Eq. (\[Eq:spm\]) and of no physical importance.
For some intermediate values of the density one also finds that the values of $s^\circ_\pm$ and $\chi, {\cal D}$ coincide. This is, however, not caused by decoupling of the fluctuations. In these cases there is no effective equipartition, but one obtains $Q=0$ as a consequence of the cancellation of terms. Moreover, the location of these points depends in a non-trivial way on the system parameters.
The diffusive transport properties versus the relative concentration of both species at fixed density and reduced temperature $\theta$ is shown in Fig. \[Fig:trans\]. In the low density limit we have $s_\pm^\circ\rightarrow \chi,{\cal D}$ for all relative concentrations. This is not generally true as can be seen from the higher density figure. It does, however, reveal that the decoupling also occurs in general for the single specie limits $P_r\rightarrow0$ and $P_r\rightarrow1$. This is not surprising, as in those limits the model effectively reduces to a normal GBL model with only a single diffusive mode related to the thermal diffusivity. This is actually also the case in the high density limit of Fig. \[Fig:coupling\], because there one has a situation in which the red lattice is almost completely filled and therefore an effective blue system that remains.
Finally, decoupling can also be observed in the case $P_r=P_b$. In fact this is a rather special limit and could be analyzed completely in a manner similar to the one used for the colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE], because based on the symmetry of the problem one can decompose the linearized Boltzmann operator in two type of contributions, i.e. $|R\rangle+|B\rangle$ and $|R\rangle-|B\rangle$.
For $P_r=0$ the diffusion mode vanishes, since we then recover the original GBL model, but for $P_r \rightarrow 0$ the diffusion mode remains finite. This case is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:diff\]. Here, in the low density limit the diffusion mode becomes equal to the self-diffusion of the GBL model (and hence also equal to the diffusion mode in the GBL color mixture), but for higher density they deviate. A behavior that finds its origin in the fact that the color mixture does not allow more than one particle in a single velocity channel and, although the number of particles of the second specie gets very small, they still have a large impact on the diffusion.
Landau-Placzek theory {#Sec:Landau-Placzek}
=====================
Full spectrum
-------------
In the hydrodynamic regime of small wavevectors ($k\rightarrow0$) and the frequency $\omega$ being linear in $k$, the spectral density $S(\bm{
k},\omega)$ can be expanded in powers of $\imath k$. In this long-wavelength, small frequency limit the hydrodynamic modes are well separated from the kinetic modes, which can be neglected due to their exponential decay. By keeping only terms up to $\bm{ O}(k^2)$ ($\omega/k$ is kept constant for consistency), one obtains the Landau-Placzek approximation.
It has been shown that the dynamic structure factor can be evaluated by [@GBL93] $$\frac{S(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})} = 2 \text{Re}
\frac{\langle\rho|(e^{\imath\omega +
\imath\bm{ k}\cdot\bm{ c}}-1-\Omega)^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}|\rho\rangle}
{\langle\rho|\rho\rangle}.$$ The closely related spectral function $F(\bm{ k},\omega)$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Fkw}
F(\bm{ k},\omega)\equiv\langle\rho|(e^{\imath\omega+\imath\bm{ k}
\cdot\bm{ c}} -1-\Omega)^{-1} + \frac{1}{2} |\rho\rangle =
2\sum_\mu\text{Re}{\cal N}_\mu {\cal D}_\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:Dmu}
{\cal D}_\mu &= \frac{1}{e^{\imath w - z_\mu}-1}+\frac{1}{2} \approx
\frac{z_\mu^{(2)} - \imath (w - z_\mu^{(1)}k) }{(z_\mu^{(2)}k^2)^2 +
(w - z_\mu^{(1)}k)^2},\\
\label{Eq:Nmu}
{\cal N}_\mu &= \langle \rho | \psi_\mu \rangle \langle \phi_\mu |
\rho \rangle. \end{aligned}$$ The coefficients ${\cal N}_\mu$ are evaluated in Appendix \[Sec:appendix\] for small $\bm{ k}$ and yield $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_\sigma & = \frac{ \langle \rho|\rho\rangle}{2 \gamma} \left(1 +
\frac{\imath \sigma k}{c_s} \left[ \Gamma + (\gamma-1) \chi\right]
\right),\\
{\cal N}_{s_\pm} & = \frac{(\gamma-1) \langle \rho | \rho
\rangle}{2 \gamma} \left( 1 \pm \frac{\chi-{\cal
D}}{s^\circ_+-s^\circ_-} \right).\end{aligned}$$ From symmetry considerations one can conclude that the shear mode will not contribute to the spectrum and one finds ${\cal
N}_{\perp}=0$. Combining these results with the expressions (\[Eq:Fkw\]) and (\[Eq:Dmu\]), we finally obtain the Landau-Placzek formula, describing the power-spectrum in the hydrodynamical domain $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{S(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})} = \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}
\left[ \left(1+\frac{\chi-{\cal D}}{s^\circ_+-s^\circ_-}\right)
\frac{s^\circ_+ k^2}{\omega^2+(s^\circ_+ k^2)^2}+
\left(1-\frac{\chi-{\cal D}}{s^\circ_+-s^\circ_-}\right)
\frac{s^\circ_- k^2}{\omega^2+(s^\circ_- k^2)^2} \right] \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{\gamma}\left[\frac{\Gamma k^2}{(\omega+c_s k)^2+(\Gamma
k^2)^2} +\frac{\Gamma k^2}{(\omega-c_s k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}\right]
\nonumber \\
&+\frac{1}{\gamma}\left[\Gamma+(\gamma-1)\chi\right]\frac{k}{c_s}
\left[\frac{\omega+c_s k}{(\omega+c_s k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}-
\frac{\omega-c_s k}{(\omega-c_s k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}\right].
\label{Eq:FullLP}\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum contains an unshifted central peak that is formed by two Lorentzians due to the two processes related to the non-propagating modes $s_\pm^\circ$. The two propagating modes lead to the presence of the two shifted Brillouin lines. Their width at half-height can be used as a measurement of $\Gamma \bm{ k}^2$, the position of the peaks can be used a measurement of $\pm c_s \bm{ k}$. The last two terms in Eq. (\[Eq:FullLP\]) give an asymmetric correction to the Brillouin peaks and induce a slight pulling of the peaks toward the central peak.
The symmetry of the different contributions is such that the ratio of the integrated contributions of the central peak and the Brillouin components is constant and given by $$\frac{\sum_\sigma \int d \omega Re({\cal N}_{s_\sigma} {\cal
D}_{s_\sigma})}{\sum_\sigma \int d \omega Re({\cal N}_\sigma {\cal
D}_\sigma)} = \gamma - 1.$$
In Fig. \[Fig:spectra\] the Landau-Placzek formula is compared with the full Boltzmann spectrum for two different wavevectors. For the smallest wavevector inside the hydrodynamic regime they coincide, while for the larger they differ considerably and indicates that this wavevector is outside the hydrodynamic, and in fact inside the kinetic regime.
In general the contributions forming the central peak cannot easily be separated. Even in the case they differ sufficiently in order to fit the central peak with two Lorentzians, one only obtains information on the values of $s^\circ_\pm$, which is not enough to determine the more interesting values of the thermal diffusivity and diffusion. An example of this is shown in Fig. \[Fig:central\] where we decomposed the central peak in the two Lorentzians using the theoretical expressions. For comparison we included the least square fit according to Eq.(\[Eq:FullLP\]) to the full range of the spectrum, including the Brillouin peaks, where we only used a single Lorentz for the central peak.
For this reason it is important to consider the limits where decoupling occurs, since in those cases the the relevant transport values can be obtained from the spectra. Here we have however an interesting difference with respect to light scattering experiments [@BoonYip]. Whereas in that case the sensitivity of the dielectric fluctuations with respect to density is much larger than with respect to temperature, the amplitude factors will differ orders of magnitude. This results in the observation that the diffusion component will usually dominate the spectrum. For LGA this does not apply, and by using the decoupling limit $s^\circ_\pm
\rightarrow \chi, {\cal D}$ on the first term off the Landau-Placzek formula (\[Eq:FullLP\]), one immediately obtains that the central component of the spectrum is given by a single peak characterized by the thermal diffusivity $$\frac{S^{\text{cen}}(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})} =
\frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma}
\frac{2 \chi k^2}{\omega^2+(\chi k^2)^2}.$$ One could in principle use this also in some of the intermediate cases seen in Fig. \[Fig:coupling\]. The location of these points in terms of density and relative fractions, however, depends in a non-trivial way on the system parameters. Moreover, the identification with the thermal diffusivity and diffusion can only be made if one interpret $\chi$ and ${\cal D}$ as generalizations of these quantities.
Red spectrum
------------
The red dynamic structure factor can be evaluated by [@Hanon; @Blaak:2001PRE] $$\frac{S^{\text{red}}(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})}=2\text{Re} \frac{\langle
R|(e^{\imath\omega+
\imath\bm{ k}\cdot\bm{ c}}-1-\Omega)^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}|R\rangle}
{\langle R| R\rangle}.$$ It is possible to follow the same route for the red dynamic structure factor as for the full spectrum. However, since $\langle
\rho|d\rangle=0$, but $\langle R|d\rangle\not=0$, it is more convenient to use a different set of basic invariants $$|a_n \rangle =\{ |c_x\rangle, |c_y\rangle,
|p\rangle = |\frac{1}{2} c^2\rangle, |s_r\rangle = |p\rangle -
\frac{\langle p|p\rangle}{\langle p|R\rangle} |R\rangle,
|d_r\rangle\},$$ where $|d_r\rangle$ is constructed to be perpendicular to the other conserved quantities and defined by $$|d_r\rangle = |p\rangle-\left(\frac{\langle p|R\rangle}{\langle
R|R\rangle} |R\rangle
-\frac{\langle p|R\rangle^2-\langle p|p\rangle\langle R|R\rangle}
{\langle R|R\rangle\langle p|B\rangle}|B\rangle\right).$$ Note that by construction it is perpendicular to the red density, i.e. $\langle R|d\rangle = 0$. Analogous to the case of the normal density we introduce some transport-like coefficients related to this basis $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\text{r}}&=-\frac{\langle s_r|\frac{1}{\Omega}+\frac{1}{2}|s_r\rangle}
{\langle s_r|s_r\rangle},\\
{\cal D}_{\text{r}}&=-\frac{\langle
d_r|\frac{1}{\Omega}+\frac{1}{2}|d_r\rangle}
{\langle d_r|d_r\rangle},\\
\gamma_{\text{r}}&=1+\frac{\langle s_r|s_r\rangle}{\langle p|p\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the sound damping $\Gamma$, the modes $s^\circ_\pm$, and the speed of sound $c_s$ are all unchanged, since these are true transport values and independent of a chosen set of basis functions. Also in this case we can derive a Landau-Placzek formula, describing the red power-spectrum in the hydrodynamical domain $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{S^{\text{red}}(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})} =
\frac{\gamma_{\text{r}}-1}{\gamma_{\text{r}}}\left[
\left(1+\frac{\chi_{\text{r}}-{\cal
D}_{\text{r}}}{s^\circ_+-s^\circ_-}\right)
\frac{s^\circ_+ k^2}{\omega^2+(s^\circ_+ k^2)^2}+
\left(1-\frac{\chi_{\text{r}}-{\cal
D}_{\text{r}}}{s^\circ_+-s^\circ_-}\right)
\frac{s^\circ_- k^2}{\omega^2+(s^\circ_- k^2)^2}\right] \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{\gamma_{\text{r}}}\left[\frac{\Gamma k^2}{(\omega+c_s
k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}
+\frac{\Gamma k^2}{(\omega-c_s k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}\right] \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{\gamma_{\text{r}}}\left[(\nu-\Gamma)+
2(\gamma_{\text{r}}-1)\chi_{\text{r}}
\right]\frac{k}{c_s}\left[\frac{\omega+c_s k}{(\omega+c_s k)^2+
(\Gamma k^2)^2}-
\frac{\omega-c_s k}{(\omega-c_s k)^2+(\Gamma k^2)^2}\right].\end{aligned}$$ In principle the quantities $\chi_{\text{r}}$, ${\cal
D}_{\text{r}}$, and $\gamma_{\text{r}}$ can be expressed in the normal transport values. However, these relations lead to more complex expressions and are for that reason omitted here. In Fig. \[Fig:spectra\] this formula is compared with the full Boltzmann red spectrum for a wave vector in the hydrodynamic regime, yielding a satisfactory approximation, and one in the kinetic regime with a large discrepancy.
Diffusion spectrum {#Sec:diffusion}
------------------
Finally we like to consider the spectra of the diffusive processes only. Due to the nature of LGA, however, it is not obvious how to define diffusion properly. On the one hand we have the requirement that a diffusive process is not propagating, on the other hand one expects the diffusion only to be related to the densities of both components in the mixture. As we will show in this section, it turns out that these two views are not completely compatible.
In the colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE] and in the continuous case [@McLennan] a diffusion spectrum can be obtained by considering fluctuations in the normalized difference of the red and blue density $$\rho_{\text{diff}} = \frac{\rho_{\text{red}}}{P_r} -
\frac{\rho_{\text{blue}}}{P_b}.$$ The proper translation in terms of invariants is given by $$\label{Eq:diff-0}
|\text{diff}\rangle = \frac{|R\rangle}{P_r} - \frac{|B\rangle}{P_b}.$$ However, a spectrum based on this vector, does not lead to purely diffusive peaks only, but also includes parts of the propagating modes. This can easily be checked since the vector is in general not orthogonal to the two soundmodes due to the absence of equipartition.
A simple solution is to subtract the propagating part by adding the appropriate term proportional to $|p\rangle$ $$\label{Eq:diff-1}
|\text{diff}\rangle = \frac{|R\rangle}{P_r} - \frac{|B\rangle}{P_b} -
\left( \frac{\langle p|R\rangle}{P_r} - \frac{\langle
p|B\rangle}{P_b}\right) \frac{|p\rangle}{\langle p|p\rangle}.$$ In a binary athermal mixture [@Ernst:1990JSP], however, it was suggested to use $$|\text{diff}\rangle = \frac{|R\rangle}{\langle R|R \rangle} -
\frac{|B\rangle}{\langle B|B\rangle }.
\label{Eq:diffErnst}$$ Unfortunately this choice also leads to a propagating mode in the thermal case. One could again subtract the propagating part, but the result would be different from (\[Eq:diff-1\]). The origin of this problem is that we have two different diffusive modes and any linear combination would lead to a diffusive spectrum. However, due to the lack of equipartition the different choices of fluctuations one wishes to consider do not coincide, not even after the propagating part is eliminated.
Naively one would expect a combination of the red and blue component only and in addition it should be perpendicular to the propagating modes. This leads to the following generalization of the athermal result (\[Eq:diffErnst\]), which in the case of an athermal model would coincide $$\label{Eq:diff-2}
|\text{diff}\rangle = \frac{|R\rangle}{\langle p|R\rangle} -
\frac{|B\rangle}{\langle p|B\rangle}.$$ Obviously there is some freedom here in order to choose the generalization of the diffusion. The natural extension would be one that that satisfies the appropriate limits. However, in the low density limit and in the limit $P_r \rightarrow 1$, they all converge to the same value equal to the one found for the single component GBL model. The special case of an equal density for red and blue particles is not helpful either. This limit can be completely analyzed in a manner analogous to what is done for colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE]. For reasons of symmetry this will cause none of the definitions to have a propagating character and the resulting diffusions would coincide.
In Appendix \[Sec:appendixb\] we derive the proper definition (\[Eq:order2\]) for the transport values related to these quantities. Since none of them are proportional to a single eigenmode the usual formulation (\[Eq:transport\]) is no longer valid. The results can be found in Fig. \[Fig:diffs\], where the diffusions obtained for the various diff’s are shown as function of the density. In general the five different diff’s described above all lead to different values for the corresponding transport value, although depending on the choice of system parameters this difference might be marginal. Also compare with Fig. \[Fig:coupling\] to see the difference with respect to ${\cal D}$.
Although the choice (\[Eq:diff-2\]) is the most natural generalization, the diffusion is only properly identified in the limiting cases. In general some arbitrariness remains in a binary thermal lattice gas.
The corresponding diffusion spectrum is obtained by $$\frac{S(\bm{ k},\omega)}{S(\bm{ k})}=2\text{Re} \frac{\langle
\text{diff}|(e^{\imath
\omega+ \imath\bm{ k}\cdot\bm{ c}}-1-\Omega)^{-1} + \frac{1}{2}|
\text{diff} \rangle}{\langle \text{diff} | \text{diff} \rangle}.$$ and shown in Fig. \[Fig:diffspectrum\] for two diff’s: the $|\text{diff}\rangle$ defined in Eq. (\[Eq:diffErnst\]) based on an athermal model and the correct adjustment for the thermal model Eq. (\[Eq:diff-2\]). For comparison we also included the curve for which the propagating part in Eq. (\[Eq:diffErnst\]) is subtracted as was described above. The first diffusion spectrum has a Brillouin-like pair of peaks which is a manifestation of the propagating part of $|\text{diff}\rangle$ according to (\[Eq:diffErnst\]), while the other two are different superpositions of two Lorentzians characterized by ${s_\pm}^{(0)}$.
Simulation results {#Sec:simulation}
==================
We have verified our results with simulation results. Some notes on the implementation are in order. The model we consider is a true $38$-bits model, i.e. the collision operator can act on $2^{38}$ different states. In a previous article we reported the simulation results of a colored GBL model [@Blaak:2001PRE]. The number of states in that model was $3^{19}$, since no red and blue particle could exist with the same velocity. The simulations could, however, be performed by realizing that the collisions could be separated in a normal GBL collision followed by a redistribution of the colors over the different particles present. These two separated processes can easily be performed by any computer.
In the present model this approach can not be used. One could of course make use of the symmetries present in the model. The hexagonal lattice leads to six rotations and two reflections. In addition we can make use of the interchange of red and blue particles, and the interchange of particles and holes. At best this would lead to a reduction with a factor of 48 on the total number of different states, but in practice this factor is less because a large fraction of the states is invariant with respect to some of these symmetries. This is however still too large in order to be applied in any but the largest supercomputers available at present. An alternative, but rather inefficient scheme, would be to store only part of the collision table and generate other collisions on the fly.
Binary mixtures, however, do allow for a more convenient solution, which is less efficient than storing the complete collision table, but still has a relative good performance (about a factor 2-5 slower than the colored GBL model). Rather than storing a collision table based on the states, we make one based on the different classes. In the GBL model there are $29926$ different classes ${\cal
C}=(M,\bm{ P},E)$, characterized by the total mass, momentum, and energy. Since the the binary mixture is the combination of two GBL models there are $29926^2$ different combinations $({\cal
C}_R,{\cal C}_B)$ of a red and blue class which form a total of $4478568$ classes $\Gamma=(M_r,M_b,\bm{ P},E)$. If we combine this with the 48 symmetry operations we get a working algorithm that already can be used on a computer with 256 MB of memory.
An arbitrary input state is now analyzed in order to determine to which class $\Gamma$ it belongs. From its characterization one can easily find which transformation is needed in order put it in a form with $M_R \leq M_B$, $M_R+M_B\leq 19$, and $0 \leq P_y
\leq P_x/\sqrt{3}$. The last inequality confines the total momentum to an angle of $\pi/6$. For each $\Gamma$ in this limited set of classes only, all the classes ${\cal C}_R$, that with the appropriate class ${\cal C}_B$ can give rise to it, have been stored, including the number of states in each $({\cal C}_R,{\cal C}_B)$ combination. From this we generate with the proper weight an “outgoing” class combination to which the inverse transformation is applied. Finally we only need to determine a random state in ${\cal
C}_R$ and ${\cal C}_B$, which is just a GBL-like process.
Simulation results along with the Boltzmann approximation and the Landau-Placzek formula are shown in Fig. \[Fig:spectra\] for both the normal and red spectrum. In the Figs. \[Fig:spectra\]a and \[Fig:spectra\]b the spectra at low $\bm{ k}$ value completely overlap and the Landau-Placzek formula describes the power spectrum very well. If we increase the wavevector $\bm{ k}$, and/or lower the density, the hydrodynamical regime is left and deviations start to appear. In that generalized regime, the transport properties are $\bm{ k}$-dependent. Figs. \[Fig:spectra\]c and \[Fig:spectra\]d show a spectrum even further away from the hydrodynamic regime, in the kinetic regime. Several kinetic modes invade the spectrum, and a parameterization into Lorentzians has lost all physical meaning. The full spectrum based on the Boltzmann approximation, however, still leads to a very good description, supporting the molecular chaos assumption.
Discussion {#Sec:discussion}
==========
We have constructed a thermal binary lattice gas mixture. The model is characterized by cross-effects between energy transport and diffusion. The Landau-Placzek formula derived in the the low wavevector, low frequency domain gives an excellent description. For larger wavevectors it will fail, but the spectra can still accurately be described by the Boltzmann approximation.
The Landau-Placzek formula for a regular binary thermal mixture is quite similar in structure as the one for the continuous case. The main feature is a central peak formed by two Lorentzians due to the coupled entropy-concentration fluctuations. In the limits of low density, single specie, their dual interpretations, and equal red and blue density it is possible for the central peak of the spectrum to be decomposed into two Lorentzians with linewidths given by $\chi\bm{
k}^2$ and ${\cal D}\bm{ k}^2$, otherwise the linewidths depend on both these values.
In the low density limit the true modes $s^\circ_\pm$ converge to $\chi$ and ${\cal D}$. Moreover, they can be identified with the thermal diffusivity and mass-diffusion coefficient of the GBL model and coincide with the low density limit of the continuous binary mixture. In contrast with continuous theory, however, it is the thermal diffusivity that dominates the central part of the spectrum, rather than the diffusion. The interpretation of $\chi$ as the thermal diffusivity can be extended to the general situation. For ${\cal D}$ this not true, since the related spectrum will contain Brillouin peaks, which is a not a purely diffusive property. Although it is possible to correct for this, there remains some ambiguity in the choice for the generalized diffusion coefficient.
The analysis and results presented here are in general true for binary thermal lattice gasses and not restricted to this particular model only. It also reduces automatically to the proper formulation for an athermal model, in which case some of the ambiguities are removed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank H. Bussemaker and D. Frenkel for helpful discussions. R.B. acknowledges the financial support of the EU through the Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Program (contract no. HPMF-CT-1999-00100).
{#Sec:appendix}
To calculate terms of the type ${\cal N}_\mu$ given in Eq. (\[Eq:Nmu\]) we express the left eigenvectors in terms of right eigenvectors, and expand ${\cal N}_\mu$ to linear order in $k$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_\mu = & \frac{\langle \rho | \psi_\mu^{(0)}
\rangle^2}{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)}
| \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle} \left( 1 + 2 \imath k \left[ \frac{\langle
\rho | \psi_\mu^{(1)} \rangle}{\langle \rho | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle}
- \frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(1)} \rangle}{\langle
\psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle} \right] + \right. \nonumber
\\ & \left. \imath
k \left[ \frac{\langle \rho | c_\ell \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle \rho
\psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle} - \frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | c_\ell
\psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)}
\rangle} \right] + {\cal O}(k^2) \right).
\label{Eq:N-mu}\end{aligned}$$ As can be seen from the second term on the righthand side, partial knowledge of the $|\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle$ is required. From the formal solution (\[Eq:solution-one\]) of the first order equation and the orthogonality relation (\[Eq:psi0-j-m\]) it follows that we only need to evaluate the coefficients $B_{\mu \nu}$. From the normalization (\[Eq:normalisation\]) we already know that $B_{\mu\mu}=0$. In addition we like to mention that from symmetry considerations one can conclude that the mode related to the viscosity will not contribute. Hence the values of $B_{\mu\perp}$ and $B_{\perp\mu}$ need not be determined.
In order to facilitate the calculations we first list some simple relations $$\langle \psi_\sigma^{(0)}|\psi_\sigma^{(0)}\rangle = 2 \langle
p|p\rangle,$$ $$\langle \rho|\psi_\sigma^{(0)}\rangle =\langle \rho|p\rangle,$$ $$\langle \rho|s_\pm \rangle = \frac{(1-\gamma)}{\sqrt{\langle
s|s\rangle}} \langle \rho|p\rangle,$$ $$\langle s_\pm|s_\pm\rangle = 2 \sqrt{1+\xi^2}
\left(\sqrt{1+\xi^2} \mp \xi \right).$$ Most coefficients can be evaluated from the relation (\[Eq:B-mu-nu\]). In the case of the soundmodes this leads to $$B_{\sigma,-\sigma} = - \frac{\langle j_{-\sigma} | \frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2}| j_\sigma\rangle}{(z_\sigma^{(1)} - z_{-\sigma}^{(1)})
\langle \psi_{-\sigma}^{(0)}|\psi_{-\sigma}^{(0)}\rangle}$$ and with the use of $|j_\pm\rangle = |j_s\rangle \pm c_s
|\tau_{xx}\rangle$ this can be rewritten in terms of the basic transport coefficients $$B_{\sigma,-\sigma} = \sigma \frac{\nu - (\gamma-1)\chi}{4 c_s} =
\frac{\sigma (\nu - \Gamma)}{2 c_s}.$$ The next coefficient we need to evaluate is $$B_{s_\pm,\sigma} = - \frac{\langle j_\sigma | \frac{1}{\Omega} +
\frac{1}{2}| j_{s_\pm}\rangle}{(z_{s_\pm}^{(1)} - z_\sigma^{(1)})
\langle \psi_\sigma^{(0)}|\psi_\sigma^{(0)}\rangle},$$ and here we can use the same relation to rewrite the current of the soundmodes. For the other current the relation (\[Eq:spm\]) can be used. Realizing that the terms containing $|\tau_{xx}\rangle$ will vanish, the remaining terms can be manipulated to yield $$B_{s_\pm,\sigma} = (\gamma - 1) \frac{ \sigma s^\circ_\pm }{2 c_s
\sqrt{\langle s|s\rangle}}.$$ From Eq. (\[Eq:B-mu-nu\]) we can now also see that $$B_{\sigma,s_\pm} = - \frac{\langle \psi_\sigma^{(0)} |\psi_\sigma^{(0)}
\rangle}{\langle s_\pm|s_\pm\rangle} B_{s_\pm,\sigma} =
-\left(1 \pm \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1 + \xi^2}}\right)\frac{\sigma
s^\circ_\pm \sqrt{\langle s|s\rangle}}{2 c_s}.$$
The last two coefficients which we will need are $B_{s_\pm,s_\mp}$. However, since $z_{s_\pm}^{(1)}=0$ they can not be obtained from (\[Eq:B-mu-nu\]). In order for them to be determined we need to make use of the third order equation of the eigenvalue problem (\[Eq:eigenproblem-right\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega |\psi_\mu^{(3)}\rangle & = & (c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})
|\psi_\mu^{(2)}\rangle + \left[ z_\mu^{(2)} + \frac{1}{2} (c_\ell +
z_\mu^{(1)} )^2 \right] |\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle + \nonumber \\
&& \left[z_\mu^{(3)} +
z_\mu^{(2)}(c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)}) + \frac{1}{6} (c_\ell +
z_\mu^{(1)})^3 \right] |\psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ As we only want to determine the values of $B_{s_\pm,s_\mp}$, we do not attempt to solve the complete third order equation but restrict ourselves to the two equations from which they can be obtained. Note that we have $z_{s_\pm}^{(1)}=0$ and hence $|j_{s_\pm}\rangle =
|c_\ell s_\pm\rangle$.
Substituting these results in the third order equation, replacing $\mu$ by $s_\pm$, and multiplying on the left with the appropriated term $\langle s_\mp|$ we find $$\label{Eq:order-three}
0 = \langle s_\mp |
c_\ell | \psi_{s_\pm}^{(2)}\rangle + \langle s_\mp | s^\circ_\pm +
\frac{1}{2} c_\ell^2 | \psi_{s_\pm}^{(1)}\rangle + \langle s_\mp |
z_{s_\pm}^{(3)} + s^\circ_\pm c_\ell + \frac{1}{6} c_\ell^3 |
s_\pm \rangle.$$ The last term will disappear due to the odd power of $c_\ell$ and because $\langle s_\mp | s_\pm \rangle = 0$. In order to proceed we not only need the solution of the first order equation (\[Eq:solution-one\]) but also solution of the second order equation. Fortunately the later does not have to be computed completely but the formal solution will suffice $$\begin{aligned}
& |\psi_\mu^{(2)}\rangle = \frac{1}{\Omega} (c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})|
\psi_\mu^{(1)}\rangle + \frac{1}{\Omega}\left( z_\mu^{(2)} +
\frac{1}{2}(c_\ell + z_\mu^{(1)})^2 \right) | \psi_\mu^{(0)}\rangle +
\nonumber \\ & \sum_\nu C_{\mu \nu} |\psi_\nu^{(0)}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where the $C_{\mu \nu}$ are some unknown coefficients. Substitution of both solutions in Eq. (\[Eq:order-three\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
& 0 = \langle s_\mp | c_\ell \frac{1}{\Omega} c_\ell|
\psi_{s_\pm}^{(1)}\rangle + \langle s_\mp | c_\ell \frac{1}{\Omega}
\left( s^\circ_\pm + \frac{1}{2} c_\ell^2 \right) | s_\pm \rangle +
\sum_\nu C_{s_\pm \nu} \langle j_{s_\mp} | \psi_\nu^{(0)}\rangle +
\nonumber \\ &
\langle s_\mp | \left( s^\circ_\pm + \frac{1}{2} c_\ell^2 \right)
\frac{1}{\Omega} | c_\ell s_\pm\rangle + \sum_\nu B_{s_\pm \nu}
\langle
s_\mp | \left( s^\circ_\pm + \frac{1}{2} c_\ell^2 \right)
|\psi_\nu^{(0)}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The second and fourth term on the right are zero because of the odd power in $c_\ell$, the third term is zero because of the orthogonality relations (\[Eq:psi0-j\]). Another substitution of the first order solution leads to $$\begin{aligned}
0 = & \langle s_\mp | c_\ell \frac{1}{\Omega} c_\ell
\frac{1}{\Omega} c_\ell | s_\pm \rangle + \sum_\nu B_{s_\pm \nu}
\langle s_\mp | c_\ell \frac{1}{\Omega} c_\ell | \psi_\nu^{(0)}
\rangle + \nonumber \\ & \sum_\nu B_{s_\pm \nu} \langle
s_\mp | \left( s^\circ_\pm + \frac{1}{2} c_\ell^2 \right)
|\psi_\nu^{(0)}\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The first term is again zero because of the odd power in $c_\ell$. Writing out the sum, using the orthogonality relations, and realizing that the shear mode dependent term cancels due to symmetries this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&& B_{s_\pm,s_\mp} s^\circ_\pm \langle s_\mp | s_\mp \rangle +
B_{s_\pm,s_\mp} \langle j_{s_\mp} | \frac{1}{\Omega}+ \frac{1}{2} |
j_{s_\mp} \rangle + \nonumber \\ &&
B_{s_\pm,+} \langle j_{s_\mp} | \frac{1}{\Omega}+
\frac{1}{2} | c_\ell \psi_+^{(0)}\rangle +
B_{s_\pm,-} \langle
j_{s_\mp} | \frac{1}{\Omega}+ \frac{1}{2} | c_\ell \psi_-^{(0)}
\rangle = 0.\end{aligned}$$ From symmetry considerations it follows that the terms with $|\psi_\pm^{(0)}\rangle$ only contribute via $|p\rangle$ and by using the definition of the transport values on the second term we obtain $$B_{s_\pm,s_\mp} (s^\circ_\pm - s^\circ_\mp) \langle s_\mp | s_\mp \rangle
+ (B_{s_\pm,+} + B_{s_\pm,-}) \langle j_{s_\mp} | \frac{1}{\Omega}+
\frac{1}{2} | c_\ell p \rangle = 0.$$ Using the expressions for $B_{s_\pm,\sigma}$ and the fact that $s^\circ_+$ and $s^\circ_-$ are different, it follows that $B_{s_\pm,s_\mp}=0$.
The evaluation of the ${\cal N}$ now becomes straightforward. The last term at the righthand site of Eq. (\[Eq:N-mu\]) will vanish because of symmetry reasons. From the second term it can be observed that even if we would not have chosen $B_{\mu\mu}=0$ as a normalization, this coefficient would not contribute to the spectrum. For the viscosity we immediately obtain ${\cal N}_\perp=0$. In the case of $\mu=\sigma$ this results in $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_\sigma & = &\frac{\langle \rho | p \rangle^2}{2 \langle p
| p \rangle} \left( 1 + 2 \imath k \left[ B_{\sigma, -\sigma} +
B_{\sigma, s_+} \frac{\langle \rho | s_+ \rangle}{\langle \rho |
\psi_\sigma^{(0)} \rangle} + B_{\sigma, s_-} \frac{\langle \rho | s_-
\rangle}{\langle \rho | \psi_\sigma^{(0)} \rangle} \right] \right),
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{ \langle \rho|\rho\rangle}{2 \gamma} \left(1 +
\frac{\imath \sigma k}{c_s} \left[ \Gamma + (\gamma-1) \chi\right]
\right),\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we have eliminated the viscosity. The $|s_\pm\rangle$ lead to $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}_{s_\pm} & = & \frac{(\gamma-1)^2 \langle \rho | p
\rangle^2}{2 \langle s_\pm | s_\pm \rangle} \left( 1 + 2 \imath k
\left[ B_{s_\pm,+} \frac{\langle \rho | \psi_+^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle
\rho | s_\pm^{(0)} \rangle} + B_{s_\pm,-} \frac{\langle \rho |
\psi_-^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle \rho | s_\pm\rangle} \right] \right),
\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{(\gamma-1) \langle \rho | \rho
\rangle}{2 \gamma} \left( 1 \pm \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1 + \xi^2}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the imaginary part cancels completely.
{#Sec:appendixb}
In general one defines a transport coefficient via the decay of small fluctuations with respect to the equilibrium distribution. If we take $\delta f(\bm{k})$ to be such a fluctuation, we obtain for a single timestep $$\label{Eq:transport2}
e^{z(\bm{k})} = \frac{ \langle \delta f | e^{-\imath \bm{k}\cdot
\bm{c}}(\bm{1}+\Omega) | \delta f \rangle}{ \langle \delta f
|\delta f \rangle},$$ where the second order term in $k$ of $z(\bm{k})$ will be the transport coefficient.
Naturally these fluctuations can always be written in terms of the eigenfunctions of the linearized Boltzmann operator $$\label{Eq:signal}
|\delta f(\bm{k})\rangle =
\sum_\mu \frac{\langle \psi_\mu | \delta f \rangle}{\langle \psi_\mu |
\psi_\mu \rangle} | \psi_\mu(\bm{k}) \rangle,$$ where the coefficients on the right-hand site are independent of $\bm{k}$ and therefore can be obtained from the $k=0$ limit $\langle \psi_\mu | \delta f \rangle /\langle \psi_\mu |\psi_\mu
\rangle = \langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)} \rangle / \langle
\psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle$. Combining this formal expansion with Eq. (\[Eq:transport2\]) and using the results of the eigenvalue problem (\[Eq:eigenproblem-right\]) we obtain $$e^{z(\bm{k})} =
\frac{1} {\langle \delta f |\delta f \rangle} \sum_{\mu} \frac{\langle
\psi_\mu | \delta f \rangle}{\langle
\psi_\mu | \psi_\mu \rangle} \langle \delta f | e^{z_\mu} |\psi_\mu
\rangle.$$ If we restrict ourselves to fluctuations proportional to the hydrodynamic modes, and thus assume the exponential fast decay of the kinetic modes, the eigenvalues $e^{z_\mu}$ can be expanded in terms of $\bm{k}$. This results in $$\label{Eq:Taylor}
e^{z(\bm{k})} = 1 + \sum_{\mu} \frac{\langle \psi_\mu | \delta f \rangle
\langle \delta f |\psi_\mu \rangle}{\langle \psi_\mu | \psi_\mu
\rangle \langle \delta f |\delta f \rangle} \left( \imath k
z_\mu^{(1)} - k^2 \left[ z_\mu^{(2)} + \frac{1}{2} (z_\mu^{(1)})^2
\right] \right) + {\cal O}(k^3).$$ Note that the prefactors also depend on $\bm{k}$, but can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\langle \psi_\mu | \delta f \rangle \langle \delta f | \psi_\mu \rangle
}{\langle \psi_\mu | \psi_\mu \rangle \langle \delta f |\delta f \rangle} =
\left( \frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle
\psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle} \right)^2 \frac{\langle
\psi_\mu | \psi_\mu \rangle}{\langle \delta f |\delta f \rangle} =
\nonumber \\ &
\frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)} \rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} |
\psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle }{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)}
\rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} |\delta f^{(0)} \rangle} + {\cal O}(k^2).\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to calculate the lowest order terms of $z(\bm{k})$ via $$\label{Eq:order1}
z^{(1)} = \sum_\mu \frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)}
\rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle }{\langle
\psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} |\delta f^{(0)}
\rangle} z_\mu^{(1)}$$ $$\label{Eq:order2}
z^{(2)} + \frac{1}{2} \left( z^{(1)} \right)^2 = \sum_\mu
\frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)} \rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} |
\psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle }{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)}
\rangle \langle \delta f^{(0)} |\delta f^{(0)} \rangle} \left( z_\mu^{(2)} +
\frac{1}{2} (z_\mu^{(1)})^2 \right)$$
It can easily be checked that in the case of a single eigenmode for the fluctuation $\delta f$ these equations reduce to the normal results, in particular Eq. (\[Eq:transport\]). In general, however, such a formulation in terms of currents is not valid. The fact that it nevertheless is consistent for Eqns. (\[Eq:chi\]) and (\[Eq:D\]) is a consequence of the orthogonality relation (\[Eq:ortho-js\]) between the currents of the two diffusive eigenmodes.
In the case of the different diffusions calculated in Sec. \[Sec:diffusion\] we need to make use of these equations, because the fluctuations under consideration are not eigenmodes. From symmetry arguments it follows that in all those cases $z^{(1)}=0$, and strictly speaking none of these fluctuations will therefore be propagating. In the case of Eqns. (\[Eq:diff-0\]) and (\[Eq:diffErnst\]), however, the soundmodes will contribute to the transport value (\[Eq:order2\]) and spectra based on these fluctuations will contain Brillouin peaks.
We finally like to mention that these results are only valid in the limit $k\rightarrow 0$ and for small times, because if one considers the decay for larger time intervals one would obtain $$e^{z(\bm{k}) t} = \frac{ \langle \delta f | \left[ e^{-\imath \bm{k}\cdot
\bm{c}}(\bm{1}+\Omega) \right]^t| \delta f \rangle}{ \langle \delta f |\delta f
\rangle} =
\sum_{\mu}
\left( \frac{\langle \psi_\mu^{(0)} | \delta f^{(0)} \rangle}{\langle
\psi_\mu^{(0)} | \psi_\mu^{(0)} \rangle} \right)^2 \frac{\langle
\psi_\mu | \psi_\mu \rangle}{\langle \delta f |\delta f \rangle} e^{z_\mu t}.$$ This results in a different behavior for short and long times in the case one considers fluctuations that are not proportional to a single eigenmode (See also Ref. [@Mountain]).
[21]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , **, ** ****, ().
, **, Cambridge Nonlinear Science Nr. 11 (, , ).
, , , , , , , **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, , , **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, , , **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, , , **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, **, ** ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, **, ** ****, ().
, , , **, ** ****, ().
, , , , **, ** ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ).
[^1]: Current Address: Institut für Theoretische Physik II, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany; e-mail:[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Mauricio Martinez[^1]'
- Michael Strickland
title: 'Suppression of forward dilepton production from an anisotropic quark-gluon plasma'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Nucleus-nucleus collisions at high energies offer us the opportunity to study experimentally and theoretically a possible new state of matter formed by liberated partons known as a quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Nevertheless, the main goal is not only to discover this new state of matter but also to characterize experimentally many of its properties such as the thermodynamical aspects of this new phase. It is very important to know if the matter created after the collision is really thermalized. In this direction, an open question is to determine the isotropization and thermalization time of the matter, $\tau_{\rm iso}$ and $\tau_{\rm therm}$, respectively.[^2] Based on data from the Brookhaven National Lab’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) early studies found that for $p_T \lesssim 2$ GeV, the elliptic flow, $v_2$, was very well described by models which assumed ideal hydrodynamic behavior starting at very early times $\tau \sim$ $0.6$ fm/c [@Huovinen:2001cy; @Hirano:2002ds; @Tannenbaum:2006ch]. These fits of $v_2$ indicated that the matter could be modeled as a nearly-perfect fluid and hence implied fast thermalization of the matter created at RHIC energies. However, recent results from conformal relativistic viscous hydrodynamics [@Luzum:2008cw] have shown that these initial estimates for the isotropization/thermalization time of the plasma are not completely reliable due to poor knowledge of the proper initial conditions (CGC versus Glauber), details of plasma hadronization such as the choice of the proper freezeout time and the subsequent hadronic cascade, etc. Now it seems that isotropization times up to $\tau_{\rm iso} \sim$ 2 fm/c are not ruled out by RHIC data. Therefore, additional theoretical and experimental input are necessary to further constrain this time.
One way to increase our understanding of the pre-equilibrium stage of QGP evolution is by studying independent observables which are sensitive to early-time dynamics. One good candidate is high-energy dileptons.[^3] Due to their large mean free path, lepton pairs can leave the strongly interacting region carrying information about the earliest times after the nuclear collision. In this work, we calculate the rapidity dependence of dilepton pair production from a QGP which has a time-dependent anisotropy in momentum space.
Most previous phenomenological treatments of dilepton production have assumed that the plasma is thermalized rapidly with $\tau_{\rm iso}$ on the same order as the parton formation time, $\tau_0$. However, due to the rapid 1+1 longitudinal expansion of the plasma at early-times, this assumption seems to be rather strong because it ignores the momentum-space anisotropy developed along the beam axis. Anisotropies in momentum-space are intimately related with Weibel instabilities. Recently, it has been shown that the presence of chromomagnetic Weibel instabilities developed at early times of the collision may affect the value of $\tau_{\rm iso}$ . However, it is still not clear how much $\tau_{\rm iso}$ is affected by the presence of these instabilities at phenomenologically accessible collision energies.
Due to the lack of a precise physical picture of the pre-equilibrium QGP, one can instead implement simple models which capture the essence of the complex dynamics at early-times of the collision. This will be our approach in the present work. We propose a simple phenomenological model for the time-dependence of the hard momentum scale, $p_{\rm
hard}$, and the plasma anisotropy parameter, $\xi=\langle
p_T^2\rangle/2 \langle p_L^2\rangle - 1$. The new aspect in this work compared to our recent proposals for the pre-equilibrium stage of the QGP [@Mauricio:2007vz; @Martinez:2008rr; @Martinez:2008di], is the inclusion of the rapidity dependence of the quark and anti-quark distribution functions. We use fits to experimental data which are available from AGS through RHIC data to constrain the rapidity dependence of the parton distribution functions. Since this rapidity dependence is not perfectly flat we implicitly include effects of the breaking of longitudinal boost invariance of the system.
To make our final phenomenological predictions for dilepton yields, we introduce three different parameters: (1) the parton formation time, $\tau_0$, which is time at which the partons created during the initial hard collision of the nuclei become decoherent and approximately on-shell;[^4] (2) $\tau_{\rm iso}$ which is the proper time when the system starts to undergo ideal hydrodynamical expansion; and (3) $\gamma$ which sets the sharpness of the transition to hydrodynamical behaviour. We assume that for times of the order of $\tau_0$ but smaller than $\tau_{\rm
iso}$, the system expands like a collisionally-broadened plasma and smoothly changes to hydrodynamical expansion for times long compared with $\tau_{\rm iso}$. In this work we extend previous calculations [@Mauricio:2007vz; @Martinez:2008rr; @Martinez:2008di] considering the impact of the momentum-space anisotropies on the full rapidity dependence of medium dilepton production. We find that at LHC energies, dilepton yields are suppressed by a factor of 3 around $y\sim$ 9 if one chooses $\tau_{\rm iso}$=2 fm/c.
This manuscript is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:1\] we calculate the dilepton production rate at leading order using an anisotropic phase space distribution. In Sec. \[sec:2\] we present the interpolating model from collisionally-broadened to ideal hydrodynamical expansion including the rapidity dependence of the quark and anti-quark distribution functions. In Sec. \[sec:5\] we present dilepton yields as a function of the rapidity for different values of $\tau_{\rm iso}$. Finally, we present our conclusions and give an outlook in the Sec. \[sec:6\].
Dilepton rate {#sec:1}
=============
From relativistic kinetic theory, the dilepton production rate $dN^{l^+l^-}/d^4Xd^4P\equiv d R^{l^+l^-}/d^4P$ (i.e. the number of dileptons produced per space-time volume and four dimensional momentum-space volume) at leading order in the electromagnetic coupling, $\alpha$, is given by [@Kapusta:1992uy; @Dumitru:1993vz; @Strickland:1994rf]: $$\frac{d R^{l^+l^-}}{d^4P} = \int \frac{d^3{\bf p}_1}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{d^3{\bf p}_2}{(2\pi)^3}
\,f_q({\bf p}_1)\,f_{\bar{q}}({\bf p}_2)\, \it{v}_{q\bar{q}}\,\sigma^{l^+l^-}_{q\bar{q}}\,
\delta^{(4)}(P-p_1-p_2)
\; ,
\label{eq:annihilation1}$$ where $f_{q,{\bar q}}$ is the phase space distribution function of the medium quarks (anti-quarks), $\it{v}_{q\bar{q}}$ is the relative velocity between quark and anti-quark and $\sigma^{l^+l^-}_{q\bar{q}}$ is the total cross section. Since we will be considering high-energy dilepton pairs with center-of-mass energies much greater than the dilepton mass we can ignore the finite dilepton mass corrections and use simply $\sigma^{l^+l^-}_{q\bar{q}} = 4 \pi \alpha^2 / 3 M^2$. In addition, we assume that the distribution function of quarks and anti-quarks is the same, $f_{\bar q}=f_q$.
Following Ref. [@Romatschke:2003ms], we will consider the case that the anisotropic quark/anti-quark phase-space distributions are azimuthally symmetric in momentum space about a direction specified by ${\bf\hat{n}}$ and can be obtained from an arbitrary isotropic phase space distribution by squeezing ($\xi>0$) or stretching ($\xi<0$) this isotropic distribution function along ${\bf\hat{n}}$, i.e., $$f_{q,{\bar q}}({\bf p},\xi,p_{\rm hard})=f^{iso}_{q,{\bar
q}}(\sqrt{{\bf p^2}+\xi({\bf p\cdot \hat{n}}){\bf^2}},p_{\rm hard}) \; ,
\label{eq:distansatz}$$ where $p_{\rm hard}$ is the hard momentum scale, $\hat{\bf n}$ is the direction of the anisotropy and $\xi >0$ is a parameter that reflects the strength and type of anisotropy. In the isotropic case, $p_{\rm
hard}$ is identified with the temperature of the system and $\xi\equiv
0$. Using the anisotropic distribution given by Eq. (\[eq:distansatz\]) into Eq. (\[eq:annihilation1\]) we obtain:[^5] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d R^{l^+l^-}}{d^4P}&=&
\frac{5\alpha^2}{18\pi^5}\int_{-1}^1d(\cos\theta_{p_1})
\int_{a_+}^{a_-}\frac{dp_1}{\sqrt{\chi}}\,p_1\hspace{0.1cm}f_q\left({\sqrt{\bf p_1^2(1+\xi(\tau)\cos^2\theta_{p_1})}},p_{\rm hard}(\tau,\eta)\right)\nonumber \\
&\times & f_{\bar{q}}\left(\sqrt{{\bf(E-p_1)^2+\xi(\tau)(p_1\cos\theta_{p_1}-P\cos\theta_P)^2}},p_{\rm hard}(\tau,\eta)\right),
\label{scattering}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\chi&=&\,4\,P^2\,p_1^2\,\sin^2\theta_P\,\sin^2\theta_{p_1}-(2p_1(E-P\cos\theta_P\cos\theta_{p_1})-M^2)^2 \; , \\
a_{\pm}&=&\frac{M^2}{2(E-P\cos (\theta_P\pm\theta_{p_1}))} \; .\end{aligned}$$ For phenomenological predictions of expected dilepton yields, we model the space-time dependence of $p_{\rm hard}$ and $\xi$. In a realistic non-boost-invariant system $p_{\rm hard}$ will depend of the rapidity on the quark and anti-quark and hence the rate itself will depend not only on the difference of $y-\eta$ but also on $\eta$ itself. In the next sections we will give details of how this dependence is introduced. Once obtained we can calculate the final rapidity spectra by integrating over phase space: $$\frac{dN^{l^+l^-}}{dy}=\pi R^2_T\int dM^2 d^2p_T\int_{\tau_0}^{\tau_f}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dR^{l^+l^-}}{d^4P}\tau d\tau d\eta\hspace{0.2cm}, \label{yspectrum}$$ where $R_T\,=\,1.2\,A^{1/3}$ fm is the radius of the nucleus in the transverse plane. This expression is evaluated in the center-of-mass (CM) frame while the differential dilepton rate is calculated in the local rest frame (LR) of the emitting region. Then, the dilepton pair energy has to be understood as $E_{LR}=p_T\,\cosh\,(y-\eta)$ in the differential dilepton rate $dR^{l^+l^-}/d^4P$. Substituting Eq. (\[scattering\]) into Eq. (\[yspectrum\]), we obtain the dilepton spectrum as a function of the rapidity including the effect of a time-dependent momentum anisotropy.
One can be worried if either transverse expansion or mixed/hadronic phases in Eq. (\[yspectrum\]) will affect the production of high-energy dileptons presented here. Fortunately, in the kinematic region studied here this is not the case and these effects turn out to be negligible (1-2% effect) compared with the longitudinal expansion [@Mauricio:2007vz].
Space Time-Model {#sec:2}
================
In this section, we extend previous models proposed for the pre-equilibrium stage of the QGP [@Mauricio:2007vz; @Martinez:2008rr; @Martinez:2008di] by including a phenomenologically realistic rapidity dependence of the parton distributions. Before presenting the details of the model, we remind the reader of some general relations.
Firstly, the plasma anisotropy parameter is related with the average longitudinal and transverse momentum of the hard particles through the relation: $$\label{anisoparam}
\xi=\frac{\langle p_T^2\rangle}{2\langle p_L^2\rangle} - 1 \; .$$
We can obtain two limiting cases from the last expression. For an isotropic plasma, we have that $\xi$=0, i.e., $\langle p_T^2\rangle =
2\langle p_L^2\rangle$. Another possibility is that the partons initially undergo 1d free streaming expansion, where the partons expand freely along the longitudinal axis. Using the free streaming distribution function, it is possible to show that the transverse and longitudinal momentum scales as [@Rebhan:2008uj; @Martinez:2008di; @Baier:2000sb]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle p_T^2 \rangle_{\rm f.s.} &\propto 2 \, T_0^2 \; ,\\
\langle p_L^2 \rangle_{\rm f.s.} &\propto T_0^2 \frac{\tau_0^2}{\tau^2} \; .
\end{aligned}$$
Inserting these expressions into Eq. (\[anisoparam\]), one obtains $\xi_{f.s.}(\tau) = \tau^2/\tau_0^2-1$. The free streaming result for $\xi$ is the upper-bound on possible momentum-space anisotropies developed during 1d expansion by causality. Modifications to the Eq. (\[anisoparam\]) result from the different kinds of interactions between the partons, as it is discussed below. In this work, for simplicity, we will not study explicitly the possibility of 1d free streaming expansion since, in reality, this is a rather extreme assumption which requires that the partons do not interact at all. Below we will give details of a more realistic model of the time evolution of the average transverse and longitudinal pressures. However, note that the relation given in Eq. (\[anisoparam\]) is completely general and can be applied in all cases.
Secondly, for a given anisotropic phase space distribution of the form specified in Eq. (\[eq:distansatz\]), the local energy density can be factorized as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{energy}
{\cal E}(p_{\rm hard},\xi) &=& \int \frac{d^3{\bf p}}{(2\pi)^3}\hspace{0.1cm}p\hspace{0.1cm}
f_{\rm iso}(\sqrt{{\bf p^2}+\xi({\bf p\cdot \hat{n}}{\bf^2})},p_{\rm hard}) \; , \\
&=& {\cal E}_0(p_{\rm hard}) \, {\cal R}(\xi) \; ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal E}_0$ is the initial local energy density deposited in the medium at $\tau_0$ and $${\cal R}(\xi) \equiv \frac{1}{2}\Biggl(\frac{1}{1+\xi}+\frac{\arctan\sqrt{\xi}}{\sqrt{\xi}} \Biggr) \; .
\label{calRdef}$$ We mention that $p_{\rm hard}$ depends implicitly on proper time and space-time rapidity and that $\lim_{\xi \rightarrow 0} {\cal R}(\xi) =
1$ and $\lim_{\xi \rightarrow \infty} {\cal R}(\xi) = 1/\sqrt{\xi}$.
Momentum-space broadening and plasma instabilities effect {#sec:3}
---------------------------------------------------------
The ratio between the average longitudinal and transverse momentum needed to compute $\xi$ using Eq. (\[anisoparam\]) is modified from the free streaming case if collisions between the partons are taken into account. To include all relevant $N \leftrightarrow N$ Boltzmann collision terms plus mean field interactions (Vlasov term) is a very difficult task. As a first approximation, one can consider the effect of elastic collisions in the broadening of the longitudinal momentum of the particles. This was the approach in the original version of the bottom-up scenario [@Baier:2000sb]. In the first stage of this scenario, $1\ll Q_s\tau\ll\alpha_s^{3/2}$, initial hard gluons have typical momentum of order $Q_s$ and occupation number of order $1/\alpha_s$. Due to the fact that the system is expanding at the speed of light in the longitudinal direction, the density of hard gluons decreases with time, $N_g \sim Q_s^3/(\alpha_s Q_s\tau)$. If there were no interactions this expansion would be equivalent to 1+1 free streaming and the longitudinal momentum $p_L$ would scale like $1/\tau$. However, once elastic $2\leftrightarrow 2$ collisions of hard gluons are taken into account, the ratio between the longitudinal momentum $p_L$ and the typical transverse momentum of a hard particle $p_T$ decreases as [@Baier:2000sb]: $$\label{ptbroadbottom}
\frac{\langle p_L^2 \rangle}{\langle p_T^2 \rangle} \propto (Q_s\tau)^{-2/3} \; .$$ Assuming, as before, isotropy at the formation time, $\tau_0=Q_s^{-1}$, this implies that for a collisionally-broadened expansion, $\xi (\tau)=(\tau/\tau_0)^{2/3}-1$.
Note that, as obtained in Ref. [@Baier:2000sb], when collisions are included, it is implicitly assumed that the elastic cross-section is screened at long distances by an isotropic real-valued Debye mass. This is not guaranteed in an anisotropic plasma since the Debye mass can be become complex due to the chromo-Weibel instability. In general, any anisotropic distribution causes the presence of negative eigenvalues in the self-energy of soft gluons . Such negative eigenvalues indicate instabilities, which result in exponential growth of chromo-electric and magnetic fields, $E^a$ and $B^a$, respectively. These fields deflect the particles and how much deflection occurs will depend on the amplitude and domain size of the induced chromofields. Currently, the precise parametric relation between the plasma anisotropy parameter and the amplitude and domain size of the chromofields is not known from first principles.
If one would like to include the momentum-space broadening and the impact of the plasma instabilities, phenomenologically this can be achieved by generalizing the temporal dependence of $\xi (\tau)$ to: $$\xi(\tau,\delta) = \left( \frac{\tau}{\tau_0} \right)^\delta - 1 \; .
\label{broadenedxi}$$ The exponent $\delta$ contains the physical information about the particular type of momentum-space broadening which occurs due to plasma interactions. Two limiting cases for this exponent are the ideal hydrodynamic and free streaming expansion. In the 1+1 hydrodynamical limit, $\delta \equiv 0$ and then $\xi \rightarrow 0$. For $\delta \equiv 2$, one recovers the 1+1 dimensional free streaming case, $\xi \rightarrow \xi_{\rm f.s.} = (\tau /\tau_0)^2-1$. For general $\delta$ between these limits one obtains the proper-time dependence of the energy density and temperature by substituting (\[broadenedxi\]) into the general expression for the factorized energy density (\[energy\]) to obtain ${\cal E}(\tau,\delta) = {\cal
E}_0(p_{\rm hard}) \, {\cal R}(\xi(\tau,\delta))$. The inclusion of the rapidity dependence of the parton distribution functions is discussed in Sec. \[sec:4\].
Different values of $\delta$ arise dynamically from the different processes contributing to parton isotropization. For example, elastic collisional-broadening results in Eq. (\[ptbroadbottom\]) and hence $\delta=2/3$. Recently, some authors have considered the values of $\delta$ resulting from processes associated with the chromo-Weibel instability presented at the earliest times after the initial nuclear impact [@Bodeker:2005nv; @Arnold:2005qs; @Arnold:2007cg]: $$\label{ptbroadproposals1}
\frac{\langle p_L^2 \rangle}{\langle p_T^2 \rangle}\sim(Q_s\tau)^{-\frac{1}{2}\bigl(\frac{1}{1+\nu}\bigl)} \; ,$$ where $$\label{ptbroadproposals2}
\nu=\left\{ \begin{aligned}
0 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Ref.\cite{Bodeker:2005nv} \; ,}\\
1 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Ref.\cite{Arnold:2005qs} \; ,}\\
2 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Nielsen-Olesen limit, Ref.\cite{Arnold:2007cg}} \;.
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Summarizing, the coefficient $\delta$ in Eq. (\[broadenedxi\]) takes on the following values $$\label{anisomodels}
\delta=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
2 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Free streaming expansion} \; ,\\
2/3 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Collisional-Broadening, Ref.\cite{Baier:2000sb}\; ,}\\
1/2 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Ref.\cite{Bodeker:2005nv}}\; , \\
1/4 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Ref.\cite{Arnold:2005qs}\; ,}\\
1/6 \hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Nielsen-Olesen limit, Ref.\cite{Arnold:2007cg}}\; ,\\
0\hspace{0.2cm}&\text{Hydrodynamic expansion} \; .
\end{aligned}
\right.$$
{width="10cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:1\] we sketch the time-dependence of the plasma anisotropy parameter indicating the time scales at which the various processes become important. At times shorter than the mean time between successive elastic scatterings, $\tau_{\rm MFP}$, the system will undergo 1+1 dimensional free streaming with $\delta=2$. For times long compared to $\tau_{\rm MFP}$ but short compared to $\tau_{\rm
Instability}$ the plasma anisotropy will grow with the collisionally-broadened exponent of $\delta=2/3$. Here $\tau_{\rm
Instability}$ is the time at which instability-induced soft gauge fields begin to influence the hard-particles’ motion. When $\tau_{\rm
Instability} < \tau < \tau_{\rm iso}$ the plasma anisotropy grows with the slower exponent of $\delta = 1/6 \ldots 1/2$ due to the bending of particle trajectories in the induced soft-field background. At times large compared to $\tau_{\rm Instability}$ inelastic processes are expected to drive the system back to isotropy [@Baier:2000sb]. We note here that for small $\xi$ and realistic couplings it has been shown [@Schenke:2006xu] that one cannot ignore the effect of collisional-broadening of the distribution functions and that this may completely eliminate unstable modes from the spectrum.
Based on such a sketch, one could try to construct a detailed model which includes all of the various time scales and study the dependence of the process under consideration on each. However, there are theoretical uncertainties in each of these time scales and their dependences on experimental conditions. We choose to use a simpler approach in which we will construct a phenomenological model which smoothly interpolates the coefficient $\delta$ from the 1d collisionally-broadened expansion to 1d hydrodynamical expansion, i.e., $2/3\geq \delta \geq 0$.
In the model we introduce a transition width, $\gamma^{-1}$, which governs the smoothness of the transition from the initial value of $\delta =2/3$ to $\delta=0$ at $\tau \sim \tau_{\rm iso}$. The collisionally-broadened interpolating model provides us a realistic estimate of the effect of plasma anisotropies. Note that by using such a smooth interpolation one can achieve a reasonable phenomenological description of the transition from non-equilibrium to equilibrium dynamics which should hopefully capture the essence of the physics. In the next section we will give mathematical definitions for the model.
Interpolating model for collisionally broadened expansion {#sec:4}
---------------------------------------------------------
In order to construct an interpolating model between collisionally-broadened and hydrodynamical expansion, we introduce the smeared step function: $$\lambda(\tau,\tau_{\rm iso},\gamma) \equiv \frac{1}{2} \left({\rm
tanh}\left[\frac{\gamma (\tau-\tau_{\rm iso})}{\tau_{\rm iso}} \right]+1\right) \; ,$$ where $\gamma^{-1}$ sets the width of the transition between non-equilibrium and hydrodynamical evolution in units of $\tau_{\rm
iso}$. In the limit when $\tau \ll \tau_{\rm iso}$, we have $\lambda
\rightarrow 0$ and when $\tau \gg \tau_{\rm iso}$ we have $\lambda
\rightarrow 1$. Physically, the energy density ${\cal E}$ should be continuous as we change from the initial non-equilibrium value of $\delta$ to the final isotropic $\delta=0$ value appropriate for ideal hydrodynamic expansion. Once the energy density is specified, this gives us the time dependence of the hard momentum scale. We find that for general $\delta$ this can be accomplished with the following model:
\[eq:modelEQs\] $$\begin{aligned}
\xi(\tau,\delta) &= \left(\tau/\tau_0\right)^{\delta(1-\lambda(\tau))} - 1 \; , \label{xidependence}\\
{\cal E}(\tau, \eta) &= {\cal E}_0 \; {\cal R}\left(\xi\right) \; \bar{\cal U}^{4/3}(\tau) \; F^4(\eta) \; ,\\
p_{\rm hard}(\tau, \eta) &= T_0 \; \bar{\cal U}^{1/3}(\tau)\;F(\eta) \; ,
\label{pdependence}\end{aligned}$$
with ${\cal R}(\xi)$ defined in Eq. (\[calRdef\]) and for fixed final multiplicity we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal U}(\tau) &\equiv& \left[{\cal R}\!\left(\left(\tau_{\rm iso}/\tau_0\right)^\delta-
1\right)\right]^{3\lambda(\tau)/4} \left(\frac{\tau_{\rm iso}}{\tau}\right)^{1 - \delta\left(1-\lambda(\tau)\right)/2} \; , \nonumber \\
\bar{\cal U}(\tau) &\equiv& {\cal U}(\tau) \, / \, {\cal U}(\tau_{\rm iso}^+) \; , \\
{\cal U}(\tau_{\rm iso}^+) &\equiv& \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\tau_{\rm iso}^+} {\cal U}(\tau)
= \left[{\cal R}\!\left(\left(\tau_{\rm iso}/\tau_0\right)^\delta-1\right)\right]^{3/4}
\left(\frac{\tau_{\rm iso}}{\tau_0}\right) \; .\end{aligned}$$
\[Udeff\]
and $\delta = 2/3$ for the case of 1d collisionally broadened expansion interpolating to 1d ideal hydrodynamic expansion.
Recently, models for the pre-equilibrium stage in the presence of momentum-space anisotropies have been applied in the central rapidity region of high-energy dileptons [@Mauricio:2007vz; @Martinez:2008rr; @Martinez:2008di]. Here we extend these previous analyses through the inclusion of rapidity dependence of the parton hard momentum scale by using a phenomenologically constrained “rapidity profile function,” $F(\eta)$. Our main goal with this modification is to explore the phenomenological consequences in the forward rapidity region where the effect of early-time anisotropies are expected to be maximal. We are not attempting to describe the physics of the forward rapidity region from first principles,[^6] instead, we implement a Gaussian fit profile for the rapidity dependence which successfully describes experimentally observed pion rapidity spectra from AGS to RHIC energies [@Bearden:2004yx; @Park:2001gm; @Back:2005hs; @Veres:2008nq; @Bleicher:2005tb] and use this to extrapolate to LHC energies: $$\label{yprofile}
F(\eta)=\exp \Biggl(-\frac{\eta^2}{2\sigma_\eta^2}\Biggr) \; ,$$ with $$\label{width}
\sigma_\eta^2=\frac{8}{3}\frac{c_s^2}{(1-c_s^4)}\ln \left(\sqrt{s_{NN}}/2 m_p\right) \; ,$$ where $c_s$ is the sound velocity and $m_p$ is the proton mass.
Note that once the rapidity dependence in the parton momentum distribution functions is implemented boost invariance along the longitudinal axis breaks down. This procedure leads to a violation of the conservation laws expressed by hydrodynamics unless a finite baryon chemical potential is introduced [@Dumitru:1995bu]. It is possible to demonstrate that for a longitudinal scaling expansion, $\partial {\cal P}(T,\mu)/\partial\eta$=0, where ${\cal P}$ is the pressure and $T$ is the temperature. This condition is equivalent to:[^7] $$s\frac{\partial T}{\partial \eta}+ n\frac{\partial \mu}{\partial \eta}=0 \; ,$$ where $s$ and $n$ denote the entropy density and particle number density, respectively. In the present context don’t have to worry about the presence of finite chemical potentials since we are considering high-energy dilepton production and $E/T\gg\mu/T$ is satisfied. Therefore, in the differential dilepton rate $dR/d^4P$, Eq.(\[eq:annihilation1\]), the product of the distribution functions $f_q({\bf p}_q,+\mu)\;f_{{\bar q}}({\bf p}_{{\bar q}},-\mu)\approx
f_q({\bf p}_q)\;f_{{\bar q}}({\bf p}_{{\bar q}})$.
{width="8cm"}
{width="14.3cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:2\], the temporal evolution of the anisotropy parameter $\xi(\tau)$ is plotted using Eq. (\[xidependence\]). In Fig. \[fig:3\], we show the time and rapidity dependence of $p_{\rm
hard}(\tau ,\eta)$ (right and left panel, respectively) using Eq. (\[pdependence\]).
Results {#sec:5}
=======
In this section, we will present our predicted dilepton yields as a function of the rapidity from a Pb-Pb collision at LHC full beam energy, $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$= 5.5 TeV. At this center-of-mass energy we use $\tau_0$= 0.088 fm/c, $T_0$= 845 MeV, $R_T$= 7.1 fm and the critical temperature $T_c$=160 MeV. The kinematic cuts in the transverse momentum and invariant mass of the dilepton yields are indicated in the corresponding results. Also, we use $c_s^2=1/3$ and $m_p=0.938$ GeV in Eq. (\[width\]).
Before presenting our results we first explain the numerical procedure used for our calculations. Because the differential dilepton rate $dR^{l^+l^-}/d^4P$ given in Eq. (\[scattering\]) is independent of the assumed space-time model, we first evaluate it numerically using double-exponential integration with a target precision of $10^{-9}$. The result for the rate was then tabulated on a uniformly-spaced 4-dimensional grid in $M$, $p_T$, $y$, and $\xi$: $M/p_{\rm hard},
p_T/p_{\rm hard} \in \{0.1,20\}$, $y \in \{-10,10\}$ and $\xi \in
\{0,5\}$. This table was then used to build a four-dimensional interpolating function which was valid at continuous values of these four variables. We then boost this rate from the local reference frame to center-of-mass frame and evaluate the remaining integrations over space-time ($\tau$ and $\eta$), transverse momentum and invariant mass appearing in Eq. (\[yspectrum\]) using quasi-Monte Carlo integration with $\tau \in \{\tau_0,\tau_f\} $, $\eta \in \{-10,10\}$ and, depending on the case, restrict the integration to any cuts specified in $M$ or $p_T$.
Our final integration time, $\tau_f$, is set by solving numerically for the point in time at which the temperature in our interpolating model is equal to the critical temperature, i.e. $p_{\rm
hard}(\tau_f,\eta) = T_C$. We will assume that when the system reaches $T_C$, all medium emission stops. Note that due to the fact that $p_{\rm hard}$ depends on the parton rapidity, the plasma lifetime now depends on which rapidity slice you are in, with higher rapidities having a shorter lifetime due to their lower initial “temperature”. We are not taking into account the emission from the mixed/hadronic phase at late times since the kinematic regime we study (high $M$ and $p_T$) is dominated by early-time high-energy dilepton emission [@Mauricio:2007vz; @Strickland:1994rf].
We show our predicted dilepton spectrum as a function of the pair rapidity, $y$, for LHC energies using our model described by Eqs. (\[eq:modelEQs\]) in Fig. \[fig:4\]. From this, we see that for LHC energies there is a suppression when we vary the isotropization time from $\tau_0$ to 2 fm/c. This suppression can be explained qualitatively by two mechanisms. The first one, the anisotropic nature of the distribution function as a consequence of the rapid expansion implies that dileptons with larger values of longitudinal momentum are reduced compared with the case of an isotropic distribution function. The suppression will depend on the maximum amount of momentum-space anisotropy achieved at early times and also on the time dependence of the anisotropy parameter $\xi$; in this work, we consider a realistic scenario for a collisionally-broadened plasma. The other source of rapidity dependence of the final dilepton spectra is related to the fact that the hard momentum scale (“temperature”) depends explicitly on the rapidity $\eta$, even in the case of instantaneous thermalization. To generate Fig. \[fig:4\] we have applied a cut $M
\geq$ 2 GeV and $P_T \geq 100$ MeV. As can be seen from this figure a isotropization time of $\tau_{\rm iso}=$ 2 fm/c results in fewer dileptons as compared to “instantaneous” isotropization $\tau_{\rm
iso}=$ 0.088 fm/c. This suppression is enhanced at forward rapidities.
{width="11cm"}
In order to quantify the effect of the pre-equilibrium emission we define the “dilepton modification” factor as the ratio of the dilepton yield obtained with an isotropization time of $\tau_{\rm iso}$ to that obtained from an instantaneously thermalized plasma undergoing only 1+1 hydrodynamical expansion, ie. $\tau_{\rm iso}=\tau_0$: $$\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso}) \equiv \left.
\left( \dfrac{dN^{e^+e^-}(\tau_{\rm iso})}{dy} \right) \right/ \left(
\dfrac{dN^{e^+e^-}(\tau_{\rm iso}=\tau_0)}{dy} \right) \; .$$ This ratio measures how large the effect of early-time momentum anisotropies are on medium dilepton production. In the case of instantaneous isotropization, $\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso})$ is unity, and for $\tau_{\rm iso} > \tau_0$ any deviation from unity indicates a modification of medium dilepton production due to pre-equilibrium emissions.
{width="11cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:5\] we show our prediction for the rapidity dependence of the high-energy dilepton modification factor, $\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso})$, for three different assumed plasma isotropization times, $\tau_{\rm
iso} \in \{$ 0.1,1,2$\}$ fm/c. To generate this figure we have applied a cut $M \geq$ 2 GeV and $P_T \geq 100$ MeV. As can be seen from this figure a isotropization time of $\tau_{\rm iso}=$ 2 fm/c results in fewer dileptons as compared to “instantaneous” isotropization $\tau_{\rm iso}=$ 0.088 fm/c. This suppression is enhanced at forward rapidities and reaches a maximum suppression of a factor of 3 at extremely forward rapidities.
Using the dilepton modification factor as our criterion we find that for our collisionally-broadened interpolating model with fixed final multiplicity, the dilepton yields as a function of the rapidity at $\tau_{iso}$ = 2 fm/c can be suppressed up to $\sim$ 20% for 0$< y
\lesssim$ 4. The suppression of dilepton yields is more dramatic at rapidity values around $y \sim$ 9 and can be as large as a factor of 3. With sufficiently accurate experimental results this could give an experimental method for determining the isotropization time of a quark gluon plasma as formed in an ultrarelativistic nuclear collision.
Conclusions {#sec:6}
===========
In this work we have introduced a phenomenological model that takes into account early-time momentum-space anisotropies in the rapidity dependence of high-energy dilepton production. To do this we have modeled the temporal evolution of the plasma anisotropy parameter $\xi$ and the hard momentum scale $p_{\rm hard}$. To study the dilepton production rapidity dependence, we have parametrized the rapidity dependence of $p_{\rm hard}$ using a Gaussian profile which is consistent with experimental observations of final pion spectra from AGS through RHIC energies.
We have applied the proposed model to study high-energy dilepton yields as a function of the pair rapidity and find that this observable is sensitive to the chosen value of $\tau_{\rm iso}$. This suppression can be explained as a consequence of the combined effect of the anisotropy in momentum-space achieved at early-times due to expansion and the rapidity dependence of the hard momentum scale which explicitly breaks longitudinal boost invariance. We find that with the resulting dilepton modification factor, $\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso}$=2 fm/c), shows suppressed dilepton yields in the forward rapidity region which can be up to 20% for 0 $< y \lesssim$ 4 and up to a factor of 3 at $y \sim$ 9. The amplitude of the suppression of $\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso})$ could help us to experimentally constrain $\tau_{\rm iso}$ given sufficiently precise data in the forthcoming LHC experiments. In this way forward dileptons would provide a way to determine the plasma isotropization time experimentally.
An uncertainty of our treatment comes from our implicit assumption of chemical equilibrium. If the system is not in chemical equilibrium (too many gluons and/or too few quarks) early time quark chemical potentials, or fugacities, will affect the production of lepton pairs [@Dumitru:1993vz; @Strickland:1994rf]. However, to leading order, the quark and gluon fugacities will cancel between numerator and denominator in the dilepton suppression factor, $\Phi(\tau_{\rm iso})$ [@Strickland:1994rf]. We, therefore, expect that to good approximation one can factorize the effects of momentum space anisotropies and chemical non-equilibrium.
We note in closing that the interpolating model presented here can be applied to other observables than dilepton yields. Indeed, with this model it is possible to assess the phenomenological consequences of momentum-space anisotropies on other observables which are sensitive to early-time stages of the QGP, e.g. photon production, heavy-quark transport, jet-medium induced electromagnetic and gluonic radiation, etc.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank A. Dumitru, S. Jeon, M. Bleicher, H. Appelshäuser and B. Schenke for helpful discussions. M. Martinez thanks N. Armesto and C. Salgado for assistance provided in order to attend the Hard Probes 2008 conference where this work was initiated. M. Martinez was supported by the Helmholtz Research School and Otto Stern School of the Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main. M.S. was supported by DFG project GR 1536/6-1. M.S. also acknowledges support from the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics during the “Entropy Production Before QGP” workshop.
P. Huovinen, P. F. Kolb, U. W. Heinz, P. V. Ruuskanen and S. A. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{} (2001).
T. Hirano and K. Tsuda, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} (2002) 054905.
M. J. Tannenbaum, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**69**]{} (2006) 2005.
M. Luzum and P. Romatschke, arXiv:0804.4015 \[nucl-th\].
P. Romatschke and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 036004.
S. Mrowczynski and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{} (2000) 036011.
P. Arnold, J. Lenaghan and G. D. Moore, JHEP [**0308**]{} (2003) 002.
P. Romatschke and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 116006 (2004).
A. Rebhan, M. Strickland and M. Attems, Phys. Rev. D 78, 045023 (2008).
M. Martinez and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, (2008) 102301.
M. Martinez and M. Strickland, arXiv:0804.2618 \[hep-ph\].
M. Martinez and M. Strickland, arXiv:0805.4552 \[hep-ph\].
R. Baier, A. H. Mueller, D. Schiff and D. T. Son, Phys. Lett. B [**502**]{} (2001) 51.
J.I. Kapusta, L.D. McLerran and D.Srivastava, Phys. Lett. B [**283**]{}, (1992) 145.
A. Dumitru, D.H. Rischke, T. Schonfeld, L. Winckelmann, H. Stoecker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, (1993) 2860.
M. Strickland, Phys. Lett. B [**331**]{}, 245 (1994).
D. Bodeker, JHEP [**0510**]{} (2005) 092.
P. Arnold and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 025013.
P. Arnold and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 045009.
B. Schenke, M. Strickland, C. Greiner and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{} (2006) 125004.
T. Renk, Phys. Rev. C [**70**]{} (2004) 021903.
T. Hirano and Y. Nara, Nucl. Phys. A [**743**]{} (2004) 305.
T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{} (2002) 011901.
K. Morita, S. Muroya, C. Nonaka and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. C [**66**]{} (2002) 054904.
I. G. Bearden [*et al.*]{} \[BRAHMS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 162301.
I. C. Park [*et al.*]{} \[PHOBOS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. A [**698**]{} (2002) 564.
B. B. Back [*et al.*]{} \[PHOBOS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{} (2006) 021901.
G. I. Veres [*et al.*]{} \[PHOBOS Collaboration\], arXiv:0806.2803 \[nucl-ex\].
M. Bleicher, arXiv:hep-ph/0509314.
A. Dumitru, U. Katscher, J. A. Maruhn, H. Stoecker, W. Greiner and D. H. Rischke, Z. Phys. A [**353**]{} (1995) 187.
[^1]:
[^2]: Hereafter, for simplicity, will assume that these two time scales are the same so that $\tau_{\rm therm}=\tau_{\rm iso}$.
[^3]: We mean by high-energy dileptons, lepton pairs with pair transverse momentum ($p_T$) or invariant mass ($M$) greater than 1 GeV.
[^4]: This time can be estimated from the nuclear saturation scale, i.e., $\tau_0\sim Q_s^{-1}$. For LHC energies, $Q_s\simeq$ 2 GeV implying $\tau_0\simeq$ 0.1 fm/c
[^5]: Details of the calculation are presented in Ref. [@Martinez:2008di].
[^6]: Some proposals have been mentioned in the literature, see Ref. [@Renk:2004yv; @Hirano:2004en; @Hirano:2001eu; @Morita:2002av]
[^7]: Partial derivatives with respect to $\eta$ are performed at constant $\tau$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the analogy between propagation of light rays in a stationary curved spacetime and in a toroidal (meta-)material. It is argued that light rays not only feel a Lorentz-like force in a magneto-electric medium due to the non-vanishing curl of the toroidal moment, but also there exists an optical analog of Aharonov-Bohm effect for the rays traveling in a region with a curl-free toroidal moment. Experimental realization of this effect could utilize either a multiferroic material or a toroidal metamaterial .'
author:
- '${\rm A. \;Besharat}^{\;(a)}$ [^1], ${\rm M.\;Miri}^{\;(a)}$[^2] and ${\rm M.\;Nouri}$-${\rm Zonoz}^{\;(a,b)}$[^3]'
title: 'Optical Aharonov-Bohm effect due to toroidal moment inspired by general relativity'
---
Introduction
============
Apart from yet being the most successful theory of gravity, general relativity and the exact solutions of Einstein field equations, in recent years have turned into a very powerful tool to study linear and nonlinear phenomena in other branches of physics. An interesting context, in which general relativity has already proved amazingly fruitful in this regard, was formed around the analogy between a curved background and a material medium with respect to light propagation.\
The idea could be traced back the study of electromagnetism and light propagation in curved spacetimes and the observation that the underlying spacetime could be taken as a medium assigned with an index of refraction [@LL]. The same interpretation was reinforced by noting that Maxwell’s equations in a curved spacetime lead to constitutive equations with magneto-electric coupling, in which electric and magnetic fields and their corresponding features are intertwined through the geometry of the underlying spacetime. In this way, one could establish a correspondence between geometric entities assigned to a curved spacetime and the electromagnetic features of a medium such as electric permittivity and magnetic permeabilty [@LL; @pleban].\
Meanwhile studies, both theoretical and experimental, on metamaterials has flourished with the beginning of the 21st century, mainly due to the advancements in small-scale technologies, including nanotechnolgy. Metamaterials are artificially designed matter which have very interesting electromagnetic properties, not found in simple or composite matter in nature. Their nontrivial properties, such as negative refractive index [@Smith], originate not from the molecular/chemical composition of their constituents, but from the way these subwavelength constituents are assembled.\
Another key development was the introduction of [*transformation optics*]{} [@Pendry], which formulates how electromagnetic field lines and the corresponding light rays could be redirected by deforming the underlying space in which they were embedded, very much like rerouting a river by deforming its bed. This process could be looked upon as a coordinate transformation from the initial configuration of the electromagnetic fields in a Cartesian coordinate to their final configuration in a distorted coordinate system, justifying the nickname [*optical conformal transformation or mapping*]{} [@Leon; @Leon1].\
Putting the above elements together, it was proposed that one could control the light propagation by a carefully designed metamaterial through the application of the above transformation. This simple idea is the key idea behind employing metamaterials to build cloaking devices in which, light is directed by a carefully assembled metamaterial to avoid a designated region of space [@Pendry; @Leon].\
On the other hand, the geometric nature of general relativity, introducing gravity not as a force but as the geometry of spacetime, leads to a machinery, based on Riemannian geometry which allows one to calculate paths of massive and massless particles, in particular light paths, in a given spacetime. Hence, for a given spacetime, regardless of the matter distribution producing it, one is able in principle to calculate its null geodesics and the metamaterial analog of this spacetime, designed with the equivalent electromagnetic specifications, will reproduce the same optical paths.\
Obviously the more exotic a spacetime may look, the more interesting is expected to be the behavior of its light trajectories and that is exactly the case with light paths in the geometry of black holes. Consequently in the metamaterial analogs of black holes, one could duplicate the same light paths, however strange they may seem. For example in the simplest spherically symmetric black hole, namely the Schwarzschild black hole, there is a [*photon sphere*]{} which is a stable circular photon orbit outside the black hole at a radius $1.5$ times that of the black hole’s event horizon [@Virb]. Interestingly enough, it is found, through simulations, that the metamaterial analog of this black hole exhibits the same photon sphere property [@Genov; @Chen]. Later experimental demonstration of gravitational lensing effects near the photon sphere was carried out in [@Sheng]. Metamaterial designs are suggested that could form an [*optical black hole*]{} in the sense that it is a complete light absorber, and are hoped to find application in many areas [@Nariman]. Optical analogs of wormholes were also suggested by designing metamaterial according to the electromagnetic parameters mimicking that of a wormhole solution of Einstein field equations, connecting two distant regions in a spacetime continuum [@Green]. Even it is suggested that one could mimic [*Hawking radiation*]{} in optical analogs of a black hole [@Leon2; @Linder].\
In the present article, motivated by the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect, we use the $1+3$ (or threading) formulation of spacetime decomposition to exhibit the analogy between electromagnetic wave propagation in a stationary curved spcetime and in a magneto-electric (meta-)material, and then employ this analogy to show that there should be an optical analog of this effect in (meta-)materials with toroidal moment. The magneto-electric coupling in (meta-)materials mimicking stationary spacetimes, are constrained to those due to the toroidal moment originating from the antisymmetric part of the linear magneto-electric tensor. A natural and direct consequence of this analogy is the existence of a Lorentz-like force imposed on light, similar to what we have for charged particles moving in a magnetic field. Also employing the same analogy, we predict an optical analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in a toroidal (meta-)material. This effect is different from the dynamic version of the usual Aharonov-Bohm effect which is expected to affect beams of [*charged*]{} particles in the presence of non-radiating sources formed by a special combination of interfering toroidal and electric dipoles [@Bash].\
The outline of the paper is as follows. In the first section we introduce the idea of a spacetime as a medium assigned with an index of refraction with respect to the light trajectories. In section two this analogy is extended to Maxwell equations and the corresponding constitutive equations in a stationary spacetime. In the third section we briefly introduce the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect which motivated our prediction of the optical analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in toroidal (meta-)materials, which is the subject of section four. Finally we discuss our results in the last section. Throughout we use the (+,-,-,-) signature and our convention for indices is such that the Latin indices run from 1 to 3 while the Greek ones run from 0 to 3.
curved Spacetime as a medium
============================
Any physical realization of 3-dimensional quantities in a curved background requires a decomposition of spacetime into spatial and temporal sections. There are two main decomposition formalisms called $1+3$ and $3+1$ or alternatively [*threading*]{} and [*foliation*]{} formalisms respectively [^4]. To motivate the idea of a curved spacetime as a medium, we start with introducing the threading formalism which will naturally lead to two interesting analogies between a curved spacetime and a medium with respect to either light propagation or electromagnetic constitutive equations.\
In the threading formulation of spacetime decomposition, the spatial and temporal distances between two infinitesimally close fundamental observers are obtained by sending and receiving light signals on their worldlines. The outcome is the following decomposed spacetime metric, $$\label{ds0}
d{s^2} = d\tau_{syn}^2 - d{{l}^2} = {g_{00}}{(d{x^0} - {{A_g}_i }d{x^i })^2} - {{\gamma}_{i j }}d{x^i }d{x^j }$$ where ${{A_g}_i } = - \frac{{{g_{0i }}}}{{{g_{00}}}}$ and $$\label{gamma0}
{{\gamma} _{ij}} = - {g_{i j }} + \frac{{{g_{0i }}{g_{0j }}}}{{{g_{00}}}},$$ is the spatial metric of a 3-space called a [*quotient space/manifold*]{}, on which $d{{l}}$ gives the element of spatial distance between any two nearby events. Also the so called [*synchronized proper time*]{} between any two events is given by $d{\tau _{syn}} = \sqrt {{g_{00}}} (d{x^0} - {g_\alpha }d{x^\alpha })$, so that any two simultaneous events have a coordinate-time difference of $d x^0 = {g}_\alpha dx^\alpha$. The spatial three-metric is invariant under the special coordinate transformation defined by $\frac{{\partial}{\acute{x^{i}}}}{{\partial}{x^{0}}}=0$ and $\frac{{\partial}{\acute{x^{0}}}}{{\partial}{x^{0}}}=1$. In addition, we may define the three-tensors, vectors, and scalars under the same coordinate transformation. Specifically, $g_{00}$ and $g^{00}$ are three-scalars while ${A_g}_{i}=-\frac{g_{0i}}{g_{00}}$ are the components of a covariant 3-vector, and $\gamma^{ij}=-g^{ij}$ is the inverse of the 3-metric. We can consistently raise or lower three dimensional indexes using the spatial three-metric and its inverse. Moreover, the curl of a three-vector is defined using the three-dimensional anti-symmetric tensor, $\eta_{ijk}=\sqrt{\gamma}e_{ijk}$ (and ${\eta^{ijk}}=\frac{e^{ijk}}{\sqrt{\gamma}}$), with ${\gamma}$, the determinant of the 3-metric and $e^{ijk}=e_{ijk}=1$, the Cartesian Levi-Civita symbol.\
The [*gravitational*]{} 3-force acting on a test particle moving on a [*spacetime*]{} geodesic, in a stationary background is given by [@LL; @lynden1998classical] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{force}
\vec{f}=\frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}[-\vec{\nabla}\ln(\sqrt{g_{00}})+\sqrt{g_{00}}\frac{\vec{v}}{c}\times(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A_g})]\\
= \frac{{\varepsilon}_{0}}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}\left( \vec {E_g} + \vec {v}\times \sqrt{g_{00}} \vec {B_g}\right)\end{gathered}$$ in which $\vec{v}$ is the three-velocity of the test particle, ${\varepsilon}_{0} = - c \frac{\partial{S}}{\partial{x^{0}}}$ is its conserved energy with action $S$, and the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic 3-fields are defined as follows [^5] $$\vec{B_g} = \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A_g}\;\; \;\; \;\;\; \;\;\;
\vec{E_g} = -{\vec {\nabla}} \ln \sqrt{g_{00}}.$$ In the case of null rays (photons), $\vec {v} = c\hat {\bf k}$ where $\hat{\bf k}$ is the unit vector along the direction of propagation. Compared with electromagnetism, the first term in the right hand side of could be interpreted as the gravitoelectric force due to the gravitoelectric potential $\phi_g =\ln\sqrt{g_{00}}$ while the second term is interpreted as the gravitomagnetic force due to the gravitomagnetic field $\vec{B_g}$ with $\vec{A_g}$ as the gravitomagnetic vector potential. In the same spirit ${\epsilon}_{0}$ could be interpreted as the gravitoelectric charge of the test particle [@lynden1998classical].\
Now starting with the Fermat’s principle $\delta \int k_\alpha dx^\alpha =0$, and using the threading formulation of spacetime decomposition [@LL], one arrives at the following relation $$\label{IR}
\delta \int \left( \frac{dl}{\sqrt{g_{00}}} + {A_g}_i dx^i \right)=0$$ in which $dl$ is the spatial line element along the light path. Restricting the above result to the case of static spacetimes by setting ${A_g}_i=0$, one could obviously assign an index of refraction, $n_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}}$ to the underlying [*static*]{} spacetime in analogy with a material medium [@LL]. Interestingly enough, in what follows, we show that an index of refraction could also be assigned to stationary spacetimes. To this end we rewrite in the following way $$\label{IRS}
\delta \int \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}} + {A_g}_i \frac{dx^i}{dl} \right) dl \equiv \delta \int n dl = 0$$ from which the index of refraction could be read as $$\label{IRS1}
n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g_{00}}} + {A_g}_i \frac{dx^i}{dl}$$ Using the facts that $k^2 = \frac{{k_0}^2}{g_{00}} - \gamma_{ij}k^i k^j = 0$ and that the wave vector $k^i$ is along the spatial displacement vector, $dx^i$, leads to $k^i = \frac{{k_0}}{\sqrt{g_{00}}} \frac{dx^i}{dl}$ and $|{\bf k}| = \frac{k_0}{{\sqrt{g_{00}}}}$, whereby the above relation could be written in the following illuminating simple form [^6] $$\label{IRS2}
n = n_0 + {\bf {A}_g} . {\bf{\hat k}}$$ On the other hand it has been shown, interestingly enough, that there exists a Lorentz-like force acting on light rays in materials with toroidal moment corresponding to the optical analog of the Lorentz force acting on a charged particle in a magnetic field. This was realized in the optical magnetoelectric effect in multiferroic materials [@sawada2005optical]. The optical magnetoelectric effect in a material with toroidal moment ${\bf T({\bf r})}$, in the geometrical optics limit is characterized by the following space-dependent index of refraction $$\label{OME}
n({\bf r}) = n_0 ({\bf r}) +\alpha {\bf T({\bf r})}.{\bf{\hat k}}$$ Comparing the above results shows that is an interesting gravitational analog of the above magnetoelectric index of refraction (for $\alpha =1 $). In this analogy the above introduced gravitomagnetic potential $\vec{A_g}$ [@lynden1998classical], plays the role of the toroidal moment and in the same way its presence accounts for the breaking of both time-reversal and parity symmetries. Now if we turn the analogy around, the quasi-Lorentz force acting on test particles or light rays in stationary spacetimes implies that there should exist a Lorentz-like force acting on light rays in toroidal matter with the curl of the toroidal moment acting as a magnetic-type field.
Maxwell equations in a curved background and the Magnetoelectric constitutive relations
=======================================================================================
There is yet another interesting clue hinting towards the same analogy between a curved spacetime and a so called [*bianisotropic*]{} medium in a flat background spacetime. This is achieved by looking at the equations of electrodynamics in a curved background employing the 1+3 spacetime decomposition through the introduction of the following electromagnetic fields [@LL], $$\label{Fields}
E_{i}=F_{0i} \;\;,\;\; D^{i}=-\sqrt{g_{00}}F^{0i} \;\; , \;\; B^{i}=-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma}}e^{ijk}F_{jk} \;\; , \;\;
H_{i}=-\frac{\sqrt{\gamma}}{2}e_{ijk}F^{jk}$$ which coincide, in the absence of curvature, with their definitions in flat spacetime. Using these definitions, the Maxwell equations in the absence of charges and currents in a stationary spacetime are $$\label{max1}
\vec{\nabla}.\vec{B}=0 \;\; , \;\; \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}(\sqrt{\gamma}\vec{B}) \;\; , \;\;
\vec{\nabla}.\vec{D}=0 \;\; , \;\; \vec{\nabla}\times\vec{H}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}}(\sqrt{\gamma}\vec{D}).$$ Now, we rewrite the above decomposed, non-covariant Maxwell equations in the following form which is formally equivalent to the Maxwell equations in a bianisotropic medium in a [*flat background*]{} [@pleban], $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\gamma^{0}}}}{\partial}_{i}[\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}(\sqrt{{\gamma}}\frac{B^{i}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}})]=0,\;\;\;\;\;\;
\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\gamma^{0}}}}{\partial}_{i}[\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}(\sqrt{{\gamma}}\frac{D^{i}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}})]=0,$$ $$\frac{e^{ijk}{\partial_{j}}E_{k}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}=-\frac{1}{c}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}
(\frac{\sqrt{\gamma}B^{i}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}), \;\;\;\;\;\; \frac{e^{ijk}{\partial_{j}}H_{k}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}=\frac{1}{c}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}
(\frac{\sqrt{\gamma}D^{i}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}})$$ where, ${\gamma}^{0}$ is the determinant of the spatial metric ${\gamma^0_{ij}}$ in flat space and in the same orthogonal curvilinear coordinate system used to define ${\gamma}$ [^7] . Defining the new 3-vectors $\vec{b}=\sqrt{{\gamma}}\frac{\vec{B}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}$ and $\vec{d}=\sqrt{{\gamma}}\frac{\vec{D}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}$, the Maxwell equations are now given by $$\vec{{\nabla}_{0}}.\vec{b}=0, \;\;\;\;\;\; \vec{{\nabla}_{0}}\times\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\vec{b},
\;\;\;\;\;\; \vec{{\nabla}_{0}}.\vec{d}=0,
\;\;\;\;\;\; \vec{{\nabla}_{0}}\times\vec{H}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}
\vec{d}$$ in which the [*curl*]{} and [*divergence*]{} (with $\vec{{\nabla}_{0}}$) are defined with respect to the orthogonal curvilinear coordinates in flat space (For a detailed discussion on the relation between the background metric of a medium and its analog spacetime metric refer to [@schuster2017effective]). Using the above definitions of the 3-vectors $\vec{b}$ and $\vec{d}$ and the fact that the fields introduced in are not independent, one is led to the following constitutive equations [@LL], $$\label{constraint}
d^{i}=\frac{{\gamma}^{ij}\sqrt{\gamma}}{\sqrt{\gamma^{0}}\sqrt{g_{00}}}E_{j}+\frac{e^{ijk}{A_g}_k}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}H_{j},\;\;\;\;
b^{i}=\frac{{\gamma}^{ij}\sqrt{\gamma}}{\sqrt{\gamma^{0}}\sqrt{g_{00}}}H_{j}-\frac{e^{ijk}{A_g}_k}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}}E_{j}$$ Comparison of the above equations with the electromagnetic constitutive equations, which describe the behavior of matter under the influence of electromagnetic fields, once again shows that the spacetime metric is formally playing the role of a medium. This analogy is in accordance with the assignment of an index of refraction to a stationary spacetime with respect to light propagation, studied in the previous section. In other words solving Maxwell equations with respect to the above constitutive relations in the geometric optics limit should lead to the null trajectories in the underlying spacetime. The above analogy establishes an [*opto-geometric correspondence*]{} between a spacetime and a material medium through which one is able to replicate the same light paths in a material or metamaterial medium with equivalent properties (e.g electric and magnetic susceptibility) read from the above spacetime constitutive relations.\
To account for the other side of this correspondence, consider the matter interacting with the time-independent electromagnetic field to be in thermodynamic equilibrium. A systematic way to derive the general response of such a matter to the electromagnetic field is through the following expansion of the free energy [@fiebig2005revival] in terms of the electromagnetic fields as well as spontaneous polarization and magnetization, $ {P^{i}}_{(s)}$ and ${M^{i}}_{(s)}$ as the secondary sources; $$F(\vec{E},\vec{H})=F_{0}-{P^{i}}_{(s)}{E_{i}}-{M^{i}}_{(s)}{H_{i}}$$ $$-\frac{\epsilon^{ij}{E_{i}}{E_{j}}}{8\pi}-\frac{\mu^{ij}{H_{i}}{H_{j}}}{8\pi}-\alpha^{ij}{E_{i}}{H_{j}}-{\rm Higher \;\; order \;\;terms}$$ in which $\epsilon^{ij}$ and $\mu^{ij}$ are the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability respectively, and $\alpha^{ij}$ is the magneto-electric tensor of matter inducing either polarization by a magnetic field or magnetization by an electric field. Note that the higher order terms only come into play when the fields acting on matter are strong enough to be comparable to the Coulomb potential in the atomic scale. Here we only consider the linear terms which are enough to mimic a medium’s response to an electromagnetic field with that of a spacetimes’ response to the same field.\
The thermodynamic stability condition imposes the following constraint on the magneto-electric tensor [@fiebig2005revival] $$\alpha^{ij} \leq\frac{\sqrt{{\epsilon^{ii}\mu^{jj}}}}{4\pi}.$$ We have the following general expansion for the electric displacement field and the magnetic intensity $$\label{D1}
D^{i}=-{4\pi}\frac{\partial{F}}{\partial {E}_i}=\epsilon^{ij}E_{j}+4\pi{\alpha}^{ij}H_{j}+4\pi{P^{i}}_{(s)},$$ $$\label{B1}
B^{i}=-{4\pi}\frac{\partial{F}}{\partial {H}_i}=\mu^{ij}H_{j}-4\pi{\alpha}^{ij}E_{j}+4\pi{M^{i}}_{(s)}$$ Although the above equations are obtained for time-independent EM fields, they are also valid for low frequency time-dependent EM fields with [@Landau2].
Stationary Spacetimes and their Magneto-electric (Meta-)material analogs
========================================================================
In the absence of spontaneous polarization and magnetization, comparing and with , we conclude that the Maxwell equations in a material medium and in a curved spacetime are equivalent if the following correspondences are held; $$\label{ana1}
\mu^{ij}=\epsilon^{ij} \sim \frac{{\gamma}^{ij}\sqrt{\gamma}}{\sqrt{\gamma^{0}}\sqrt{g_{00}}} =-\frac{g^{ij}\sqrt{g}}{\sqrt{\gamma^{0}}g_{00}}$$ $$\label{ana2}
4\pi{\alpha}^{ij} = - 4\pi{\alpha}^{ji} \sim \frac{e^{ijk}{A_g}_k}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}} = -\frac{e^{ijk}g_{0k}}{\sqrt{{\gamma}^{0}}g_{00}}$$ We note, on passing, that the nonvanishing spontaneous polarization and magnetization could be taken as the electromagnetic analogs of the gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields originating from the presence of the charges and currents in exact stationary solutions of Einstein-Maxwell equations such as the Kerr-Newmann spacetime. Here our study is restricted to the analog responses of a vacuum stationary spacetime and a medium to a test electromagnetic field.\
Also by the non-covariant nature of the spacetime decomposition, leading to Eqs. and , it is expected that the gravitational analog of the magneto-electric tensor depends, not only on the employed coordinates and different coordinate patches, but also on the definitions of the 3-dimensional electromagnetic fields [@Gibbons].\
The general form of the magneto-electric tensor of a (meta-)material medium is given by [@Spaldin], $$\label{alpha}
{\alpha}^{ij} = S^{ij}+e^{ijk}\tau_{k} + \gamma \delta^{ij}$$ in which $S^{ij}$ is the symmetric traceless part of the magneto-electric tensor, $\vec{{\tau}}$ is a 3-vector dual of its antisymmetric part, and $\gamma$ is a psuedoscalar representing the trace of the magneto-electric tensor. Therefore, comparing equations and , one can conclude that the magneto-electric response of a time independent spacetime to an electromagnetic wave is the analog of the magneto-electric response of a material medium due to the $\vec{{\tau}}$. In other words $\vec{{\tau}}$ of a material medium is the analog of the gravitomagnetic potential $\vec{A_{g}}$ of a stationary spacetime. A non-vanishing $\vec{A_{g}}$ in stationary spacetimes is a manifestation of the breaking of the time reversal symmetry, which is the gravitational analog of breaking of this symmetry in material medium with a non-vanishing $\vec{{\tau}}$ as in the case of multiferroic metamaterials in which $\vec{{\tau}}$ is the so called toroidal moment.\
In geometrical optics, light behaves as particles and so in this limit equation should also be applicable to light and so in the corresponding metamaterial analog, we expect the light ray to be affected by an electric-like force as well as a magnetic-like force. The rational behind this idea is that the wave equations in a curved spacetime and in the corresponding metamaterial analog are the same and in the geometric approximation the same behavior for light paths is expected in the analog counterparts. Therefore, one can duplicate the null geodesics of a stationary spacetime, as the light paths in the corresponding metamaterial and vice versa [@fernandez2016anisotropic]. So through the above analogy, one expects the existence of a Lorentz-like force on light rays in a metamaterial designed with respect to and in which the rotation of $\vec{{\tau}}$ of the (meta-)material, plays the role of the gravitomagnetic field. Obviously now gravitomagnetic potential $A_g$ is the gravitational analog of the vector $\vec{{\tau}}$. Extending the above analogy to other gravitational effects, in the next section we outline a brief introduction to the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect as the gravitational analog of the [*optical Aharonov-Bohm*]{} effect which could be realized in metamaterials designed with the specific optical characteristics determined from and .
Gravitational Aharonov-Bohm Effect
==================================
Different versions of gravitational analogue of Aharonov-Bohm effect are discussed in the literature all of which corresponding to a test particle moving in a region of space in which either the gravitomagnetic field ($\vec{B_g}$) or the gravitoelectric field ($\vec{E_g}$) are absent, but the particle is affected by the fluxes of the same fields in the regions of spacetime from which the particle is excluded. These two versions could be called gravitomagnetoic and gravitoelectric Aharonov-Bohm effects respectively [@Nouri-2013]. Obviously the gravitomagnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect is more analogous, specially in form, to its electromagnetic counterpart and as such, could be formulated in a more closer analogy to it. The usual Aharonov-Bohm effect is based on a closed one-form (vector potential), $A \equiv A_\mu dx^\mu$ ($dA = 0 \;{\rm or}\; \nabla \times {\bf A} = 0$) whose integral around a non-trivial closed curve (a curve that is not continuously shrinkable to a point) has a non-zero value, i.e $\oint_C A_i dx^i \neq 0$. Now to have a global effect arising from a potential $1$-form we need non-trivial closed curves whose existence is a direct consequence of the non-trivial topology of the underlying manifold.\
In the case of electromagnetic Aharonov-Bohm effect the non-trivial topology is provided by the presence of the solenoid having a non-zero magnetic field inside and vanishing magnetic field outside. Hence, for time-independent fields, the above mathematical expression in the language of electromagnetism translates into locally electrostatic but globally magnetostatic fields. In other words, for a time-independent 4-vector potential $A_\mu = (\Phi, A_i)$, a particle is influenced locally by an electric field ${\vec E} = -{\vec \nabla} \Phi({\bf r})$ and globally by the curl-free vector potential $A_i$ through its integral over a non-trivial closed curve, i.e $$\begin{aligned}
\label{int2}
\oint A_\mu dx^\mu = -\oint {A}_i dx^i \neq 0\end{aligned}$$ where the line integral is taken over a closed path in the region where ${\vec B} = {\vec \nabla}\times {\vec A} = 0$.\
An illustration of the gravitational analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect through [*locally static*]{} but [*globally stationary*]{} spacetimes was provided by Stachel [@stachel1982globally]. These spacetimes allow a timelike Killing vector field $\xi_t = \xi^a \partial_a$ which is only [*locally*]{} hypersurface orthogonal and consequently [*locally static*]{}.\
Employing the spacetime decomposition introduced in the last section, the above criterion for such spacetimes translates to the following gravitational analog of , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g00}
\oint_C {A_g}_i dx^i \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ As an example of the gravitational analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect, it is shown in [@stachel1982globally] that the [*interference of light*]{} passing each side of a rotating dust cylinder, represented by the Van Stockum solution [@exact] of Einstein field equations, is affected by the gravitomagnetic potential of the cylinder. The effect is nothing but a phase change proportional to the above factor calculated along the light path in a region where there are no local effects due to rotation.\
A more faithful gravitational analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect for a truly confined gravitomagnetic field could be illustrated for the toroidal metric of a toroidal shell with rolling motions around its small cross section [@Donald3]. Referring to the correspondence established in the last section, and using the relations and one can design the metamaterial analog of either of the above spacetimes with the general form , to exhibit the optical analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Obviously such a metamaterial would be very difficult to design due to the complex form of its optical characteristics $\mu^{ij}$ and $\epsilon^{ij}$. In the next section we show that the optical Aharonov-Bohm effect could be realized for a matter or meta-material with a more simplified form of $\mu^{ij}$ and $\epsilon^{ij}$.
Optical Aharonov-Bohm Effect in toroidal (meta-)material
========================================================
It is noted that the gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect only depends on the condition which is valid for the curl-free gravitomagnetic vector potential and so its optical counterpart is also expected to depend only on the toroidal moment and be independent of the structure of either $\epsilon^{ij}$ or $\mu^{ij}$. Therefore we expect the optical Aharonov-Bohm effect in materials which do not have a curved spacetime counterpart satisfying the correspondence , but do have a curl-free toroidal moment satisfying the analog condition of , namely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g000}
\oint_C {\tau}_i dx^i \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ Taking this fact into account and also noting that design of metamaterials with simple $\epsilon^{ij}$ or $\mu^{ij}$ is more feasible, in what follows we show the existence of optical Aharonov-Bohm effect in a (meta-)material with isotropic $\epsilon^{ij} = \epsilon \delta^{ij}$ and $\mu^{ij} = \mu \delta^{ij}$ along with a toroidal moment satisfying .\
In other words, as in the case of gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect, one expects a modified interference pattern for a coherent light ray split into two and reunited on a closed path where $\vec{{\tau}}$ is curl-free. To this end we begin with the constitutive relations and in the absence of the symmetric part of the magneto-electric coupling (i.e for ${\alpha}^{ij} = e^{ijk}\tau_{k}$), which could be written as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g0}
\vec{B}=\mu\vec{H}+\vec{\tau}\times\vec{E}
{\;\;\;\; , \;\;\;\;}\vec{D}=\varepsilon\vec{E}-\vec{\tau}\times\vec{H}\end{aligned}$$ For the sake of simplicity, the medium is taken to be isotropic, but $\epsilon$, $\mu$ and $\tau$ could be functions of spatial coordinates. Taking $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{H}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g02}
\vec{E}({\vec{x}},t)=\vec{e}(\vec{x}) e^{ik[S(\vec{x})-ct]} \cr
\vec{H}({\vec{x}},t)=\vec{h}(\vec{x}) e^{ik[S(\vec{x})-ct]} \end{aligned}$$ in which $S(\vec{x})$ is the spatial part of the [*eikonal*]{}. Now taking the variations of both amplitudes $\vec{e}(\vec{x})$ and $\vec{h}(\vec{x})$ to be much smaller than the variation of the phase, namely $k S(\vec{x})$, and employing the geometrical optics approximation $k\rightarrow\infty$, Maxwell’s equations translate into [@romer2006theoretical] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g1}
\vec{{\nabla}}.\vec{B}=0{} \;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \;\;\;\; \mu\vec{\nabla}S.\vec{h}-\vec{\tau}.(\vec{\nabla}S\times\vec{e})=0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g2}
\vec{{\nabla}}\times\vec{E}=-\frac{1}{c}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}
\vec{B} \;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \;\;\;\; (\vec{\nabla}S\times\vec{e})=\mu\vec{h}+\vec{\tau}\times\vec{e}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g3}
\vec{{\nabla}}.\vec{D}=0{} \;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \;\;\;\; \varepsilon\vec{\nabla}S.\vec{e}+\vec{\tau}.(\vec{\nabla}S\times\vec{h})=0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g4}
\vec{{\nabla}}\times\vec{H}=\frac{1}{c}\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}
\vec{D}{} \;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \;\;\;\; (\vec{\nabla}S\times\vec{h})=-\varepsilon\vec{e}+\vec{\tau}\times\vec{h}\end{aligned}$$ Equations and which imply that $\vec{h}$ and $\vec{e}$ are perpendicular could be rewritten in the following forms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g51}
(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})\times\vec{e}=\mu\vec{h}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g52}
(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})\times\vec{h}=-\varepsilon\vec{e},\end{aligned}$$ implying that $(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})$, $\vec{e}$, and $\vec{h}$ are mutually orthogonal. Combination of the last two equations yields $(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})\times[(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})\times\vec{e}]=-\varepsilon\mu\vec{e}$, which upon using the orthogonality of $(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})$ and $\vec{e}$, we end up with the following eikonal equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g6}
{(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})}^{2}=\varepsilon(\vec{x})\mu(\vec{x}).\end{aligned}$$ The above equation resembles the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for charged particles in an electromagnetic field, in which the energy flux ($\vec{E} \times \vec{H}$) is in the direction of $(\vec{\nabla}S-\vec{\tau})$ which plays the role of [*physical momentum*]{}. In this correspondence $\vec{\tau}$ and $\varepsilon(\vec{x})\mu(\vec{x})$ are playing the roles of the vector potential and scalar potential respectively or more precisely those of $\frac{e}{c}\vec{A}$ and $e \phi(x)$. On this basis, one expects a Lorentz-like force to be acting on a light ray due to the non-vanishing curl of $\vec{{\tau}}$. Now assume that a light ray travels in a region of an optical medium with $\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{{\tau}}=0$. If $S_0$ is the solution of equation in the absence of $\vec{\tau}$, the general solution (i.e in the presence of $\vec{\tau}$) in the same region is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g62}
S(\vec{x})=S_0 + \int_{\cal O}^{\vec{x}}\vec{\tau}.d\vec{x^\prime}\end{aligned}$$ Integral ${\int}\vec{\tau}.d\vec{r}$ over a closed path is not necessarily zero unless $\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{{\tau}}$ vanishes over all the area enclosed by the path. As a consequence interference effects due to this extra term are expected when a coherent light beam splits in two and forms a closed path enclosing the area in which $\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{{\tau}}\neq 0$. In other words, while the light trajectory is not influenced by the Lorentz-like force because $\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{{\tau}}=0$ along the path, we still have the interference effects due to the non-zero $\tau$ through its line integral ${\int}\vec{\tau}.d\vec{r}$. This is the optical analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect. The above analogy could be more clearly illustrated for $|\vec{\tau}| \ll 1$, which is the case for natural materials, by noting that $\vec{\nabla}S = {\vec n}$ is the local refractive index [@romer2006theoretical]. To this end we rewrite as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g61}
\vec{\nabla}S^2 = (\vec{\nabla}S - \vec\tau)^2 + 2\vec\tau . \vec{\nabla}S -\tau^2,\end{aligned}$$ and end up with the following form for the refractive index, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g6111}
|\vec n| = |\vec{\nabla}S - \vec\tau| \left( 1 + \frac{2 \vec\tau . \vec{\nabla}S}{|\vec{\nabla}S - \tau|^2} -
\frac{\tau^2}{|\vec{\nabla}S - \tau|^2}\right)^ {1/2} \;\;\;\;\; \cr
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; = |\vec{\nabla}S - \vec\tau| +\frac{ \vec\tau . (\vec{\nabla}S- \vec\tau)}{|\vec{\nabla}S - \vec\tau|} + {\cal O} (\tau^2).\end{aligned}$$ Now from with $n_0^{2}=\varepsilon(\vec{x})\mu(\vec{x})$, the above relation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g611}
|\vec{n}| \simeq |{{n_{0}}}| + \vec{\tau}.{\hat{k}} \end{aligned}$$ where we have taken ${\hat k} = \frac{(\vec{\nabla}S- \vec\tau)}{|\vec{\nabla}S - \vec\tau|}$ because the vector $(\vec{\nabla}S- \vec\tau)$ is proportional to the Poynting vector. This is clearly of the same form with $\vec{\tau}$ playing the role of a vector potential, as expected from the established analogy. Indeed for light rays with parallel and anti-parallel propagation directions to the toroidal moment, the above relation leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g65}
{|\vec{n}|}_{+} - {|\vec{n}|}_{-} \propto \vec{\tau}.\hat{k} \end{aligned}$$ a result in agreement with the non-reciprocal refraction which was shown to happen in a toroidal domain wall in multiferroic materials [@sawada2005optical].
Summary and Discussion {#summary-and-discussion .unnumbered}
======================
It would be useful to summarize our motivation and the follow up prescription, which led us to the prediction of an optical Aharonov-Bohm effect in toroidal (meta-)materials. We started with considering the gravitational analog of the usual (electromagnetic) Aharonov-Bohm effect in the context of threading formulation of spacetime decomposition. We then employed the analogy established between a curved background and a (meta-)material medium, or more specifically between a stationary spacetime’s gravitomagnetic field and the toroidal moment of its analog medium, to predict the existence of an optical analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in toroidal (meta-)material.\
It is worth recalling that the more faithful gravitational analog of the Aharonov-Bohm effect arises in stationary spacetimes whose metric mixes space and time through which natural definitions of a gravitomagnetic potential and the corresponding gravitomagnetic field emerge. On the other hand if we are going to design a metamaterial medium to exhibit an optical analog effect through the so called transformation media [@Pendry; @Schurig], the employed transformation should mix space and time coordinates [@Leon1].
Finally, a simple experimental setup for detecting this effect will probably include a coherent light beam splitting in two, each passing through the same medium with the same depth, permeability, and permittivity but with opposite rotation-free toroidal moments, before interfering again.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank the University of Tehran for supporting this project under the grants provided by the research council. M. N.-Z also thanks the high energy, cosmology, and astroparticle group at the Abdus Salam ICTP for kind hospitality during his visit when part of this study was carried out. ******
[99]{}
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*The Classical Theory of Fields*]{} (Pergamon, New York, 1975).
J. Plebanski, Phys. Rev., [**118**]{}, 1396 (1960).
D. R. Smith, J. B. Pendry and M. C. K. Wiltshire, Science [**305**]{}, 788 (2004).
J. B. Pendry, D. Schurig, D. R. Smith, Science [**312**]{}, 1780 (2006).
U. Leonhardt, Science [**312**]{}, 1777 (2006).
U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, New Journal of Physics [**8**]{}, 247 (2006).
Clarissa-Marie Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, G. F. R. Ellis, J. Math. Phys. [**42**]{}, 818 (2001).
D. A. Genov, S. Zhang and X. Zhang, Nature Physics [**5**]{}, 687 (2009).
H. Chen, R-X. Miao and M. Li, Optics Express [**18**]{}, 15183 (2010).
C. Sheng, H. Liu, Y. Wang, S. N. Zhu, D. A. Genov, Nature Photonics, [**7**]{}, 902 (2013).
E. E. Narimanov and A. V. Kildishev, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**95**]{}, 041106 (2009).
A. Greenleaf, Y. Kurylev, M. Lassas and G. Uhlmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 183901 (2007).
T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. König, and U. Leonhardt, Science [**319**]{}, 1367 (2008).
M. F. Linder, R. Schutzhold and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 104010 (2016).
N. A. Nemkov, A. A. Basharin and V. A. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. B [**95**]{}, 165134 (2017).
R. Gharechahi, M. Nouri-Zonoz and A. Tavanfar, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. [**15**]{} 1850047 (2018).
D. Lynden-Bell and M. Nouri-Zonoz, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**70**]{}, 427 (1998).
K. Sawada and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review Letters, [**95**]{}, 237402, (2005).
S. Schuster and M. Visser, Physical Review D. [**96**]{}, 124019, (2017).
M. Fiebig, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, [**38**]{}, R123 (2005).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{} (Pergamon, New York, 1975).
G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, arXiv:1903.00223 (2019).
N. Spaldin, M. Fiebig and M. Mostovoy, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**20**]{} 434203 (2008).
I. Fern[á]{}ndez-N[ú]{}[ñ]{}ez and O. Bulashenko, Physics Letters A, [**380**]{}, 1 (2016).
M. Nouri-Zonoz and A. Parvizi, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 023004 (2013).
H. R[ö]{}mer, [*Theoretical Optics: An Introduction*]{} (Hartmann, 2006).
H. Stephani, et. al, [*Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
D. Lynden-Bell and J. Katz, Class. Quantum Grav. [**29**]{}, 115010 (2012).
J. Stachel, Physical Review D, [**26**]{}, 1281 (1982).
D. Schurig, J. B. Pendry and D. R. Smith, Optics Express, [**14**]{}, 9794 (2006).
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: Electronic address: mirfaez\[email protected]
[^3]: Electronic address: [email protected] (Corresponding author)
[^4]: For a comparison between the two formalisms refer to [@Ghare].
[^5]: All the differential operations in these relations are defined in the 3-space with metric $\gamma_{ij}$. Specifically the curl and divergence of a 3-vector ${\bf V}$ are given by $({\bf \nabla}\times{\bf V})^i = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}e^{ijk} \partial_j V_k$ and $({\bf \nabla}.{\bf V}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}\partial_i (\sqrt{\gamma}V^i)$ respectively.
[^6]: It should be noted that the spatial contravariant components of the 4-vector $k^\alpha$ are taken as a 3-vector in the $\gamma$-space with the corresponding covariant 3-vector given by $k_i = \gamma_{ij}k^j$.
[^7]: We notice that the above definitions of $D^i$ and $B^i$, differ from those introduced in [@pleban] by a $\sqrt{\gamma}$ factor.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Many nonlinear time series models have been proposed in the last decades. Among them, the models with regime switchings provide a class of versatile and interpretable models which have received a particular attention in the literature. In this paper, we consider a large family of such models which generalize the well known Markov-switching AutoRegressive (MS-AR) by allowing non-homogeneous switching and encompass Threshold AutoRegressive (TAR) models and prove the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator under general conditions. We show that these conditions apply to specific but representative models with non-homogeneous Markov switchings. The famous MacKenzie River lynx dataset is used to illustrate one of these models.
[**Keywords:**]{} Markov-switching autoregressive process, non-homogeneous hidden Markov process, maximum likelihood, consistency, stability, lynx data
author:
- |
Pierre Ailliot\
Françoise Pène\
[*Laboratoire de Mathématiques, UMR 6205, Université de Brest, France*]{}\
bibliography:
- 'bib2.bib'
title: 'Consistency of the maximum likelihood estimate for Non-homogeneous Markov-switching models'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Recent decades have seen extensive interest in time series models with regime switchings. One of the most influential paper in this field is the one by Hamilton in 1989 (see [@Ham89]) where Markov-Switching AutoRegressive (MS-AR) models were introduced. It became one of the most popular nonlinear time series model. MS-AR models combine several autoregressive models to describe the evolution of the observed process $\{Y_k\}$ at different periods of time, the transition between these autoregressive models being controlled by a hidden Markov chain $\{X_k\}$. In most applications, it is assumed that $\{X_k\}$ is an homogeneous Markov chain. In this work, we relax this assumption and let the evolution of $\{X_k\}$ depend on lagged values of $\{Y_k\}$ and exogenous covariates.
More formally, we assume that $X_k$ takes its values in a compact metric space $E$ endowed with a finite Borel measure $\mathfrak m_E$ and that $Y_k$ takes its values in a complete separable metric space $K$ endowed with a non-negative Borel $\sigma$-finite measure $\mathfrak m_K$ and we set $\mu_0:=\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_K$. It will be useful to denote $Y_k^{k+\ell}:=(Y_k,...,Y_{k+\ell})$, $y_{k}^{k+\ell}:=(y_k,...,y_{k+\ell})$ (and to use analogous notations $X_k^{k+\ell}$, $x_k^{k+\ell}$) for integer $k$ and $\ell\ge 0$. The Non-Homogeneous Markov-Switching AutoRegressive (NHMS-AR) model of order $s>0$ considered in this work is characterized by Hypothesis \[hyp1\] below.
\[hyp1\] The sequence $\{X_k,Y_k\}_k$ is a Markov process of order $s$ with values in $E\times K$ such that, for some parameter $\theta$ belonging to some subset $\Theta$ of $\mathbb R^d$,
- the conditional distribution of $X_k$ (wrt $\mathfrak m_E$) given the values of $\{X_{k'}=x_{k'}\}_{k'<k}$ and $\{Y_{k'}=y_{k'}\}_{k' < k}$ only depends on $x_{k-1}$ and $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$ and this conditional distribution has a probability density function (pdf) denoted $$p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})$$ with respect to $\mathfrak m_E$.
- the conditional distribution of $Y_k$ given the values of $\{Y_{k'}=y_{k'}\}_{k'<k}$ and $\{X_{k'}=x_{k'}\}_{k' \leq k}$ only depends on $x_{k}$ and $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$ and this conditional distribution has a pdf $$p_{2,\theta}\left(y_k|x_k,y_{k-s}^{k-1}\right)$$ with respect to $\mathfrak m_K$.
Let us write $q_\theta(\cdot|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})$ for the conditional pdf (with respect to $\mu_0$) of $(X_k,Y_k)$ given $(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})$. Hypothesis \[hyp1\] implies that $$\nonumber
q_\theta(x,y|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})=p_{1,\theta}(x|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})p_{2,\theta}(y|x,y_{k-s}^{k-1}) .$$
The various conditional independence assumptions of Hypothesis \[hyp1\] are summarized by the directed acyclic graph (DAG) below when $s=1$. $$\nonumber
\begin{array}[t]{lccccccccc}
\text{\textbf{Hidden Regime}}\ \ & \cdots & \rightarrow & X_{k-1} & \rightarrow & X_{k} & \rightarrow & X_{k+1} & \rightarrow & \cdots \\
& & & \downarrow & \nearrow& \downarrow &\nearrow & \downarrow & & \\
\text{\textbf{Observed time series}}\ \ & \cdots & \rightarrow & Y_{k-1} & \rightarrow & Y_{k} & \rightarrow & Y_{k+1} & \rightarrow & \cdots \\
\end{array}$$
This defines a general family of models which encompasses the most usual models with regime switchings.
- When $p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})$ does not dependent on $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$, the evolution of the hidden Markov chain $\{X_k\}$ is homogeneous and independent of the observed process and we retrieve the usual MS-AR models. If we further assume that $p_{2,\theta}\left(y_k|x_k,y_{k-s}^{k-1}\right)$ does not depend of $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$, we obtain the Hidden Markov Models (HMMs).
- When $p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})$ does not dependent on $x_{k-1}$ and is parametrized using indicator functions, we obtain the Threshold AutoRegressive (TAR) models which is an other important family of models with regime switching in the literature (see e.g. [@Tong90]).
HMMs, MS-AR and TAR models have been used in many fields of applications and their theoretical properties have been extensively studied (see e.g. [@Tong90], [@Fan03] and [@Cappe05]).
Models with non-homogeneous Markov switchings have also been considered in the literature. In particular, they have been used to describe breaks associated with events such as financial crises or abrupt changes in government policy in econometric time series (see [@Kim08] and references therein). They are also popular for meteorological applications (see e.g. [@Hughes99], [@Bellone00b], [@Vrac07], [@Ail12]) with the regimes describing the so-called “weather types”. The most usual method procedure to fit such models consists in computing the Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE). It is indeed relatively straightforward to adapt the standard numerical estimation which are available for the homogeneous models, such as the forward-backward recursions or the EM algorithm, to the non-homogeneous models (see e.g. [@Dieb94], [@Kim08], [@Hughes99]). However, we could not find any theoretical results on the asymptotic properties of the MLE for these models and this paper aims at filling this gap.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:theory\], we give general conditions ensuring the consistency of the MLE. They include conditions on the ergodicity of the model and the identifiability of the parameters. In Sections \[sec:appli\] and \[sec:real\], we show that these general conditions apply to various specific but representative NHMS-AR models. Some results are proven in the appendices.
A general consistency result of MLE for NHMS-AR models {#sec:theory}
======================================================
We aim at estimating the true parameter $\theta^*\in\Theta$ of a NHMS-AR process $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ for which only the component $\{Y_k\}$ is observed. For that we consider the Maximum Likelihood Estimator (MLE) $\hat \theta_{n,x_0}$ which is defined as the maximizer of $\theta\mapsto \ell_n(\theta,x_0)$ for a fixed $x_0\in E$ with $$\nonumber
\ell_n(\theta,x_0)=\log p_\theta(Y_1^n|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)
=\sum_{k=1}^n\log\frac{p_\theta(Y_1^k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)}
{p_\theta(Y_1^{k-1}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)},$$ where $p_\theta(Y_1^k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)$ is the conditional pdf of $Y_1^k$ given $(X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)$ evaluated at $Y_1^k$, i.e. $$p_\theta(Y_1^{k}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0):=
\int_{E^k}\prod_{\ell=1}^k q_\theta(x_\ell,Y_\ell|x_{\ell-1},
Y_{\ell-s}^{\ell-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes k}(x_1^k).$$ Observe that $\ell_n(\theta,x_0)$ is a random variable depending on $Y_{-s+1}^0$ (which is observed).\
Before stating our main result, we introduce quickly some notations (see beginning of Appendix \[append2\] for further details). Let $Q_\theta$ be the transition operator of the $s$-order Markov process $(X_k,Y_k)_k$, $Q_\theta$ being seen as an operator acting on the set of complex-valued bounded measurable functions on $E\times K^s$ (or on some other complex Banach space) and let $Q_\theta^*$ be its adjoint operator. We set $\mu:=\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes s}$. We identify $(X_k,Y_k)_{k}$ with the canonical Markov chain. We suppose that, for every $\theta\in\Theta$, there exists a stationary probability $\bar\nu_\theta$ for the Markov chain with transition operator $Q_\theta$ (i.e. $\bar\nu_\theta$ is an invariant probability measure for $Q_\theta^*$) with pdf $h_\theta$ with respect to $\mu$. We then write $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta}$ for the probability measure corresponding to this invariant probability. For every $P\in E\times K^s$ and any integer $k\ge s$, we write $Q^{*k}(\cdot|P)$ for the pdf of $(X_k,Y_k^{k+s-1})$ with respect to $\mu$ given $(X_0,Y_0^{s-1})=P$.
The question of consistency of the MLE has been studied by many authors in the context of usual HMMs (see e.g. [@Leroux92; @LeGland-Mevel00; @Douc-Matias01]) and MS-AR models (see [@DMR] and references therein). The aim of this section is to state consistency results of MLE for general NHMS-AR. The proof of the following theorem is a careful adaptation of the proof of . This proof is given in appendix \[append2\].
\[consistancegene\] Assume that $\Theta$ is compact, that is $(X_k,Y_k)_{k}$ ergodic, that there exists an invariant probability measure for every $\theta\in\Theta$, that $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta$ for every $\theta\in\Theta$, that $p_1$ and $p_2$ are continuous in $\theta$. Assume also that the following conditions hold true $$\label{HH1}
0<p_{1,-}:=\inf_{\theta,x_1,x_{0},y_0} p_{1,\theta}(x_1|x_0,y_0)\le p_{1,+}
:=\sup_{\theta,x_1,x_{0},y_0} p_{1,\theta}(x_1|x_0,y_0)<\infty,$$ $$\label{HH3}
B_-:=\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \left[\left|\log\left(\inf_\theta\int_E p_{2,\theta}
(Y_0|x_0,Y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_0)\right)\right|\right]<\infty,$$ $$\label{HH3b}
B_+:=\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \left[\left|\log\left(\sup_\theta\int_E p_{2,\theta}
(Y_0|x_0,Y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_0)\right)\right|\right]<\infty,$$ $$\label{HH3c}
\forall\theta\in\Theta,\ \
\sup_{y_{-s}^{-1}}\int_Ep_{2,\theta}(Y_0|x,y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x)<\infty,\ \
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s,$$ $$\label{HH4}
\forall\theta\in\Theta,\ \ for\ \mu-a.e.\ P\in E\times K^s,
\lim_{k\rightarrow+\infty}|| Q_\theta^{*k}(\cdot|P)-h_\theta||_{L^1(\mu)}=0.$$ Then, for every $x_0\in E$, the limit values of $(\hat\theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely contained in $\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \bar{\mathbb P}^{Y}_\theta=\bar{\mathbb P}^Y_{\theta^*}\}$.
If, moreover, $Q_{\theta^*}$ is positive Harris recurrent and aperiodic, then, for every $x_0\in E$ and every initial probability $\nu$, the limit values of $(\hat\theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are almost surely contained in $\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \bar{\mathbb P}^Y_\theta=\bar{\mathbb P}^Y_{\theta^*}\}$.
Our hypotheses are close to those of [@DMR]. Let us point out the main differences. First, in [@DMR] $p_{1,\theta}(x|x',y')$ does not depend on $y'$. Second, (\[HH3b\]) and (\[HH3c\]) are slightly weaker than $$\sup_{\theta, y_{-s}^{-1},y_0,x} p_{2,\theta}(y_0|x,y_{-s}^{-1})<\infty$$ assumed in [@DMR]. This is illustrated below in Section \[sec:real\] where the parametrization of $p_2$ uses Gamma pdf which may not be bounded close to the origin depending on the values of the parameters. The results given in [@DMR] do not apply directly to this model whereas we will show that (\[HH3b\]) applies (see also [@Ail06]). Third, to prove the result in the stationary case, we replace Harris recurrence by (\[HH4\]) which is equivalent to each one of the two following properties
- for any initial measure $\nu$ on $E\times K^s$, we have $
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\left\Vert Q_\theta^{*n}\nu-\nu_\theta\right\Vert_{TV}=0$, where $\Vert\cdot\Vert_{TV}$ stands for the total variation norm,
- for any initial measure $\nu$ on $E\times K^s$, we have $\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{\nu\in\mathcal P(E\times K)}||[Q_\theta^{*n}\nu]-h_\theta||_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_K^s)}=0$, with $\mathcal P(E\times K)$ the set of probability measures on $E\times K$.
Observe that, if $q_\theta>0$ and if $\nu_\theta$ exists for every $\theta\in\Theta$, then the pdf $h_\theta$ of $\nu_\theta$ satisfies $h_\theta>0$ ($\mu$-a.e.). In this case, $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta$ for every $\theta\in\Theta$.
Observe also that the ergodicity of the dynamical system $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*},\tau)$ is satisfied as soon as the transition operator is strongly ergodic with respect some Banach space $\mathcal B$ satisfying general assumptions (see for example [@Loicsoaz1 Proposition 2.2]).
NHMS-AR model with linear autoregressive models {#sec:appli}
===============================================
A NHMS-AR model for MacKenzie River lynx data {#sec:lynx}
---------------------------------------------
In this section we introduce a particular NHMS-AR model and discuss the results obtained when fitting this model to the the time series of annual number of Canadian lynx trapped in the Mackenzie River district of northwest Canada from 1821 to 1934. This time series is a benchmark dataset to test nonlinear time series model (see e.g. [@Tong90], [@Fan03]). In order to facilitate the comparison with the other works on this time series, we analyze the data at the logarithm scale with the base 10 shown on Figure \[fig:datalynx\]. This time series exhibits periodic fluctuations (it may be due to the competition between several species, predator-prey interaction,...) with asymmetric cycles (increasing phase are slower than decreasing phase) which makes it challenging to model.
\
In [@Tong90], it was proposed to fit a SETAR(2) model to this time series. The fitted model is the following $$\label{eq:TARlynx}
Y_k=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0.51 + 1.23 Y_{k-1} - 0.37 Y_{k-2} +0.18 \epsilon_k & (Y_{k-2} \leq 3.15) \\
2.32 + 1.53 Y_{k-1} - 1.27 Y_{k-2} +0.23\epsilon_k & (Y_{k-2} > 3.15)
\end{array}\right. .$$ The two regimes have a nice biological interpretation in terms of prey-predator interaction, with the upper regime ($Y_{t-2} > 3.15$) corresponding to a population decrease whereas the population tends to increase in the lower regime.
The NHMS-AR model defined below has been fitted to this time series.
\[hypAR\] We assume that $E=\{1,2\}$ (endowed with the counting measure), $K=\mathbb R$ (endowed with the Lebesgue measure) and $\{Y_k\}$ satisfies $$\label{eq:ARgauss}
\nonumber
Y_k=\beta_0^{(x_k)}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s \beta_{\ell}^{(x_k)} Y_{k-\ell} + \sigma^{(x_k)} \epsilon_k$$ with $\{\epsilon_k\}$ an iid sequence of standard Gaussian random variables, with $\sigma^{(x)}>0$ and $\beta_l^{(x)} \in \mathbb R$ for every $\ell \in \{0,...,s\}$ and every $x \in \{1,2\},$ $$\label{eq:AR1}
i.e.\ \ \ \ \
p_{2,\theta}(y_k|x_k,y_{k-s}^{k-1})=\mathcal N\left(y_k;\beta_0^{(x_k)}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s\beta_\ell^{(x_k)}y_{k-\ell},\sigma^{(x_k)}\right),$$ where $\mathcal N(\cdot;\beta,\sigma)$ stands for the Gaussian pdf with mean $\beta$ and standard deviation $\sigma$.
The transition probabilities of $\{X_k\}$ are parametrized using the logistic function as follows when $x_k=x_{k-1}$ $$\label{eq:nhlog}
p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})=\pi_{-}^{(x_{k-1})} +\frac{1-\pi_{-}^{(x_{k-1})}-\pi_{+}^{(x_{k-1})}}{1+\exp\left(\lambda_0^{(x_{k-1})}+\lambda_1^{(x_{k-1})} y_{k-r}\right)}
$$ with $r \leq s$ a positive integer and the unknown parameters $\pi_{-}^{(x)},\pi_{+}^{(x)},\lambda_0^{(x)}, \lambda_1^{(x)}$ for $x \in \{1,2\}$.\
The unknown parameter $\theta$ corresponds to $$\theta=\left((\beta_i^{(x)} ),(\sigma^{(x)}),(\pi_{-}^{(x)}),(\pi_{+}^{(x)}),(\lambda_i^{(x)})\right).$$ We write $\tilde\Theta$ for the set of such parameters $\theta$ satisfying, for every $x\in\{1,2\}$, $\sigma^{(x)}>0$ and $0<\pi_{-}^{(x)}<1-\pi_{+}^{(x)}<1$ (this last constraint is added in order to ensure that (\[HH1\]) holds).
Although very simple, this model encompasses the homogeneous Gaussian MS-AR model when $\lambda_1^{(1)}=\lambda_1^{(2)}=0$ and the SETAR(2) model as a limit case. Indeed, if $s=-\frac{\lambda_0^{(x)}}{\lambda_1^{(x)}}$ is fixed for $x\in\{1,2\}$, $\lambda_1^{(1)}\rightarrow +\infty$, $\lambda_1^{(2)}\rightarrow -\infty$, $\pi_{-}^{(x)}\rightarrow 0$ and $\pi_{+}^{(x)}\rightarrow 0$ then $$\nonumber
p_1(X_k=1|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1}) \rightarrow \ind(y_{k-r}\leq s)
\
\text{and}
\
p_1(X_k=2|x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1}) \rightarrow \ind(y_{k-r}\geq s)$$ Both models have been extensively studied in the literature.
In practice, we have used the EM algorithm to compute the MLE. The recursions of this algorithm are relatively similar to the ones of the MS-AR model (see [@krolzig97], [@Dieb94]). To facilitate the comparison with the SETAR(2) model (\[eq:TARlynx\]), we have also considered AR models of order $s=2$ and a lag $r=2$ for the transition probabilities. The fitted model is the following
$$\label{eq:NHlynx}
Y_k=\left\{\begin{array}{llllllll}
0.54 &+ 1.11 &Y_{k-1} &- 0.24 &Y_{k-2} &+0.14 &\epsilon_k & (X_k=1) \\
\textit{(0.31,0.80)} & \textit{(0.96,1.27)}&&\textit{(-0.43,-0.05)} &&\textit{(0.11,0.17)}& &\\
1.03 &+ 1.49 & Y_{k-1} &- 0.87 & Y_{k-2} &+0.22 & \epsilon_k & (X_k=2) \\
\textit{(-0.12,1.86)} &\textit{(1.23,1.69)}&&\textit{(-1.20,-0.39)}&&\textit{(0.14,0.26)}&&
\end{array}\right .$$
with $$\label{eq:translynx}
P\left(X_k=i|X_{k-1}=i,Y_{k-2}=y_{k-2}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{lllll}
(1+exp(&-42.4&+12.8 &y_{k-2}))^{-1} & (X_k=1) \\
&\textit{(-587,-16.3)} &\textit{(4.77,176)} &&\\
(1+exp(&9.07&-3.33 &y_{k-2}))^{-1} & (X_k=2)\\
&\textit{(2.25,178)} &\textit{(-64.1,-1.12)} &&
\end{array}\right .$$
where the italic values in parenthesis below the parameter values correspond to 95% confidence intervals computed using parametric bootstrap (see e.g. [@visser2000]). These values reflect the finite sample properties of the estimates. The estimate of $\pi_{-}^{(x)}$ and $\pi_{+}^{(x)}$ are not given because they are very close to $0$. It means that these technical parameters have no practical importance and can be fixed equal to an arbitrary small value (here we used the machine epsilon $2^{-52}$). There are small differences between the AR coefficients (\[eq:TARlynx\]) and (\[eq:NHlynx\]) but the dynamics inside the regimes of the SETAR(2) and NHMS-AR models are broadly similar. The models differ mainly in the mechanism used to govern the switchings between the two regimes. For the SETAR model the regime is a deterministic function of a lagged value of the observed process. The NHMS-AR model can be seen as a fuzzy extension of the SETAR model where the regime has its own Markovian evolution influenced by the lagged value of the observed process. This is illustrated on Figure \[fig:translynx\] which shows the transition probabilities (\[eq:translynx\]) and the threshold of the SETAR(2) model. According to this figure, it seems reasonable to model the transition from regime 1 to regime 2 by a step function at the level $y_{k-2} \approx 3.15$ but the values of $y_{k-2}$ for which the transition from regime 2 to regime 1 occurs seem to be more variable and the step function approximation less realistic.
The asymmetries in the cycle imply that the system spends less time in the second regime (decreasing phase) than in the first one. It may explain the larger confidence intervals in the second regime compared to the first one (see (\[eq:NHlynx\])). Figure \[fig:translynx\] shows that there is an important sampling variability in the estimate of the transition kernel of the hidden process. This is probably due to the low number of transitions among regimes (see Figure \[fig:datalynx\]) which makes it difficult to estimate the associated parameters. A similar behavior has been observed when fitting the model to other time series.
Table \[tab:BIC\] gives the AIC and BIC values defined as $$AIC = -2 log L + 2npar, \ \ \ BIC = -2 log L + npar \log(N)$$ and $L$ is the likelihood of the data, $npar$ is the number of parameters and $N$ is the number of observations. The values for the NHMS-AR and SETAR models are relatively similar. The NHMS-AR models has a slightly better AIC value but BIC selects the SETAR model. As expected, these two models clearly outperform the homogeneous MS-AR which does not include information on the past values in the switching mechanism.
AIC BIC npar
------------------- --------- ------- ------
SETAR ($s=2$) -28.33 -3.70 9
MS-AR ($s=2$) -0.2063 27.15 10
NHMS-AR ($r=s=2$) -30.83 2.00 12
: AIC and BIC values for the fitted SETAR, homogeneous MS-AR and NHMS-AR models []{data-label="tab:BIC"}
The simulated sequence shown on Figure \[fig:datalynx\] exhibits a similar cyclical behavior than the data. A more systematic validation was performed but the results are hard to analyze because of the low amount of data available. The model can be generalized in several ways to handle $M\geq3$ regimes or include covariates, for example through a linear function in the logistic term (see e.g. [@Dieb94]). Other link functions, such as the probit model used in [@Kim08] or a Gaussian kernel (see (\[eq:p1rain\])), or non-linear autoregressive models could also be considered. Such models have been developed for various environmental data including temperature and wind time series. The fitted models generally provide an accurate description of the distributional properties of these time series and accurate short-term forecasts. This will be the subject of a forthcoming paper.
Properties of the Markov chain
------------------------------
In this section, we discuss the recurrent and ergodic properties of the model introduced in the previous section. It is a key step to prove the consistence of the MLE (see Theorem \[consistancegene\]). Various authors have studied the ergodicity of MS-AR ([@Yao2000], [@Yao2001], [@Francq98]) and TAR ([@Chen91], [@an96]) models. A classical approach to prove the ergodicity of a non-linear time series consists in establishing a drift condition. Here we will use a strict drift condition. Let $\Vert\cdot\Vert$ be some norm on $\mathbb R^s$. For any $R>0$, we consider the set $E_R:=\{(x,y_{-s+1}^0):\Vert y_{-s+1}^0\Vert\le R\}$. Recall that $\mu$ is here the product of the counting measure on $E$ and of the Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb R^s$.
Assume Hypothesis \[hypAR\].
The Markov chain is $\psi$-irreducible (with $\psi=\mu$).
Let $R>0$. The set $E_R$ is $\nu_s$-small and $\nu_{s+1}$-small with $\nu_s$ and $\nu_{s+1}$ equivalent to $\mu$. Hence, the markov chain is aperiodic.
The $\psi$-irreducibility comes from the positivity of $q_\theta$. Let us prove that $E_R$ is $\nu_s$-small with $\nu_s=h_s\cdot\mu$ and $$h_s(x_s,y_{1}^s)=\inf_{(x_0,y_{-s+1}^{0})\in E_R}\int_{E^s}\prod_{\ell=1}^s
q_\theta(x_\ell,y_\ell|x_{\ell-1},y_{\ell-s}^{\ell-1})\, dx_1^{s-1}>0.$$ Indeed $p_{1,\theta}$ is uniformly bounded from below by some $p_{1,-}$, $\sigma^{(x)}$ are uniformly bounded from above by some $\sigma_+$ and from below by some $\sigma_-$ and, for every $\ell\in\{1,...,s\}$, we have $$\forall Z\in\mathbb R,\ \ \
g_\ell(Z):=\sup_{(x_\ell,y_{-s+1}^{0})\in E_R}\left|Z-\beta_0^{(x_\ell)}-\sum_{j=\ell}^s
\beta_j^{(x_\ell)}y_{\ell-j}\right|^2<\infty.$$ So $$h_s(x_s,y_1^s)\ge\inf_{x_1,...,x_s\in\{1,2\}}
\frac{({p_{1,-}})^s}{(2\pi \sigma_-)^{\frac s2}}
\exp\left(-\frac 1{2\sigma_+}\sum_{\ell=1}^sg_\ell\left(y_\ell
- \sum_{j=1}^{\ell-1}
\beta_j^{(x_\ell)}y_{\ell-j}\right)\right) .$$ The proof of the $\nu_{s+1}$-smallness of $E_R$ (with $\nu_{s+1}$ equivalent to $\mu$) uses the same ideas.
Now, to obtain the other properties related to the ergodicity of the process for practical applications (including the practical example given in Section \[sec:lynx\]), we can use the following strict drift property.
\[strictdrift\] There exist three real numbers $K<1$, $L>0$ and $R>0$ such that, for every $(x_0,y_{-s+1}^0)\in\{1,2\}\times\mathbb R^s$, $$\label{eq:drift}
\mathbb E[\left\|Y_{-s+2}^1\right\|^2|Y_{-s+1}^0=y_{-s+1}^0,X_0=x_0] \leq K \left\|y_{-s+1}^0\right\|^2 +L \ind_{E_R}(y_{-s+1}^0).$$
Recall that this property has several classical consequences (see [@MeynTweedie Chapters 11 and 15] for more details). Hypothesis \[strictdrift\] (combined with the irreducibility and aperiodicity coming from Hypothesis \[hypAR\]) implies in particular
- the existence of a (unique) stationary measure admitting a moment of order 2;
- the $V$-geometric ergodicity with $V(x,y_{-s+1}^0)=\Vert
y_{-s+1}^0\Vert^2$ and so the ergodicity of the Markov chain (see for example [@Loicsoaz1 Proposition 2.2] for this last point);
- the positive Harris recurrence.
We end this section with some comments on (\[eq:drift\]). Let us write $$\Lambda^{(x)} = \left(\begin{array}{cccccc}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 &\cdots& 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 &\cdots & 0\\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 1\\
\beta_{s}^{(x)}&\beta_{s-1}^{(x)} &\cdots&\cdots&\cdots&\beta_{1}^{(x)}
\end{array}
\right)$$ for the companion matrix associated to the AR model in regime $x$, $$\Phi^{(x)}:= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
\vdots\\
0\\
\beta_{0}^{(x)}
\end{array}
\right)
,\ \
\Sigma^{(x)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & 0\\
0 & \cdots & 0 & \sigma^{(x)}
\end{array}
\right)\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}:= \left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
\vdots\\
0\\
\varepsilon_1
\end{array}
\right).$$ There exist $A,B>0$ such that, for every $(x_0,y_{-s+1}^0)\in\{1,2\}\times\mathbb R^s$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathbb E[\left\|Y_{-s+2}^1\right\|^2|Y_{-s+1}^0=y_{-s+1}^0,X_0=x_0] &=& \sum_{x_1=1}^M p_{1,\theta}(x_1|x_0,y_{-s+1}^0) \mathbb E[\left\|\Lambda^{(x_1)} y_{-s+1}^0+\Phi^{(x_1)}+\Sigma^{(x_1)} \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\right\|^2] \\
\nonumber
&\leq & \sum_{x_1=1}^M p_{1,\theta}(x_1|x_0,y_{-s+1}^0) \left\|\Lambda^{(x_1)}\right\|^2 \left\|y_{-s+1}^0\right\|^2+A\left\|y_{-s+1}^0\right\|+B\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\|.\right\|$ denotes abusively the matrix norm associated to the vector norm. We deduce the following.
The strict drift condition (\[eq:drift\]) is satisfied when there exists $M>0$ such that for all $x_0 \in E$ and all $y_{-s+1}^0 \in {\mathbb R}^s$ $$\label{eq:driftb}
\Vert y_{-s+1}^0\Vert>R\ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \sum_{x_1 \in E} p_{1,\theta}(x_1|x_0,y_{-s+1}^0)\left\| \Lambda^{(x_1)}\right\|^2 <1.$$ This is true in particular if $$\label{eq:driftc}
\forall x\in E, \; \left\|\Lambda^{(x)}\right\|<1.$$
The model fitted to the lynx data in the previous section satisfies condition (\[eq:driftc\]) for the matrix norm defined as $$\left\| A \right\| = \left\| P^{-1}AP \right\|_\infty$$ with $P$ the matrix containing the eigenvectors of the companion matrix for the second regime and $\left\|.\right\|_\infty$ the infinity norm. This condition implies that all the regimes are stable. However, it is also possible to construct models which satisfy (\[eq:driftb\]) with some unstable regimes if the instability is controlled by the dynamics of $\{X_k\}$.
The results given in this section are still valid when
- the noise $\{\epsilon\}_k$ in (\[eq:ARgauss\]) is an iid sequence with finite variance which admits a pdf $f$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure such that for all $R>0$, $\inf_{y \in E_R} f(y)> 0 $, and
- $E=\{1,...,M\}$ with $M \geq 2$ and (\[eq:nhlog\]) replaced by any transition kernel $p_{1,\theta}$ satisfying (\[HH1\]).
Consistency of MLE {#MLEgaussien}
------------------
The results given in this section generalize the results given in [@Francq1998; @krish1998] for homogeneous MS-AR models with linear Gaussian autoregressive models.
\[consistenceAR\] Assume that Hypotheses \[hypAR\] and \[strictdrift\] hold true for every $\theta$. Let $\Theta$ be a compact subset of $\tilde\Theta$. Then, for all $\theta\in\Theta$ there exists a unique invariant probability distribution and, for every $x_0\in M$ and every initial probability distribution $\nu$, the limit values of $(\hat\theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely contained in $\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \bar{\mathbb P}_\theta=\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}\}$.
This corollary is a direct consequence of Theorem \[consistancegene\] and of the previous section. As already noticed in section \[sec:theory\], the invariant measure has a positive pdf with respect to $\mu$. As seen in the previous section, the Markov chain is aperiodic positive Harris recurrent (which implies (\[HH4\])) and the stationary process is square integrable, which implies (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]). In this example, $p_{2,\theta}$ is bounded from above and so (\[HH3c\]) holds.
Corollary \[consistenceAR\] is still valid when $E=\{1,...,M\}$ with $M \geq 2$ and (\[eq:nhlog\]) replaced by any transition kernel $p_{1,\theta}$ satisfying (\[HH1\]).
In the sequel, we explicit the limit set $\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \bar{\mathbb P}_\theta=\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}\}$ under the supplementary condition $$\label{differentAR}
\left(\beta_0^{(1)},\beta_{1}^{(1)},... ,\beta_{s}^{(1)}, \sigma^{(1)} \right) \ne \left(\beta_0^{(2)},\beta_{1}^{(2)},... ,\beta_{s}^{(2)}, \sigma^{(2)} \right)$$ that the dynamics in the two regimes are distinct. Note that this condition is not sufficient in order to ensure identifiability. First, it can be easily seen that the homogeneous MS-AR model can be written in many different ways using the parametrization (\[eq:nhlog\]). It led us to add one of the following constraints on the parameters $$\label{lambdadiff0}
\forall x \in \{1,2\}, \lambda_1^{(x)} \ne 0$$ which does not include the homogeneous model as a particular case or $$\label{pifix}
\forall x \in \{1,2\}, \pi_-^{(x)} = \pi_+^{(x)} = \pi_0 \ \text{where} \ 0<\pi_0<1/2 \ \text{is a fixed constant}$$ in order to solve this problem. A practical motivation for (\[pifix\]) is given in Section \[sec:lynx\]. Let $\Theta'$ be the set of $\theta\in\tilde\Theta$ satisfying (\[lambdadiff0\]) and let $\Theta''$ be the set of $\theta\in\tilde\Theta$ satisfying (\[pifix\]). Then, a permutation of the two states also leads different parameters values but to the same model. This problem can be solved by ordering the regimes or by allowing a permutation of the states as discussed below.
\[identifiabilityAR\] Let $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ belong to $\Theta'$ (resp. $\Theta''$) with $\theta_i=\left(\theta_i^{(1)},\theta_i^{(2)}\right)$ and
$$\theta_i^{(x)}=\left((\beta_{j,(i)}^{(x)})_{j \in \{0,...s\}},\sigma_{i},(\lambda_{j,(i)}^{(x)})_{j \in \{0,1\}}\right)$$ the parameters associated with the regime $x \in \{1,2\}$.
Assume that $\theta_1$ satisfies (\[differentAR\]). Then $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^Y=\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}^Y$ if and only if $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ define the same model up to a permutation of indices, i.e. there exists a permutation $\tau$ of $\{1,2\}$ such that $$\theta_1^{(x)}=\theta_2^{(\tau(x))}$$
The proof of Proposition \[identifiabilityAR\] is postponed to appendix \[appendAR\].
Now due to Corollary \[consistenceAR\] and Proposition \[identifiabilityAR\], we directly get Theorem \[thmAR\].
\[thmAR\] Assume that Hypotheses \[hypAR\] and \[strictdrift\] hold true for every $\theta$. Let $\Theta$ be a compact subset of $\Theta'$ or $\Theta''$. Assume that $\theta^*$ satisfies (\[differentAR\]). Then, for every $x_0\in\{1,2\}$ and any initial probability distribution $\nu$, on a set of probability one, the limit values $\theta$ of the sequence of random variables $(\hat \theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are equal to $\theta^*$ up to a permutation of indices.
Non-homogeneous Hidden Markov Models with exogenous variables {#sec:real}
=============================================================
Model
-----
When using NHMS-AR models in practice, it is often assumed that the evolution of $\{X_{k}\}$ depends not only on lagged values of the process of interest but also on strictly exogenous variables. In order to handle such situation, we will denote $Y_k=(Z_k,R_k)$ with $\{Z_k\}$ the time series of covariates and $\{R_k\}$ the output time series to be modeled. Besides Hypothesis \[hyp1\], various supplementary conditional independence assumptions can be made for specific applications. For example, in [@Hughes99] it is assumed that the switching probabilities of $\{X_k\}$ only depend on the exogenous covariates $$\nonumber
p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},r_{k-s}^{k-1},z_{k-s}^{k-1})=p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},z_{k-1})$$ that the evolution of $\{Z_k\}$ is independent of $\{X_k\}$ and $\{R_k\}$ and that $R_k$ is conditionally independent of $Z_{k-s}^{k}$ and $R_{k-s}^{k-1}$ given $X_k$ $$\label{eq:covariate}
\nonumber
p_{2,\theta}\left(z_k,r_k|x_k,z_{k-s}^{k-1},r_{k-s}^{k-1}\right)= p_{R,\theta}\left(r_k|x_k\right) p_{Z}\left(z_k|z_{k-1}\right).$$
This model, which dependence structure is summarized by the DAG below when $s=1$ is often referred as Non-Homogeneous Hidden Markov Models (NHMMs) in the literature. $$\nonumber
\begin{array}[t]{lccccccccc}
\text{\textbf{Covariates}} & \cdots & \rightarrow & Z_{k-1} & \rightarrow & Z_{k} & \rightarrow & Z_{k+1} & \rightarrow & \cdots \\
& & & &\searrow & & \searrow & & \searrow & \\
\text{\textbf{Hidden Regime}}\ \ & \cdots & \rightarrow & X_{k-1} & \rightarrow & X_{k} & \rightarrow & X_{k+1} & \rightarrow & \cdots \\
& & & \downarrow & & \downarrow && \downarrow & & \\
\text{\textbf{Output time series}}\ \ & \cdots & & R_{k-1} & & R_{k} & & R_{k+1} & & \cdots \\
\end{array}$$
In this section, we consider a typical example of NHMM with finite hidden state space and strictly exogenous variables and show that the theoretical results proven in this paper apply to this model. We focus on a model initially introduced in [@Bellone00b] for downscaling rainfall. It is an extension of the model proposed in [@Hughes99] (see also [@Vrac07] for more recent references). The results given in this section can be adapted to other NHMM with finite hidden state space such as the one proposed in [@Dieb94] which is widely used in econometrics. The model is described more precisely hereafter.
\[hyprain\] Let $M$ be a positive integer and $\Sigma$ be a $m \times m$ positive definite symmetric matrix. We suppose that $E=\{1,...,M\}$ (endowed with the counting measure $\mathfrak m_E$ on $E$) and that the observed process has two components $Y_k=(Z_k,R_k)$. For every time $k$, $Z_k \in \mathcal Z \subseteq \mathbb R^m$ is a vector of $m$ large scale atmospheric variables (covariates) and $R_k \in ([0,+\infty[)^\ell$ is the daily accumulation of rainfall measured at $\ell$ meteorological stations (output time series) with the value $0$ corresponding to dry days. The model aims at describing the conditional distribution of $\{R_k\}$ given $\{Z_k\}$. For this, we assume that $$\label{eq:p1rain}
p_{1,\theta}(x_k|x_{k-1},y_{k-1}) =\frac{ q_{x_{k-1},x_k} \exp\left(-1/2 \left(z_{k-1}-\mu_{x_{k-1},x_k}\right)' \Sigma^{-1}
\left(z_{k-1}-\mu_{x_{k-1},x_k}\right)\right)}
{\sum_{x"=1}^M q_{x_{k-1},x"} \exp\left(-1/2 \left(z_{k-1}-\mu_{x_{k-1},x"}\right)' \Sigma^{-1}
\left(z_{k-1}-\mu_{x_{k-1},x"}\right)\right)},$$ with $q_{x,x'}>0$, $\mu_{x_,x'} \in \mathbb R^m$ and (\[eq:covariate\]) holds with respect to $\mathfrak m_{\mathcal Z}\otimes \mathfrak m_0^{\otimes \ell}$, where $\mathfrak m_{\mathcal Z}$ is the Lebesgue measure on $\mathcal Z$ and where $\mathfrak m_{0}$ is the sum of the Dirac measure $\delta_0$ and of the Lebesgue measure on $(0,+\infty[$. We observe that $\{Z_k\}_k$ is a Markov chain which transition kernel depends neither on the current weather type nor on the unknown parameter $\theta$ (typically $Z_k$ is the output of an atmospheric model and is considered as an input to the Markov switching model) and that the conditional distribution of $R_k$ given $X_k$ and $\{Y_{k'}\}_{k'<k}$ only depends on $X_k$ as in usual HMMs. Finally the rainfall at the different locations is assumed to be conditionally independent given the weather type $$\nonumber
p_{R,\theta}\left(r_k(1),...,r_k(l)|x_k\right) = \prod_{i=1}^\ell p_{R_i,\theta}\left(r_k(i)|x_k\right)$$ and the rainfall at the different locations is given by the product of Bernoulli and Gamma variables $$p_{R_i,\theta}(r_{k}(i)|x_{k}) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1-\pi_{i}^{(x_{k})} & (r_{k}(i)=0) \\
\pi_{i}^{(x_{k})}\gamma(r_{k}(i);\alpha_{i}^{(x_{k})},\beta_{i}^{(x_{k})})
& (r_{k}(i)>0)
\end{array}\right .$$ where $0 < \pi_{i}^{(x)}< 1$, $\alpha_{i}^{(x)}>0$, $\beta_{i}^{(x)}>0$ and $\gamma(.;\alpha,\beta)$ denotes the pdf of a Gamma distribution with parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$: $$\gamma(r;\alpha,\beta)=r^{\alpha-1}\frac{\beta^\alpha e^{-\beta r}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}.$$ The parameter $\theta$ corresponds to $$\theta=\left((q_{x,x'}),(\mu_{x,x'}),(\pi_i^{(x)}),(\alpha_i^{(x)}),(\beta_i^{(x)})\right).$$ We write $\tilde\Theta$ for the set of such parameters $\theta$ satisfying, for every $x\in\{1,...,M\}$ and every $i\in\{1,...,\ell\}$, $$\sum_{x'=1}^M q_{x,x'}=1, \ \ 0<q_{x,x'}<1, \ \sum_{x'=1}^M \mu_{x,x'}=0,\ 0<\pi^{(x)}<1,\ \alpha_{i}^{(x)}>0,
\ \mbox{and}\ \beta_{i}^{(x)}>0.$$
The conditions $\sum_{x'=1}^M q_{x,x'}=1$ and $\sum_{x'=1}^M \mu_{x,x'}=0$ come from [@Hughes99]. These conditions are not restrictive. Indeed, $q_\theta$ is unchanged if we replace $\mu_{x,x'}$ by $\mu_{x,x'}-\sum_{x"}\mu_{x,x"}$ and $q_{x,x'}$ by $\frac{q_{x,x'}\exp(-(\mu_{x,x'})\Sigma^{-1}\mu_x)}
{\sum_{x"}q_{x,x"}\exp(-(\mu_{x,x"})\Sigma^{-1}\mu_x)}$ (with $\mu_x:=\sum_{x"}\mu_{x,x"}$).
Observe that the fact that, if $\mu_{x,x'}=0$ for every $x,x'$, then $\{X_k\}_k$ is an homogeneous Markov chain and $\{Z_k\}_k$ does not plays any role in the dynamics of $\{X_k,R_k\}_k$.
Properties of the Markov chain
------------------------------
We start by recalling a classical result ensuring (\[HH4\]) in the context of HMM (a proof of this result is given in Appendix \[proofrain\] for completeness).
\[propHH4\] Fix $\theta$. Assume that $p_{1,\theta}(x|x',y')=p_{1,\theta}(x|x')$ does not depend on $y'$, $\{X_k\}_k$ is a Markov chain with transition kernel $Q_{1,\theta}$ admitting an invariant pdf $h_{1,\theta}$ (wrt $\mathfrak m_E$) such that $$\nonumber
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{\nu\in \mathcal P(E)}||[Q_{1,\theta}^{*n}\nu]-h_{1,\theta}||_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E)}=0.$$ Assume moreover that $s=0$ (this means that we can take $s=1$ with $p_{2,\theta}(y|x,y')=p_{2,\theta}(y|x)$). Then there exists an invariant measure $\nu_\theta$ with pdf $h_\theta$ (wrt $\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_K$) given by $h_{\theta}(x,y):=h_{1,\theta}(x)p_{2,\theta}(y|x)$ and $$\
\nonumber
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{\nu\in\mathcal P(E\times K)}||[Q_\theta^{*n}\nu]-h_\theta||_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_K)}=0.$$ Moreover, if $p_{2,\theta}>0$ and if $\{X_k\}_k$ is an aperiodic positive Harris recurrent Markov chain, then the Markov chain $\{X_k,Y_k\}_k$ is positive Harris recurrent and aperiodic.
Due to this lemma, assumption (\[HH4\]) holds true and $\{X_k,Y_k\}_k$ is aperiodic positive Harris recurrent as soon as $\{X_k,Z_k\}_k$ is aperiodic positive Harris recurrent.
The ergodicity of $\{X_k,Y_k\}_k$ will also follow from the ergodicity of $\{X_k,Z_k\}_k$.
Consistency of MLE {#consistency-of-mle}
------------------
\[cororain\] Assume Hypothesis \[hyprain\]. Assume that $\Theta$ is a compact subset of $\tilde\Theta$ and that, for every $\theta\in\Theta$, the transition kernel $Q_{0,\theta}$ of the Markov chain $\{X_k,Z_k\}_k$ admits an invariant pdf $h_{0,\theta}>0$ (wrt $\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_{\mathcal Z}$) such that $$\label{cvgceL1X}
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{\nu\in \mathcal P(E\times \mathcal Z)}
\Vert[Q_{0,\theta}^{*n}\nu]-h_{0,\theta}
\Vert_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_{\mathcal Z})}=0.$$ Assume moreover that $\mathcal Z$ is compact, that $$\label{pZ1}
\forall z\in\mathcal Z,\ \ \sup_{z_{-1}\in\mathcal Z}p_Z(z|z_{-1})<\infty$$ and that $$\label{pZ2}
\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*}[|\log p_Z(Z_0|Z_{-1})|]<\infty.$$ Then, for every $x_0\in\{1,...,M\}$, on a set of probability one (for $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$), the limit values $\theta$ of the sequence of random variables $(\hat \theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely contained in $\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta}=
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}\}$.
If, moreover, $\{X_k,Z_k\}_k$ is aperiodic and positive Harris recurrent then this result holds true for any initial probability distribution.
Due to the previous section, we know that (\[cvgceL1X\]) implies (\[HH4\]) and that the aperiodicity and positive Harris recurrence of $\{X_k,Z_k\}_k$ implies the positive Harris recurrence of $\{X_k,Y_k\}_k$.
The fact that $\Theta$ is a compact subset of $\tilde\Theta$ directly implies (\[HH1\]).
Assumption (\[HH3c\]) holds true since $E$ is finite, since $p_{R,\theta}(r|x)<\infty$ for every $(x,y)\in E\times K$ and according to (\[pZ1\]).
Now according to (\[pZ2\]), (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]) will follow from the fact that, for every $x_0\in X$ and every $i\in\{1,...,\ell\}$, $$\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \left[\left|\log\left(\inf_\theta p_{R_i,\theta}
(R_i|x_0)\right)\right|\right]+
\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} \left[\left|\log\left(\sup_\theta p_{R_i,\theta}
(R_i|x_0)\right)\right|\right]<\infty.$$ Now we observe that if $R_i=0$, then $$0< 1-\pi_+ \le p_{R_i,\theta}
(R_i|x_0)\le 1-\pi_-,$$ where $\pi_-$ and $\pi_+$ are the minimal and maximal possible values of $\pi^{(x)}_i$ (for $x\in X$, $i\in\{1,...,\ell\}$ and $\theta$ in the compact set $\Theta$). Analogously, let us write $\alpha_-$, $\alpha_+$ for the minimal and maximal possible values of $\alpha_{i}^{(x)}$ and $\beta_-$, $\beta_+$ for the minimal and maximal possible values of $\beta_{i}^{(x)}$. Since, all this quantities are positive and finite, due to the expression of $\log( p_{R_i,\theta}(R_i|x_0))$, to prove (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]), it is enough to prove that
$$\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} [R_i]<\infty\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*} [|\log(R_i)|{\mathbf 1}_{\{R_i>0\}}]<\infty.$$ Observe that, under the stationary distribution, the pdf $h_i$ of $R_i$ satisfies: $$\forall r>0,\ \ h_i(r)\le (r^{\alpha_--1}{\mathbf 1}_{\{r\le 1\}}+r^{\alpha_+-1}{\mathbf 1}_{\{r> 1\}})
\frac{\max(\beta_+^{\alpha_+},\beta_+^{\alpha_-}) e^{-r\beta_- }}{\Gamma(\alpha_-)}.$$ Therefore, (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]) come from the facts that $r\mapsto r^{\alpha_+-1}e^{-r\beta_-}$ is integrable at $+\infty$ (since $\beta_->0$) and that $r\mapsto |\log r|r^{\alpha_--1}$ is integrable at 0 (since $\alpha_->0$).
Now we will add an assumption on $\theta$ to ensure the identifiability of the parameter. If we assume $\pi_i^{(x)}=0$ for every $i$ and every $x$, then identifiability follows easily if we assume moreover that $$\label{eq:identpasbon}
x\ne x'\ \Rightarrow\ (\alpha_i^{(x)},\beta_i^{(x)})_i\ne (\alpha_i^{(x')},\beta_i^{(x')})_i.$$ But, if we do not assume $\pi_i^{(x)}=0$, (\[eq:identpasbon\]) does not ensure identifiability anymore. We give now an explicit counter-example.
Assume $M=\ell=2$. We consider two models $A_1$ and $A_2$ associated to $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ respectively, with $$\theta_j=\left((q_{x,x',(j)}),(\mu_{x,x',(j)}),(\pi_i^{(x,(j))}),(\alpha_i^{(x,(j))}),(\beta_i^{(x,(j))})\right),$$ and
- $q_{x,x',(1)}=0.5$, $\mu_{x,x',(1)}=0$, $\pi_i^{(x,(1))}=0.5$, $\alpha_i^{(x,(1))}=1$, $\beta_1^{(x,(1))}=1$, $\beta_2^{(1,(1))}=2$, $\beta_2^{(2,(1))}=3$,
- $q_{x,1,(2)}=0.6$, $q_{x,2,(2)}=0.4$, $\mu_{x,x',(2)}=0$, $\pi_1^{(x,(2))}=0.5$, $\pi_2^{(1,(2))}=\frac{0.25}{0.6}$, $\pi_2^{(2,(2))}=\frac{0.25}{0.4}$, $\alpha_i^{(x,(2))}=1$, $\beta_1^{(x,(1))}=1$, $\beta_2^{(1,(1))}=2$, $\beta_2^{(2,(1))}=3$.
For model $A_1$ (under the stationary measure), $\{X_k\}$ is an iid sequence on $\{1,2\}$ with $\mathbb P(X_1=1)=0.5$ and the distribution of $R_k$ given $\{X_k=1\}$ is $(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,1))\otimes(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,2)) $ whereas the distribution of $R_k$ taken $\{X_k=2\}$ is $(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,1))\otimes(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,3)).$ Hence, for the model $A_1$, the $R_k$ are iid with distribution $$\label{loiY}
(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,1))\otimes(0.5\delta_0+0.25\Gamma(1,2)+0.25
\Gamma(1,3)).$$ For model $A_2$ (under the stationary measure), $\{X_k\}$is an iid sequence on $\{1,2\}$ with $\mathbb P(X_1=1)=0.6$ and the distribution of $R_k$ given $\{X_k=1\}$ is $(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,1))\otimes\left((1-\frac{0.25}{0.6})\delta_0+
\frac{0.25}{0.6}\Gamma(1,2)\right) $ whereas the distribution of $R_k$ taken $\{X_k=2\}$ is $(0.5\delta_0+0.5\Gamma(1,1))\otimes\left((1-\frac{0.25}{0.4})\delta_0+
\frac{0.25}{0.4}\Gamma(1,3)\right)$. Hence, for the model $A_2$, the $R_k$ are iid with distribution (\[loiY\]).
Observe that the distribution of $\{Y_k\}$ under the stationary measure is the same for models $A_1$ and $A_2$.
The next result (proved in appendix \[proofidentrain\]) states that the following condition ensures identifiability $$\label{condiident}
x\ne x'\ \Rightarrow\ \forall i\in\{1,...,\ell\},\ (\alpha_{i,\theta_1}^{(x)},\beta_{i,\theta_1}^{(x)})=(\alpha_{i,\theta_1}^{(x')},\beta_{i,\theta_1}^{(x')}).$$
\[identrain\] Assume Hypothesis \[hyprain\]. Let $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ in $\tilde\Theta$, with $$\theta_j=\left((q_{x,x',(j)}),(\mu_{x,x',(j)}),(\pi_i^{(x,(j))}),(\alpha_i^{(x,(j))}),(\beta_i^{(x,(j))})\right).$$ Assume that $\theta_1$ satisfies (\[condiident\]).
Then $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^Y=\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}^Y$ if and only $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are equal up to a permutation of indices, i.e. there exists a permutation $\tau$ of $\{1,...,M\}$ such that, for every $x,x'\in\{1,...,M\}$ and every $i\in\{1,...,\ell\}$, we have $q_{x,x',(1)}=q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}$, $\mu_{x,x',(1)}=\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}$, $\pi_i^{(x,(1))}=\pi_i^{(\tau(x),(2))}$, $\alpha_i^{(x,(1))}=\alpha_i^{(\tau(x),(j))}$, $\beta_i^{(x,(1))}=\beta_i^{(\tau(x),(2))}$.
Now the following result is a direct consequence of Corollary \[cororain\] and Proposition \[identrain\].
\[thmrainfall\] Assume Hypothesis \[hyprain\]. Assume that $\Theta$ is a compact subset of $\tilde\Theta$ and that, for every $\theta\in\Theta$, the transition kernel $Q_{0,\theta}$ of the Markov chain $(X_k,Z_k)_k$ admits an invariant pdf $h_{0,\theta}$ (wrt $\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_{\mathcal Z}$) satisfying (\[cvgceL1X\]). Assume that $\theta^*$ satisfies (\[condiident\]). Assume moreover that $\mathcal Z$ is compact, that (\[pZ1\]) and (\[pZ2\]) hold true. Then, for every $x_0\in\{1,...,M\}$, on a set of probability one (for $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$), the limit values $\theta$ of the sequence of random variables $(\hat \theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are equal to $\theta^*$ up to a permutation of indices.
If, moreover, $(X_k,Z_k)_k$ is aperiodic and positive Harris recurrent then this result holds true for any initial probability distribution.
Conclusions
===========
In this work, we have extended the consistency result of [@DMR] to the non-homogeneous case and we have relaxed some other of their assumptions (namely on $p_2$). We have illustrated our results by two specific but representative models for which we gave general conditions ensuring the consistency of the maximum likelihood estimator. Our results opens perspectives in different directions: theoretical results (such as the asymptotic normality of the MLE), applied statistics (namely the study of other non-homogeneous switching Markov models and their applications), but also the development of a R package to make easier the practical use of these flexible models.
Consistency : proof of Theorem \[consistancegene\] {#append2}
==================================================
As usual, we define the associated transition operator $Q_\theta$ as an operator acting on the set of bounded measurable functions of $E\times K^s$ (it may also act on other Banach spaces $\mathcal B$) by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_\theta g(x_0,y_{-s+1}^{0})&=&{\mathbb E}_\theta[g(X_1,Y_{-s+2}^1)|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0=y_{-s+1}^0]\\
&=&\int_{E\times K} g(x_1,y_{-s+2}^1)q_\theta(x_1,y_1|x_{0},y_{-s+1}^{0})\, d\mu_0(x_1,y_1).\end{aligned}$$
We denote by $Q_\theta^*$ the adjoint operator of $Q_\theta$ defined on $\mathcal B '$ the dual space of $\mathcal B$ (if $Q_\theta$ acts on $\mathcal B$) by $$\forall \nu\in\mathcal B ',\ \forall f\in\mathcal B,\ \ Q_\theta^*(\nu)(f)=\nu(Q_{\theta}(f)) .$$ For every integer $k\ge 0$, the measure $(Q_\theta^*)^k(\nu)$ corresponds to the distribution of $(X_k,Y_{k-s+1}^k)$ if $\{X_l,Y_l\}_l$ is the Markov chain with transition operator $Q_\theta$ such that the distribution of $(X_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)$ is $\nu$.
If $\nu\in\mathcal B'$ has a pdf $h$ with respect to $\mu:=\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes s}$, then $Q_\theta^*\nu$ is also absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ and its pdf, written $Q_\theta^*h$, is given by $$\nonumber
Q_\theta^*h(x_0,y_{-s+1}^0) := \int_{E\times K}
q_\theta(x_0,y_0|x_{-1},y_{-s}^{-1}) h(x_{-1},y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mu_0(x_{-1},y_{-s}).$$ Observe that, due to the particular form of $q_\theta$, for every integer $k\ge s$ and every $P=(x_{-k},y_{-k-s+1}^{-k})
\in E\times K^s$, the measure $(Q^*_\theta)^k\delta_P$ (where $\delta_P$ is the Dirac measure at $P$) is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu:=\mathfrak m_E\times\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes s}$; its pdf $Q_\theta^{*k}(\cdot|P)$ is given by $$Q_\theta^{*k}(x_0,y_{-s+1}^0|P)
=\int_{E^{k-1}\times K^{k-s}}\prod_{i=1-k}^{0}q_\theta(x_i,y_i|x_{i-1},y_{i-s}^{i-1})\,
d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes (k-1)}
(x_{-k+1}^{-1})d\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes (k-s)}(y_{-k+1}^{-s}).$$ More generally, for every initial measure $\nu$ and every $k\ge s$, $Q_\theta^{*k}\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ and its pdf $[Q_\theta^{*k}\nu]$ is given by $$\label{Q*mes}
[Q_\theta^{*k}\nu](\cdot) = \int_{E\times K^s} Q_\theta^{*k}(\cdot|P)\, d\nu(P) .$$ We suppose that, for every $\theta\in\Theta$, there exists an invariant probability measure $\bar\nu_\theta$ for $Q_\theta^*$. Observe that, due to , $\bar\nu_\theta$ admits a pdf $h_\theta$ with respect to $\mu$.
We identify $(X_k,Y_k)_{k}$ with the canonical Markov chain $\{(X_0,Y_0)\circ \tau^k\}_k$ defined on $\Omega_+:=(E\times K)^{\mathbb N}$ by $X_0((x_k,y_k)_{k})=x_0$, $Y_0((x_k,y_k)_{k})=y_0$, $\tau_+$ being the shift ($\tau_+((x_k,y_k)_k)=(x_{k+1},y_{k+1})_k$). We endow $\Omega_+$ with its Borel $\sigma$-algebra $\mathcal F_+$. We denote by $\bar{\mathbb P}_\theta$ the probability measure on $(\Omega_+,\mathcal F_+)$ associated to the invariant measure $\bar\nu_\theta$ and by $\bar{\mathbb E}_\theta$ the corresponding expectation. The ergodicity of $(X_k,Y_k)_{k}$ is equivalent to the ergodicity of $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*},\tau)$.
We now follow and adapt the proof of [@DMR Thm. 1] (see Lemmas \[lem5\] and \[lem7\]). We do not give all the details of the proofs when they are a direct rewriting of [@DMR]. First, we consider the stationary case. Let $\tau$ be the full shift on $\Omega:=(E\times K)^{\mathbb Z}$. For every $k\in\mathbb Z$, we identify $X_k$ with $X_0\circ \tau^k$ and $Y_k$ with $Y_0\circ \tau^k$, where $X_0((x_m,y_m)_{m\in\mathbb Z}):=x_0$ and $Y_0((x_m,y_m)_{m\in\mathbb Z})=y_0$.
Likelihood and stationary likelihood
------------------------------------
We start by recalling a classical fact in the context of Markov chains (and the proof of which is direct).
\[CMinh\] Let $m$ and $n$ belong to $\mathbb Z$ with $m\le n$. Under $\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta$, conditionally to $(Y_{m-s+1}^n)$, $(X_k)_{k\in\{m,...,n\}}$ is a (possibly nonhomogeneous) Markov chain. Moreover, under $\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta$, the conditional pdf (wrt $\mathfrak m_E$) of $X_k$ given $(X_m^{k-1},Y_{m-s+1}^n)$ is given by $$\label{facteq1}
{p}_\theta(X_k=x_k|X_m^{k-1},Y_{m-s+1}^n)
=\frac{p_\theta(Y_{k}^n,X_k=x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})}
{p_\theta(Y_{k}^n|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})}\ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_\theta-a.s.,$$ with $$\label{facteq2}
p_\theta(Y_{k}^n,X_k=x_k|X_{k-1}=x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
:=\int_{E^{n-k}}\prod_{j=k}^nq_\theta(x_j,Y_j|x_{j-1},Y_{j-s}^{j-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes (n-k)}(x_{k+1}^n)$$ and $$\label{facteq3}
p_\theta(Y_{k}^n|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
:=\int_E p_\theta(Y_{k}^n,X_k=x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_k).$$
Using (\[HH1\]), (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]), we observe that the quantities appearing in this fact are well-defined. Due to Fact \[CMinh\], the quantity $\bar {p}_\theta(X_k=x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{m-s+1}^n)$ is equal to $$\frac{\int_{E^{n-k+1}} (\prod_{j=k+1}^na_j)
p_{1,\theta}(\tilde x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|\tilde x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1}) \, d\delta_{x_k}(\tilde x_k)\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes (n-k)}(\tilde x_{k+1}^n)}
{\int_{E^{n-k+1}}(\prod_{j=k+1}^na_j)
p_{1,\theta}(\tilde x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|\tilde x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1}) \, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes (n-k+1)}(\tilde x_{k}^n)},$$ with $a_j:=q_\theta(\tilde x_j,Y_j|\tilde x_{j-1},Y_{j-s}^{j-1})$. Therefore $$\label{toto}
\bar {p}_{\theta}(X_k=x_k|X_{k-1},Y_{m-s+1}^n)\ge
\frac{ p_{1,-}}{p_{1,+}}
\beta(x_k),\ \mbox{with}\ \
\beta(x_k):=\frac{p_{\theta}(Y_k^n|X_k=x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})}
{\int_{E}p_{\theta}(Y_k^n|X_k=\tilde x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(\tilde x_k)}.$$ From this last inequality (since $0<p_{1,-}<p_{1,+}<\infty$), we directly get the following (from [@Lindvall]).
(as [@DMR Cor. 1])\[coro\] For all $m\le k\le n$ and every probability measures $\mathfrak m_1$ and $\mathfrak m_2$ on $E$, we have, $\bar{\mathbb P}_\theta-a.s.$ $$\left\Vert \int_E\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta(X_k\in\cdot|X_m=x_m,Y_{m-s+1}^n)\, d\mathfrak m_1(x_m)
- \int_E\bar {\mathbb P}_\theta(X_k\in\cdot|X_m= x_m,Y_{m-s+1}^n)\, d\mathfrak m_2(x_m) \right\Vert_{TV}\le
\rho^{k-m},$$ with $\rho:=1-\frac{p_{1,-}}{p_{1,+}}$.
Observe that the log-likelihood $\ell_n(\theta,x_0)$ satisfies $$\nonumber
\ell_n(\theta,x_0)=\sum_{k=1}^n\log p_\theta(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
\ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_\theta-a.s.,$$ with
$\displaystyle p_\theta(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
:=\frac{p_\theta(Y_1^k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)}{p_\theta(Y_1^{k-1}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^0)}$ $$=\int_{E^2}q_\theta(x_k,Y_k|x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes 2}(x_k,x_{k-1}).$$ Let us now define the stationary log-likelihood $\ell_n(\theta)$ by $$\nonumber
\ell_n(\theta):=\sum_{k=1}^n\log\bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1}),$$ with $$\bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1}):=
\int_{E^2}q_\theta(x_k,Y_k|x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})
\bar{p}_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes 2}(x_k,x_{k-1})$$ and $$\bar{p}_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
:=\int_E p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
\bar p_\theta(X_0=x_0|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_0).$$
(as [@DMR Lem. 2]) We have $$\label{(**)}
\sup_{x_0\in E}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}|\ell_n(\theta,x_0)-\ell_n(\theta)|\le \frac 1{(1-\rho)^2}\ \
\ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s.,$$
We have
$\displaystyle\sup_{x_0\in E}| {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
- \bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|\le$ $$\le p_{1,+}\int_{E^3}p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})D(x_{k-1},x_0,x)
\bar p_\theta(X_0=x|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes 3}(x,x_{k-1},x_k),$$ with $D(x_{k-1},x_0,x):= | p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})-
p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|X_0=x,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|.$ Due to Corollary \[coro\], we have $$|{p}_{\theta}(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
- \bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|\le p_{1,+}\rho^{k-1}\int_{E}p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\,
d\mathfrak m_E(x_k).$$ Since $|{p}_{\theta}(Y_k|X_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|$ and $|{p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|$ are both larger than or equal to $$p_{1,-} \int_{E}p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\,
d\mathfrak m_E(x_k),$$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\log {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
- \log\bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})\right|
&\le& \frac{|{p}_{\theta}(Y_k|X_0=x_0,Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})
-\bar {p}_{\theta}(Y_k|Y_{-s+1}^{k-1})|}{p_{1,-}\int_E
p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\,
d\mathfrak m_E(x_k)}\nonumber \\
&\le&\rho^{k-1}\frac{p_{1,+}}{p_{1,-}}=
\frac{\rho^{k-1}}{1-\rho}\ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_\theta-a.s.\label{majo}\end{aligned}$$ and so (\[(\*\*)\]) since $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta}$ (for all $\theta$).
Asymptotic behavior of the log-likelihood
-----------------------------------------
The idea is to approximate $n^{-1}\ell_n(\theta)$ by $n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^n\log
{p}_\theta(Y_k|Y_{-\infty}^{k-1}).$ To this end, we define, for any $k\ge 0$, any $m\ge 0$ and any $x_0\in E$, the following quantities $$\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta):=\log\bar{p}_\theta(Y_k|Y_{-m-s+1}^{k-1},X_{-m}=x)
\ \ \mbox{and}\ \
\Delta_{k,m}(\theta):=\log\bar{p}_\theta(Y_k|Y_{-m-s+1}^{k-1}).$$ With these notations, we have $$\label{logvrais}
\ell_n(\theta)=\sum_{k=1}^n\Delta_{k,0}(\theta)\ \mbox{ and }\
\ell_n(\theta,x_0)=\sum_{k=1}^n\Delta_{k,0,x_0}(\theta).$$
(as [@DMR Lemma 3])\[lemme3\] With the notation $\rho$ introduced in Corollary \[coro\], we have $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely $$\label{eq1}
\forall m,m'\ge 0,\ \ \sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\sup_{x,x'\in E}|\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)-\Delta_{k,m',x'}(\theta)|\le
\rho^{k+\min(m,m')-1}/(1-\rho)$$ $$\label{eq2}
\forall m\ge 0,\ \ \sup_{\theta\in\Theta}\sup_{x\in E}|\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)-\Delta_{k,m}(\theta)|
\le \rho^{k+m-1}/(1-\rho)$$ $$\label{eq3}
\sup_\theta\sup_{m\ge 0}\sup_{x\in E}|\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)|\le\max(|\log(p_{1,+}b_+(Y_{k-s}^k))|,
|\log(p_{1,-} b_-(Y_{k-s}^k))|)$$ with $$b_-(y_{k-s}^k):=\inf_\theta \int_E p_{2,\theta}(y_k|x,y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x)$$ and $$b_+(y_{k-s}^k):=\sup_\theta \int_E p_{2,\theta}(y_k|x,y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x).$$
Assume that $m\le m'$. We have $$e^{\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)}=\int_{E^2}q_\theta(x_k,Y_k|x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1})p_\theta
(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1}|X_{-m}=x,Y_{-m-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes 2}(x_k,x_{k-1}).$$ Observe moreover that, due to Fact \[CMinh\], we have $$e^{\Delta_{k,m',x'}(\theta)}=
\int_E e^{\Delta_{k,m,x''}(\theta)} p_\theta
(X_{-m}=x''|X_{-m'}=x',Y_{-m'-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x'').$$ Therefore, according to Corollary \[coro\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left|e^{\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)}-e^{\Delta_{k,m',x'}(\theta)}\right|
&\le& \sup_{x"\in E}|e^{\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)}-e^{\Delta_{k,m,x"}(\theta)}|\\
&\le& p_{1,+}\rho^{k+m-1}\int_E p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_k).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\left|e^{\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)}\right|\ge p_{1,-}
\int_E p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_k),$$ we get the first point. The proof of the second point follows exactly the same scheme with the use of the following formula $$e^{\Delta_{k,m}(\theta)}= \int_{E}e^{\Delta_{k,m,x_{-m}}(\theta)}
\bar p_{\theta}(X_{-m}=x_{-m}|Y_{-m-s+1}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_{-m}).$$ The last point comes from the fact that $$p_{1,-} \int_E p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_k)\le e^{\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta)}\le
p_{1,+} \int_E p_{2,\theta}(Y_k|x_k,Y_{k-s}^{k-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_k).$$
Due to (\[eq1\]), we get that, $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-a.s., $(\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta))_m$ is a (uniform in $(k,x,\theta)$) Cauchy sequence and so converges uniformly in $(k,x,\theta)$ to some $\Delta_{k,\infty,x}(\theta)$.
Due to (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]), $\Delta_{k,\infty,x}(\theta)$ does not depend on $x$ and will be denoted by $\Delta_{k,\infty}(\theta)$. Moreover we have $\Delta_{k,\infty}(\theta)
=\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta)\circ\tau^k$.
Due to (\[eq3\]), (\[HH1\]), (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]), $(\Delta_{k,m,x}(\theta))_{k,m,x}$ is uniformly bounded in $\mathbb L^1(\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*})$. Therefore $\Delta_{k,\infty}(\theta)$ is in $\mathbb L^1(\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*})$. Let us write $$\ell(\theta):= \bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*}[\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta)].$$ Since $(\Omega,\mathcal F,\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*},\tau)$ is ergodic, from the Birkhoff-Khinchine ergodic theorem, we have $$\label{birkhoff}
\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}n^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^n\Delta_{k,\infty}(\theta)=
\ell(\theta) \ \ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s.\
\mbox{ and in }\mathbb L^1(\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}).$$ Now, due to (\[eq1\]) and (\[eq2\]) applied with $m=0$, we obtain $$\label{delta0}
\sum_{k=1}^n\sup_\theta|\Delta_{k,0}(\theta)-\Delta_{k,\infty}(\theta)|
\le \frac {2}{(1-\rho)^2}\ \ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s..$$ Now, putting together (\[logvrais\]), (\[eq2\]), (\[birkhoff\]) and (\[delta0\]), we have
$$\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}n^{-1}\ell_n(\theta,x_0)=
\lim_{n\rightarrow+\infty}n^{-1}\ell_n(\theta)= \ell(\theta),\ \
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s..$$
Still following [@DMR], we have the next lemma insuring the continuity of $\theta\mapsto
\ell(\theta)$.
(as [@DMR Lemma 4])\[lemme4\] For all $\theta\in\Theta$, $$\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*}[\sup_{|\theta-\theta'|\le\delta}
|\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta)-\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta')|]=0.$$
We recall that $\Delta_{0,\infty}=\lim_{m\rightarrow\infty}\Delta_{0,m,x}(\theta)$ (for every $x\in E$) with $$\Delta_{0,m,x}(\theta)=\log\frac{\int_{E^m}\prod_{\ell=-m+1}^0q_\theta(x_\ell,Y_\ell|x_{\ell-1},
Y_{\ell-s}^{\ell-1})\, dm_E^{\otimes m}(x_{-m+1}^0)\, d\delta_x(x_{-m})}{\int_{E^{m-1}}\prod_{\ell=-m+1}^{-1}
q_\theta(x_\ell,Y_\ell|x_{\ell-1},
Y_{\ell-s}^{\ell-1})\, dm_E^{\otimes (m-1)}(x_{-m+1}^{-1})\, d\delta_x(x_{-m})} .$$ Since the maps $\theta\mapsto q_\theta(x_\ell,y_\ell|x_{\ell-1},
y_{\ell-s}^{\ell-1},y_{\ell})$ are continuous, $\Delta_{0,m,x}$ is $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely continuous. The uniform convergence result proved above insures that $\Delta_{0,\infty}$ is also $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely continuous. Hence $$\forall\theta,\ \ \lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0} \sup_{\theta':|\theta-\theta'|\le\delta}
|\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta)-\Delta_{0,\infty}(\theta')|=0 \ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s..$$ Now, the result follows from the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, due to (\[eq3\]), (\[HH1\]), (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]).
(as [@DMR Prop. 2])\[prop2\] We have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{\theta\in\Theta}|n^{-1}\ell_n(\theta,x_0)-\ell(\theta)|=0,
\ \ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s..$$
Lemma \[prop2\] can be deduced exactly as in the proof of [@DMR Prop. 2]. We do not rewrite the proof, but mention that it uses (\[(\*\*)\]), the compacity of $\Theta$, the continuity of $\ell$, (\[delta0\]), the ergodicity of $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$ and Lemma \[lemme4\].
\[lem5\](as [@DMR Lemma 5]) For every $k\le \ell$, we have $$\lim_{j\rightarrow -\infty}\sup_{i\le j}
|\bar{p}_\theta(Y_k^\ell|Y_{i-s+1}^j)-\bar{p}_\theta(Y_k^\ell)|=0\ \
\mbox{in}\ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-probability .$$
Let us write $G(y_{-s}^0):=\int_Ep_{2,\theta}(y_0|x,y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x)$ and $\tilde G(y_0):=\sup_{y_{-s}^{-1}}G(y_{-s}^0)$. As in the proof of [@DMR Lemma 5], we observe that, by stationarity, it is enough to prove that $$\forall \ell>0,\ \ \ \lim_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{i\ge 0}
\left|\bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell}|Y_{-i-s+1}^{0})
- \bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell})\right|=0\ \ in\ \bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-probability$$ and we write $$\left|\bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell}|Y_{-i-s+1}^{0})
- \bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell})\right|=\left |\int_{E^2\times K^{2s}}A_k(B'_k-B''_k)C_i
\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes 2}(x_s,x_{k-1})d\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes 2s}(y_1^s,y_{k-s}^{k-1})\right|,$$ with $$A_k:= p_\theta(Y_k^{k+\ell}|X_{k-1}=x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1}) \le \tilde A_k:=
p_{1,+}^{\ell+1}\prod_{j=k+s}^{k+\ell} G(Y_{j-s}^j)\prod_{j=k}^{k+s-1} \tilde G(Y_j),$$ (due to (\[facteq3\]) and to (\[HH1\])) with $$B'_k:= p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1}|X_s=x_s,Y_1^s=y_1^s)
=Q_\theta^{*(k-s-1)}(x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1}|x_s,y_1^s) ,$$ with $$B''_k:=\bar p_\theta(X_{k-1}=x_{k-1},Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})=h_\theta(x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1})$$ and with $$C_i:=\bar{p}_\theta (X_{s}=x_{s},Y_{1}^{s}=y_{1}^{s}|Y_{-i-s+1}^0).$$ Let us write $$B_k:=\int_{E\times K^s}|B'_k-B''_k|\, d\mu(x_{k-1},y_{k-s}^{k-1}).$$ We have $$\left|\bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell}|Y_{i-s+1}^{0})
- \bar p_\theta(Y_{k}^{k+\ell})\right|\le \tilde A_k\int_{E\times K^s}B_kC_i\, d\mu(x_s,y_{1}^s).$$ On the one hand, due to (\[HH4\]), $B_k=B_k(x_s,y_1^s)$ converges to 0 as $k$ goes to infinity, for $\mu$-almost every $(x_s,y_1^s)$ (and this quantity is bounded by 1). On the other hand, on $\{Y_{-i-s+1}^0=y_{-i-s+1}^0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_i&=&\int_{E^s}\prod_{j=1}^s q_\theta(x_j,y_j|x_{j-1},y_{j-s}^{j-1})
\bar{p}_\theta(X_0=x_0|Y_{-i-s+1}^0=
y_{-i-s+1}^0)\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes s}(x_0^{s-1})\\
&\le& p_{1,+}H(x_s,y_{-s+1}^s),\end{aligned}$$ with $$H(x_s,y_{-s+1}^s):=\int_{E^{s-1}}\prod_{j=2}^s p_{1,\theta}(x_j|x_{j-1},y_{j-1})
\prod_{j=1}^s p_{2,\theta}(y_j|x_{j},y_{j-s}^{j-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes s}(x_1^{s-1})$$ and $$\forall y_{-s+1}^0, \ \ \int_{E\times K^s} H(x_s,y_{-s+1}^s)\, d\mu(x_s,y_1^s)=1.$$ Therefore, by the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we obtain $$\lim_{k\rightarrow +\infty}\sup_{i\le 0}
\int_{E\times K^s}B_kC_i\, d\mu(x_s,y_{1}^s)=0 \ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}-a.s..$$ Of course, this convergence also holds in $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-probability. Now, since, for every $k$, $\tilde A_k$ is a real valued random variable (see (\[HH3c\])) with the same distribution as $p_{1,+}^{\ell+1}\prod_{j=s}^{\ell} G(Y_{j-s}^j)\prod_{j=0}^{s-1} \tilde G(Y_j)$, we obtain the result.
\[lem7\]([@DMR Lem. 6 & 7, Prop. 3]) For every $\theta\in\Theta$, $\ell(\theta)\le\ell(\theta^*)$. Furthermore $$\ell(\theta)=\ell(\theta^*)\ \ \Rightarrow\ \ \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta}^{Y}=
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}^{Y}.$$
We do not rewrite the proof of this lemma, the reader can follow the proofs of [@DMR Lem. 6-7, Prop. 3] (using Lemma \[lem5\] and Kullback-Leibler divergence functions). The only adaptations to make concern the proof of [@DMR Lem. 7] which, due to our slightly weaker hypothesis (\[HH3c\]), are the following facts. Following the proof of Lemma \[lem5\], observe that, due to (\[HH1\]), (\[facteq3\]) and (\[facteq2\]), on $\{Y_{-s+1}^p=y_{-s+1}^p,\ Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k}=y_{-m-s+1}^{-k}\}$, $\bar p_\theta(Y_{-s+1}^p|Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})$ is between $$p_{1,-}^{p+s}
\int_{E\times K^{s}}\prod_{j=-s+1}^pG(y_{j-s}^j)\bar p_\theta(X_{-s}=x_{-s},Y_{-2s+1}^{-s}=
y_{-2s+1}^{-s}|Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})\, d\mu(x_{-s},y_{-2s+1}^{-s})$$ and $$p_{1,+}^{p+s}\int_{E\times K^{s}}\prod_{j=-s+1}^pG(y_{j-s}^j)\bar p_\theta(X_{-s}=x_{-s},Y_{-2s+1}^{-s}=
y_{-2s+1}^{-s}|Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})\, d\mu(x_{-s},y_{-2s+1}^{-s}),$$ with $G(y_{-s}^0):=\int_Ep_{2,\theta}(y_0|x,y_{-s}^{-1})\, d\mathfrak m_E(x)$. Therefore we have $$\frac{p_{1,-}^{p+s}}{p_{1,+}^s}\prod_{j=1}^pG(Y_{j-s}^j)\le
\bar p_\theta(Y_1^p|Y_{-s+1}^0,Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})=
\frac{\bar p_\theta(Y_{-s+1}^p|Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})}{\bar p_\theta(Y_{-s+1}^0|Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k})}
\le \frac{p_{1,+}^{p+s}}{p_{1,-}^s}\prod_{j=1}^pG(Y_{j-s}^j) .$$ Due to (\[HH3\]) and (\[HH3b\]), we obtain $$\bar{\mathbb E}_{\theta^*}\left[
\sup_{k}\sup_{m\ge k}|\log(\bar p_\theta(Y_1^p|Y_{-s+1}^0,Y_{-m-s+1}^{-k}))|\right]<\infty,$$ which enables the adaptation of the proof of [@DMR Lem. 7].
Let $x_0\in E$. We know that, $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}$-almost surely, $(n^{-1}\ell_n(\cdot,x_0))_n$ converges uniformly to $\ell$ which admits a maximum $\ell(\theta^*)$. Since $\ell_n(\cdot,x_0)$ is continuous on $\Theta$ and since $\Theta$ is compact, $\hat\theta_{n,x_0}$ is well defined. Moreover, the limit values of $(\hat\theta_{n,x_0})_n$ are contained in $$\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\ \ell(\theta)=\ell(\theta^*)\}\subseteq\{\theta\in\Theta\ :\
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta}^{Y}= \bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta^*}^{Y}\}.$$ Assume now that $Q_{\theta^*}$ is aperiodic and positive Harris recurrent, following the proof of [@DMR Thm. 5], we have $\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty}\ell(\hat\theta_{n,x_0})=\ell(\theta^*)$ almost surely for any initial measure and we conclude as above.
Identifiability for the Gaussian model: proof of Proposition \[identifiabilityAR\] {#appendAR}
==================================================================================
Assume that $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^Y=\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}^Y$. In particular, we have $$\bar {p}_{\theta_1}(Y_k=y_k|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})=\bar {p}_{\theta_2}(Y_k=y_k|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1}),
\mbox{ for } \ \bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^{Y_{k-s}^k}-a.e.\ y_{k-s}^k$$ and thus $$\sum_{x =1}^ 2 \bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}(X_k=x|y_{k-s}^{k-1}) p_{2,\theta_1}(y_k|x,y_{k-s}^{k-1})
=\sum_{x =1}^ 2 \bar { \mathbb P}_{\theta_2}(X_k=x|y_{k-s}^{k-1}) p_{2,\theta_2}(y_k|x,y_{k-s}^{k-1}),$$ for $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^{Y_{k-s}^k}$-almost every $y_{k-s}^k$. Since $\bar { p}_{\theta_1}(y_{k-s}^{k}) >0$ (the invariant pdf $h_1$ satisfies $h_1>0$ and the transition pdf $q_\theta$ satisfies $q_\theta>0$ by construction), this last equality also holds for Lebesgue almost every $y_{k-s}^k$. According to [@Teich63], finite mixtures of Gaussian distribution are identifiable. Due to , this implies in particular that if $$\sum_{x=1}^2 \pi_x^{(1)} \mathcal N(y;a^{(1)}_x,\sigma^{(1)}_x) = \sum_{x=1}^M \pi_x^{(2)} \mathcal N(y;a^{(2)}_x,\sigma^{(2)}_x)\mbox{ for }- a.e.\ y$$ with $(a^{(1)}_1,\sigma^{(1)}_1)\neq (a^{(1)}_2,\sigma^{(1)}_2)$, $\pi_1^{(1)}>0$ and $\pi_2^{(1)}>0$, then there exists a permutation $\tau : \{1,2\} \rightarrow \{1,2\}$ such that $(a^{(1)}_x,\sigma^{(1)}_x)=(a^{(2)}_{\tau(x)},\sigma^{(2)}_{\tau(x)})$ and $\pi_1^{(x)}=\pi_2^{(\tau(x))}$. Therefore, since for every $x \in \{1,2\}$ and for Lebesgue almost every $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$, $\bar {\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}(X_k=x|y_{k-s}^{k-1})>0$ (since $h_{\theta_1}>0$), for Lebesgue almost every $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$ there exists a permutation $\tau_y=\tau_{y_{k-s}^{k-1}}$ of $\{1,...,M\}$ such that, $$\forall x\in\{1,2\},\ \
\left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(x)}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s\beta_{\ell,(1)}^{(x)}y_{k-\ell},\sigma_{(1)}^{(x)}\right)=
\left(\beta_{0,(2)}^{(\tau_{y}(x))}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s\beta_{\ell,(2)}^{(\tau_{y}(x))}y_{k-\ell},\sigma_{(2)}
^{(\tau_{y}(x))}\right).$$ Recall that we have assumed (for the first model) $$\left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(1)},\beta_{1,{(1)}}^{(1)},... ,\beta_{s,{(1)}}^{(1)}, \sigma^{(1)}_{(1)} \right) \ne \left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(2)},\beta_{1,{(1)}}^{(2)},... ,\beta_{s,{(1)}}^{(2)}, \sigma^{(2)}_{(1)} \right)$$
which implies $$\left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(1)}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s\beta_{\ell,(1)}^{(1)}y_{k-\ell},\sigma_{(1)}^{(1)}\right)\ne
\left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(2)}+\sum_{\ell=1}^s\beta_{\ell,(1)}^{(2)}y_{k-\ell},\sigma_{(1)}^{(2)}\right),$$ for Lebesgue almost every $y_{k-s}^{k-1}$. Since the set of permutations of $\{1,...,M\}$ is finite, there exists a positive Lebesgue measure subset of $\mathbb T^s$ on which the permutation is the same permutation $\tau$. From this, we deduce that, for all $x\in \{1,2\}$ and $y \in \mathbb R$, $$\left(\beta_{0,(1)}^{(x)},\beta_{1,(1)}^{(x)},... ,\beta_{r,(1)}^{(x)}, \sigma^{(x)}_{(1)} \right)=\left(\beta_{0,(2)}^{(\tau(x))},\beta_{1,(2)}^{(\tau(x))},... ,\beta_{r,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}, \sigma^{(\tau(x))}_{(2)} \right)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:identp1}
p_{1,\theta_{1}} (x|x,y)
&=&\pi_{-,(1)}^{(x)} +\frac{1-\pi_{-,(1)}^{(x)}-\pi_{+,(1)}^{(x)}}{1+exp\left(\lambda_{0,(1)}^{(x)}+\lambda_{1,(1)}^{(x)} y\right)}\\
&=&\pi_{-,(2)}^{(\tau(x))} +\frac{1-\pi_{-,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}-\pi_{+,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}}{1+exp\left(\lambda_{0,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}+\lambda_{1,(2)}^{(\tau(x))} y\right)}
= p_{1,\theta_2}(\tau(x)|\tau(x),y).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are in $\Theta'$ then $\lambda_{1,(i)}^{(x)} \neq 0$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$ and looking at the asymptotic behavior of the terms which appear in (\[eq:identp1\]) when $y \rightarrow \pm \infty$ permits to show that $\pi_{-,(1)}^{(x)}=\pi_{-,(2)}^{(x)}$, $\pi_{+,(1)}^{(x)}=\pi_{+,(2)}^{(x)}$. We can then easily deduce that $\lambda_{0,(1)}^{(x)}=\lambda_{0,(2)}^{(x)}$ and $\lambda_{1,(1)}^{(x)}=\lambda_{1,(2)}^{(x)}$ and thus that $\theta_1=\theta_2$.
If $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are in $\Theta''$, then we directly obtain that $\pi_{-,(1)}^{(x)} = \pi_{-,(2)}^{(x)}=\pi_{+,(1)}^{(x)} =\pi_{-,(1)}^{(x)}=\pi_0$ and then that $\theta_1=\theta_2$.
Identifiability for the Rainfall model: proof of Proposition \[identrain\] {#proofidentrain}
==========================================================================
Assume that $\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^Y=\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}^Y$. First, we use the fact that $$\label{EE1}
\bar p_{\theta_1}(Y_k=y_k|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})=
\bar p_{\theta_2}(Y_k=y_k|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\ \ \mbox{for}\ \
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^{Y_{k-s}^k}-a.e.\ y_{k-s}^k$$ to prove that $$(\pi_{i,(1)}^{(x)},\alpha_{i,(1)}^{(x)},\beta_{i,(1)}^{(x)})_
{i,x}=(\pi_{i,(2)}^{(x)},\alpha_{i,(2)}^{(x)},\beta_{i,(2)}^{(x)})_{i,x}.$$ Using (\[EE1\]) on the set $\{r_k^{(i)}>0,\ \forall i\in\{1,...,\ell\}\}$, we conclude that there exists a permutation $\tau$ of $\{1,...,M\}$ such that, for every $i\in\{1,...,\ell\}$ and every $x\in\{1,...,M\}$, we have $$\label{EE1b}
(\alpha_{i,(1)}^{(x)},\beta_{i,(1)}^{(x)})=(\alpha_{i,(2)}^{(\tau(x))},
\beta_{i,(2)}^{(\tau(x))})$$ and $$\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}(X_k=x|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\prod_{i=1}^\ell
\pi_{i,(1)}^{(x)}
=\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}(X_k=x|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\prod_{i=1}^\ell
\pi_{i,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}.$$ Now, for every $J\subseteq\{1,...,\ell\}$, we use (\[EE1\]) on the set $\{r_k^{(j)}>0,\ \forall j\in J,\ r_k^{(i)}=0,\
\forall i\not\in J\}$. Due to (\[EE1b\]) and since $\theta_1$ satisfies (\[condiident\]), we obtain $$\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}(X_k=x|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\prod_{j\in J}
\pi_{j,(1)}^{(x)}\prod_{i\not\in J}(1-\pi_{i,(1)}^{(x)})
=\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_2}(X_k=x|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\prod_{j\in J}
\pi_{j,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}\prod_{i\not\in J}(1-\pi_{i,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}).$$ From which, we conclude $$\label{EE1c}
\forall i\in\{1,...,\ell\},\ \forall x\in\{1,...,M\},\ \ \pi_{i,(1)}^{(x)}
=\pi_{i,(2)}^{(\tau(x))}.$$ Now it remains to prove that $(q_{x,x',(1)},\mu_{x,x',(1)})=(q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)},\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)})$. To this hand, as for the AR model (see Appendix \[appendAR\]), we use the fact that $$\label{EE2}
\bar p_{\theta_1}(Y_k=y_k,Y_{k+1}=y_{k+1}|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})=
\bar p_{\theta_2}(Y_k=y_k,Y_{k+1}=y_{k+1}|Y_{k-s}^{k-1}=y_{k-s}^{k-1})\ \ \mbox{for}\ \
\bar{\mathbb P}_{\theta_1}^{Y_{k-s}^k}-a.e.\ y_{k-s}^k$$ and obtain that $$\forall x,x',\ \ p_{1,\theta_1}(x'|x,y_k)=p_{1,\theta_2}(\tau(x')|\tau(x),y_k)\ \mbox{for}\ a.e. y_k .$$ This implies that $$\label{EE2b}
\frac{\tilde q_{x,x',(1)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{x,x',(1)})}
{\sum_{x"}\tilde q_{x,x",(1)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{x,x',(1)})}=\frac{\tilde q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)})}
{\sum_{x"}\tilde q_{x,\tau(x"),(2)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{x,\tau(x"),(2)})},$$ with $\tilde q_{x,x',(j)}:=q_{x,x',(j)}\exp(-\frac 12(\mu_{x,x',(j)})'\Sigma^{-1}
\mu_{x,x',(j)})$ and $\tilde \mu_{x,x',(j)}:=\Sigma^{-1}\mu_{x,x',(j)}$. From (\[EE2b\]), we obtain that $$\frac{\tilde q_{x,x',(1)}\exp(- z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{x,x',(1)})}
{\tilde q_{x,x,(1)}\exp(- z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{x,x,(1)})}=\frac{\tilde q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)})}
{\tilde q_{\tau(x),\tau(x),(2)}\exp(-z_{k-1}'\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x),(2)})},$$ and so that, for every $x,x'\in\{1,...,M\}$, $$\label{EE2c}
\tilde\mu_{x,x',(1)}-\tilde\mu_{x,x,(1)}=\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}-\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x),(2)}$$ and $$\label{EE2d}
\frac{\tilde q_{x,x',(1)}}{\tilde q_{x,x,(1)}}=
\frac{\tilde q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}}{\tilde q_{\tau(x),\tau(x),(2)}}.$$ Finally, it comes from (\[EE2c\]) that $\tilde\mu_{x,x',(1)}=\tilde\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}$ (using $\sum_{x"}\tilde\mu_{x,x",(j)}=0$) and so $\mu_{x,x',(1)}=\mu_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}$. So (\[EE2d\]) becomes $$\frac{ q_{x,x',(1)}}{ q_{x,x,(1)}}=
\frac{ q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}}{ q_{\tau(x),\tau(x),(2)}}$$ which implies that $q_{x,x',(1)}= q_{\tau(x),\tau(x'),(2)}$ (due to $\sum_{x"}q_{x,x",(j)}=1$).
Proof of Lemma \[propHH4\] {#proofrain}
==========================
Let $f$ be any probability pdf wrt $\mu=\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_K$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
[Q_\theta^{*n}(f-h_\theta)](x_0,y_0)&=&
\int_{(E\times K)^{n}}\prod_{i=-n+1}^0q_\theta(x_i,y_i|x_{i-1})(f-h_\theta)(x_{-n},y_{-n})
\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes n}(x_{-n}^{-1})d\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes n}(y_{-n}^{-1})\\
&=& \int_{E^n\times K^{n-1}}\prod_{i=-n+1}^0q_\theta(x_i,y_i|x_{i-1})(F-h_{1,\theta})(x_{-n})
\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes n}(x_{-n}^{-1})d\mathfrak m_K^{\otimes (n-1)}(y_{-n+1}^{-1})\\\end{aligned}$$ with $F(x_{-n}):=\int_Kf(x_{-n},y_{-n})\, d\mathfrak m_K(y_{-n})$. Now, since $q_\theta(x_i,y_i|x_{i-1})=p_{1,\theta}(x_i|x_{i-1})p_{2,\theta}(y_i|x_i)$, we obtain that $$[Q_\theta^{*n}(f-h_{1,\theta})](x_0,y_0)=
p_{2,\theta}(y_0|x_0) \int_{E^n}\prod_{i=-n+1}^0p_{1,\theta}(x_i|x_{i-1})(F-h_{1,\theta})(x_{-n})
\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes n}(x_{-n}^{-1}).$$ Therefore $$||Q_\theta^{*n}(f-h_\theta) ||_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E\times \mathfrak m_K)}= ||Q_{1,\theta}^{*n}(F-h_{1,\theta}) ||_{L^1(\mathfrak m_E)} .$$
Now, let us assume that $p_{2,\theta}>0$ and that $(X_k)_k$ is an aperiodic positive Harris recurrent Markov chain. We will use the notations of [@MeynTweedie].
Since $(X_k)_k$ is positive, it is $\psi$-irreducible (with $\psi=\psi_0$). Due to the hypothesis on $p_{2,\theta}$, this implies the $\psi$-irreducibility of $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ (with $\psi=\psi_0\times \mathfrak m_K$).
Moreover $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ is positive since it admits an invariant probability measure (due to the first point of this result).
The fact that $(X_k)_k$ is aperiodic means that, for every $\nu_M$-small set $C$ such that $\nu_M(C)>0$ for $(X_k)_k$, the greatest common divisor of the set $E_C$ defined as follows is equal to 1: $$E_C:=\{n\ge 1\ :\ C\mbox{ is }\nu_n-\mbox{small with }\nu_n=\delta_n\nu_M\mbox{ and }\delta_n>0\}.$$
Now, let $C'$ be a $\nu'_M$-small set for $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ with $\nu'_M(C')>0$, then for every $(x_0,y_0)\in C'$ and every $(B,D)\in\mathcal B(E)\times \mathcal B(K)$, we have $Q_\theta^M\ind_{B\times D}(x_0,y_0)\ge \nu'_M(B\times D)$. Moreover $Q_\theta^M\ind_{B\times D}(x_0,y_0)$ is equal to $$\int_{E^{M-1}}\left(\int_B\prod_{i=1}^Mp_{1,\theta}(x_i|x_{i-1})\left(\int_D
p_{2,\theta}(y_M|x_M)\, d\mathfrak m_K(y_M)\right)\, d\mathfrak m_E(x_M)\right)\, d\mathfrak m_E^{\otimes (M-1)}(x_1^{M-1}).$$ Since $Q_\theta^M\ind_{B\times D}(x_0,y_0)$ does not depend on $y_0$, we obtain $$\forall (x_0,y_0)\in E\times K,\ \forall B\in\mathcal B(E),\ \
Q_{1,\theta}^M\ind_{B}(x_0)=Q_\theta^M\ind_{B\times K}(x_0,y_0)\ge \nu'_M(B\times K)$$ and so $C:=\{x\in E\ :\ \exists y\in K,\ (x,y)\in C'\}$ is $\nu_M$-small with $\nu_M(B)=\nu'_M(B\times K)$ and $\nu_M(C)\ge \nu'_M(C')>0$. Moreover $E_C=E_{C'}$. Indeed, if $C'$ is $\nu'_n$-small with $\nu'_n=\delta'_n\nu'_M$, then $C$ is $\nu_n$-small with $\nu_n(B)=\nu'_n(B\times K)=\delta_n\nu_M(B)$ with $\delta_n(x)=\int_K\delta'_n(x,y)\, d\mathfrak m_K(y)$; and conversely, if $C$ is $\nu_n$-small with $\nu_n=\delta_n\nu_M$, then $C'$ is $\nu'_n$-small with $\nu'_n(B\times D)=\delta'_n\nu'_M(B\times D)$ and with $\delta'_n(x,y)=\delta_n(x)p_{2,\theta}(y|x)$. Therefore $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ is also aperiodic.
Finally, the Harris recurrence property of $(X_k,Y_k)_k$ follows from the Harris-recurrence of $(X_k)_k$ and from $p_{2,\theta}>0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Some applications of the elementary kaon photoproduction process are discussed: the investigation of missing resonances in the $p(\gamma,K^+)\Lambda$ channel, the role of the $P_{13}(1720)$ state in the $p(\gamma,K^0)\Sigma^+$ channel, and the calculation of the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule. For the latter, we present an extension of our previous study to higher energies.'
address:
- 'Jurusan Fisika, FMIPA, Universitas Indonesia, Depok 16424, Indonesia'
- |
Center for Nuclear Studies, Department of Physics, The George Washington University,\
Washington, D.C. 20052, USA
author:
- 'T. Mart[^1], S. Sumowidagdo$^{\rm a*}$, D. Kusno$^{\rm a*}$, C. Bennhold[^2], and H. Haberzettl$^{\rm b\dagger}$'
title: 'Kaon photoproduction on the nucleon: overview of some applications'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The electromagnetic production of kaons provides an important source of information on hadronic physics with strangeness. Due to the rather weak coupling at the electromagnetic vertex, the reaction operator is quite simple and, therefore, the use a of single channel analysis may be quite sufficient to describe the process. This process can be used to simultaneously study kaon-hyperon-nucleon coupling constants, isospin symmetry, hadronic form factors, baryon and meson resonances, and contributions of kaon-hyperon final states to the magnetic moment of the nucleon. In this report we will focus only on the two last topics.
THE ELEMENTARY PROCESS WITH SOME APPLICATIONS
=============================================
For a detailed discussion of the elementary operator we refer to Ref.[@fxlee99]. The background part of the operator consists of the standard Born terms along with the $K^*$(892) and $K_1$(1270) vector meson poles in the $t$-channel. The resonance part of the $K\Lambda$ operator includes the $S_{11}$(1650), $P_{11}$(1710), and $P_{13}(1720)$ resonances. We also include hadronic form factors in hadronic vertices by employing the gauge method of Haberzettl [@hbmf98] which leads to an excellent agreement between experimental data and model calculations.
Investigation of Nucleon Resonances
-----------------------------------
A brief inspection of the Particle Data Table reveals that less than 40% of the nucleon resonances predicted by constituent quark models are observed in $\pi N\to \pi N$ scattering experiments. Quark model studies have suggested that those “missing” resonances may couple to other channels, such as the $K \Lambda$ and $K \Sigma$ channels. Stimulated by the new $p(\gamma, K^+)\Lambda$ [SAPHIR]{} total cross section data [@saphir98], which suggest a structure around $W = 1900$ MeV, we start the investigation by using our isobar model.
As shown in Fig.\[fig:missing\], our previous model cannot reproduce the total cross section. The constituent quark model of Capstick and Roberts [@capstick98] predicts many new states around 1900 MeV. However, only a few of them have been calculated to have a significant $K \Lambda$ decay width [@capstick98]. We have performed fits for each of the possible states, allowing the fit to determine the mass, width and coupling constants of the resonance. We found that only in the case of the $D_{13}$(1895) state couplings are obtained that are in remarkable agreement [@terry2000] with recent quark model predictions. The result is shown in Fig.\[fig:missing\], where without this resonance the model shows only one peak near threshold, while inclusion of the new resonance leads to a second peak at $W$ slightly below 1900 MeV, in accordance with the new [SAPHIR]{} data.
In the case of $K^0\Sigma^+$ photoproduction we find that a better agreement with experimental data can be achieved by including the $P_{13}(1720)$ resonance. As shown in Fig.\[fig:p13role\] the inclusion of this state does not influence the $K^+\Sigma^0$ channel appreciably, in contrast to the other three $K\Sigma$ channels, where the prominent effect is found in the $K^0\Sigma^+$ channel. This is due both to the isospin coefficient which enhances the $P_{13}(1720)\to K^0\Sigma^+$ decay over the $P_{13}(1720)\to K^+\Sigma^0$ coupling and the very different structure of the Born terms in $K^0$ photoproduction. The extracted fractional decay width is found to be consistent with the prediction of the quark model, whose magnitude is almost one order smaller than the value given by Particle Data Group [@mart_p13].
Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn Sum Rule
------------------------------
The Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn (GDH) sum rule [@gdh] relates the anomalous magnetic moment of the nucleon $\kappa_N$ to its excitation spectrum in the resonance region by an integral. Previous analyses on pion photoproduction multipole amplitudes show a discrepancy between theoretical prediction and indirect experimental investigations of the GDH sum rule [@karliner]. Here we calculate the contribution of kaon photoproduction processes to the GDH sum rule by using our isobar model.
In our previous calculation [@suharyo99], we have fixed the upper limit of integration at 2.2 GeV. Exact formulation was obtained by integrating the structure function $\sigma_{\rm TT'}$, and an approximation of the upper bound of integral is achieved by calculating total cross section $\sigma_{\rm T}$. We obtained a value of $\kappa^2_{p} (K) = -0.063$ and $\kappa^2_{n} (K) = 0.031$. Note that although this is relatively small, the result is consistent with the Karliner’s work [@karliner].
In order to improve our GDH calculation we increase the upper limit of integration to higher energies. For the present, we use the Regge model given in Ref.[@glv] to calculate the cross sections in the energy region between 5 and 15 GeV. The result is shown in Fig.\[fig:glv\], where it is clear that contributions from higher energies are very small. Nevertheless, the important message here is the convergence of $\sigma_{\rm TT'}$ which indicates the convergence of the integral in the case of kaon. In the future, we will improve our model by reggeizing the $t-$channel intermediate state. Some preliminary results have been reported in Ref. [@kek].
[9]{} F. X. Lee, T. Mart, C. Bennhold, and L. E. Wright, nucl-th/9907119 (1999);\
T. Mart, C. Bennhold, and C. E. Hyde-Wright, Phys. Rev. C 51 (1995) R1074. H. Haberzettl, C. Bennhold, T. Mart, and T. Feuster, Phys. Rev. C 58 (1998) R40. S. Capstick and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 074011. T. Mart and C. Bennhold, Phys. Rev. C 61 (2000) 012201(R). M. Q. Tran [*et al*]{}., Phys. Lett. B 445 (1998) 20. S. Goers [*et al*]{}., Phys. Lett. B 464 (1999) 331. ABBHHM Collaboration, Phys. Rev. 188 (1969) 2060. T. Mart, Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000) 038201. S.B. Gerasimov, Yad. Fiz. 2 (1965) 598; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 2 (1966) 430;\
S.D. Drell and A.C. Hearn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 908. I. Karliner, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 2717. S. Sumowidagdo and T. Mart, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 028201. M. Guidal, J.-M. Laget, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Nucl. Phys. A627 (1997) 645. T. Mart, S. Sumowidagdo, C. Bennhold, and H. Haberzettl, nucl-th/0002036 (2000).
[^1]: Supported in part by the University Research for Graduate Education (URGE) grant.
[^2]: Supported in part by US DOE with grant no. DE-FG02-95ER-40907
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a detailed analysis of methods to reduce statistical errors and excited-state contamination in the calculation of matrix elements of quark bilinear operators in nucleon states. All the calculations were done on a 2+1 flavor ensemble with lattices of size $32^3 \times
64$ generated using the rational hybrid Monte Carlo algorithm at $a=0.081$ fm and with $M_\pi=312$ MeV. The statistical precision of the data is improved using the all-mode-averaging method. We compare two methods for reducing excited-state contamination: a variational analysis and a 2-state fit to data at multiple values of the source-sink separation ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. We show that both methods can be tuned to significantly reduce excited-state contamination and discuss their relative advantages and cost effectiveness. A detailed analysis of the size of source smearing used in the calculation of quark propagators and the range of values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ needed to demonstrate convergence of the isovector charges of the nucleon to the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\to
\infty $ estimates is presented.
author:
- Boram Yoon
- Rajan Gupta
- Tanmoy Bhattacharya
- Michael Engelhardt
- Jeremy Green
- Bálint Joó
- 'Huey-Wen Lin'
- John Negele
- Kostas Orginos
- Andrew Pochinsky
- David Richards
- Sergey Syritsyn
- Frank Winter
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Controlling Excited-State Contamination in Nucleon Matrix Elements'
---
Introduction {#sec:into}
============
The ability to obtain precise estimates of matrix elements of bilinear quark operators within a nucleon state will allow us to probe a number of phenomenologically interesting quantities. These include (i) the isovector and flavor diagonal charges $g_A$, $g_S$ and $g_T$; (ii) the electric, magnetic and axial vector form factors; (iii) generalized parton distribution functions (GPDs); (iv) the nucleon sigma term; (v) strangeness of the nucleon and (vi) the matrix elements of novel CP violating operators and their contributions to the neutron electric dipole moment. Large scale simulations of lattice QCD provide the best known method for obtaining precise results with control over all sources of errors. In this work we investigate the all-mode-averaging method for improving the statistical precision of the calculations and compare two methods for mitigating excited-state contamination in the results.
The methodology for the lattice QCD calculations of the various matrix elements within the nucleon is well developed for most of these quantities [@Lin:2012ev; @Syritsyn:2014saa; @Green:2014vxa; @Constantinou:2014tga; @Bhattacharya:2015wna]. Generation of background gauge configurations with (2+1) or (2+1+1) flavors is now standard. In these, the strange and the charm quark masses are fixed to their physical values and the two light quark masses are varied towards their physical values [@Bazavov:2012xda]. In this work on nucleon charges, we use 2+1 flavor configurations generated with the clover-Wilson action. In general, all zero-momentum observables ${\cal O}(a, M_\pi, M_\pi L)$ are calculated as functions of the lattice spacing $a$, the light quark mass characterized by the pion mass $M_\pi$, and the lattice size $L$ expressed in dimensionless units of $M_\pi L$. Physical results are then obtained by taking the continuum limit ($a\rightarrow 0$), the physical pion mass limit ($M_{\pi^0} = 135$ MeV) and the infinite volume limit ($M_\pi L \rightarrow \infty$). Since most lattice QCD simulations are done over a range of values of $\{a, M_\pi, M_\pi L \}$, the above three limits are best taken simultaneously using a combined fit in the three variables [@Bhattacharya:2015wna]. -1
The challenges to obtaining precise results for matrix elements within the nucleon ground state are the following [@Lin:2012ev; @Syritsyn:2014saa; @Green:2014vxa; @Constantinou:2014tga; @Bhattacharya:2015wna]:
- Excited-state contamination in nucleon matrix elements: Contributions of excited states to the matrix elements of operators, for example of the axial and scalar bilinear quark operators discussed in this study, can be large at values of the source-sink separation $t_{\rm sep}$ accessible with current computational resources and with nucleon interpolating operators commonly used.
- Statistics: The signal in all nucleon correlation functions degrades exponentially with the source-sink separation $t_{\rm sep}$. Thus very high statistics are needed to get a good signal at values of $t_{\rm
sep}$ at which the excited-state contamination is negligible.
- Reliable extrapolation to the continuum limit: This requires simulations at at least three values of the lattice spacing covering a sufficiently large range, such as $0.05\, {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ }}a \, {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ }}0.1$ fm.
- Chiral extrapolation: Analytic tools such as heavy baryon chiral perturbation theory used to derive the behavior of ${\cal O}(a, M_\pi,
M_\pi L)$ versus $M_\pi$ [@Bernard:2006gx; @Bernard:2006te; @deVries:2010ah] and its application to extrapolating the lattice data to the physical value are more complex and not fully resolved. It is, therefore, necessary to perform simulations close to the physical point to reduce the extrapolation uncertainty.
- Finite volume corrections: These are large in the matrix elements of bilinear quark operators in the nucleons. Past calculations show that one needs $M_\pi L {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$ }}4 $ to be in a region in which the volume dependence is small and can be fit by the leading order correction, $e^{-M_\pi L}$. Using larger lattices increases the computational cost which scales as $L^5$ for lattice generation and $L^4$ for analysis for fixed $a$ and $M_\pi a$.
In this work we focus on the first two sources of errors listed above: statistical errors and excited-state contamination. We show, by analyzing 96 low precision (LP) measurements on each of the 443 (2+1)-flavor configurations with lattice size $32^3 \times 64$, that the all-mode-averaging (AMA) error-reduction technique [@Blum:2012uh] is an inexpensive way to significantly improve the statistics (see Sec. \[sec:AMA\]). To understand and control excited-state contamination, we compare estimates from a variational analysis [@Dragos:2015ocy] to those from 2-state fits to data with multiple values of $t_{\rm sep}$. Since the focus of this work is on comparing methods, all the data presented are for the unrenormalized charges and without extrapolation to the physical point. Results for the renormalized charges will be presented in a separate study.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:Methodology\], we describe the parameters of the gauge ensemble analyzed and the lattice methodology. A discussion of statistical errors in 2-point and 3-point functions is given in Sec. \[sec:statistics\]. A comparison of the 2-state fit with multiple $t_{\rm sep}$ and the variational method for reducing excited-state contamination is given in Sec. \[sec:excited\]. cost effectiveness of the two methods in reducing excited-state contamination is discussed in Sec. \[sec:Cost\] along with a comparison with results from [@Dragos:2015ocy]. We end with some final conclusions in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
Lattice Methodology {#sec:Methodology}
===================
We analyze one ensemble of (2+1)-flavor QCD generated using the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert (clover-Wilson) fermion action with stout-link smearing [@Morningstar:2003gk] of the gauge fields and a tree-level tadpole-improved Symanzik gauge action. One iteration of the four-dimensional stout smearing is used with the weight $\rho=0.125$ for the staples in the rational hybrid Monte Carlo (RHMC) algorithm. After stout smearing, the tadpole-improved tree-level clover coefficient is very close to the non-perturbative value. This was confirmed using the Schrödinger functional method for determining the clover coefficient non-perturbatively. The strange quark mass is tuned to its physical value by requiring the ratio $(2M_{K^+}^2 -
M_{\pi^+}^2)/M_{\Omega^-}$, that is independent of the light quark masses to lowest order in $\chi$PT, take on its physical value $=0.1678$ [@Lin:2008pr]. This tuning is done in the 3-flavor theory, and the resulting value of $m_s$ is then kept fixed as the light-quark masses in the (2+1)-flavor theory are decreased towards their physical values. The lattice spacing is estimated to be $0.081$ fm from heavy baryon spectroscopy. The two light quark flavors, $u$ and $d$, are taken to be degenerate with a pion mass of roughly $312$ MeV. The lattice parameters of the ensemble studied, $a081m312$, are summarized in Table \[tab:ens\]. Further details involving the generation of these gauge configurations will be presented in a separate publication [@JLAB:2016].
Ensemble $a$ (fm) $M_\pi$ (MeV) $C_{SW}$ $L^3\times T$ $M_\pi L$
---------- ---------- --------------- ----------- ----------------- -----------
a081m312 0.081 312 1.2053658 $32^3\times 64$ 4.08
: Parameters of the (2+1) flavor clover lattices generated by the JLab/W&M Collaboration [@JLAB:2016]. The number of configurations analyzed are 443. []{data-label="tab:ens"}
The 2- and 3-point correlation functions defined in Eqs. and are constructed using quark propagators obtained by inverting the clover Dirac matrix with the same parameters as used in lattice generation. The inversion uses gauge-invariant Gaussian smeared sources constructed by applying the three-dimensional Laplacian operator $\nabla^2$ a fixed number of times $N_{\rm GS}$ to a unit point source, $i.e.$, $(1 - \sigma^2\nabla^2/(4N_{\rm
GS}))^{N_{\rm GS}}$. The smearing parameters $\{\sigma, N_{\rm
GS}\}$ for each measurement are given in Table \[tab:4runs\].
Before constructing the Gaussian smeared sources, we smoothen all the gauge links by 20 hits of stout smearing with weight $\rho=0.08$. This is done to reduce the noise in the correlation functions due to fluctuations in the source. In a related calculation described in Ref. [@Syritsyn:2009mx], it was shown that the variance in the rms radius of the smeared source is significantly reduced with both APE and Wuppertal smoothening of the links. This reduction in variance displayed a very steep fall off with the number of smoothening steps and most of the improvement was achieved at the end of 10–15 hits. A similar improvement is expected with the stout smearing. Because stout smearing is a tiny overhead in our calculation, we conservatively choose a larger number, 20 hits, to achieve close to the asymptotic benefit. In Fig. \[fig:stout\], we show the result of our test using 100 configurations and the AMA setup (for notation and details see below): the reduction in errors with 20 stout hits is almost a factor of three in the nucleon effective mass data and about 50% in the pion effective mass data for both $S_5S_5$ and $S_9S_9$ 2-point functions. A related demonstration of the improvement in the nucleon effective mass data due to smoothening the links and using smeared quark sources has previously been discussed in Ref. [@Bulava:2009jb]. These test calculations have not been extended to 3-point functions, nevertheless, one expects a similar level of improvement.
Throughout this paper, the notation $S_i S_j$ will be used to denote a calculation with source smearing $\sigma=i$ and sink smearing $\sigma=j$. Varying the parameter $N_{\rm GS}$ over the values shown in Table \[tab:4runs\] did not impact any of the results, so it is dropped from further discussions. The notation V357 implies a $3 \times 3$ variational analysis with $\sigma=3,\ 5, \ 7$.
In this paper we present a detailed analysis with two goals: First, to demonstrate that high precision estimates for the charges and the form-factors can be achieved cost effectively using the all-mode-averaging (AMA) method [@Blum:2012uh]. The second goal is to compare the 2-state fit to data at multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ and variational methods [@Dragos:2015ocy] to determine the best strategy for controlling excited-state contamination in the matrix elements.
Lattice Parameters of the 4 Calculations {#sec:tuning}
----------------------------------------
We analyze 4 high statistics simulations (labeled runs R1–R4) carried out on the $a081m312$ lattices. We explore the efficacy of using quark propagators with different smearing parameters to reduce the excited-state contamination and obtain estimates in the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ limit. We compare three strategies for reducing excited-state contamination: optimizing the smearing parameters to reduce excited-state contamination in correlation functions; using the 2-state fit to correlation functions with data at multiple values of the source-sink separation $t_{\rm sep}$ (see Sec. \[sec:2state\]); and the variational method using a matrix of correlation functions constructed using up to three smearings as discussed in Sec. \[sec:var\]. The lattice parameters used in these four runs are summarized in Table \[tab:4runs\].
These four runs allow us to make four comparisons to understand, calculate and mitigate the excited-state contributions: (R1) a 2-state fit to data with smearing $\sigma=5$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 10, 12, 14,
16, 18$; (R2) a variational calculation with a $3\times 3$ matrix of correlation functions constructed using $\sigma=3,5,7$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 12 \approx 1$ fm; (R3) a variational calculation with a $3\times 3$ matrix of correlation functions constructed using $\sigma=5,7,9$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 12$; and (R4) a 2-state fit to data with smearing $\sigma=9$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 10, 12, 14, 16, 18$. In the analysis of runs R2 and R3, we also present results from the three $2 \times 2$ submatrices.
In each run, 96 low precision (LP) measurements were made on each of the 443 configurations that are separated by 10 RHMC trajectories. In three of the four runs (R1, R3 and R4), we also carried out 3 high precision (HP) measurements on each configuration to correct for possible bias in the LP calculation. As shown later, we find no significant indication of a bias in any of these three calculations, so we did not perform HP measurements in the case of R2 and give the mean values obtained from just the LP measurements as our final estimates.
ID Method Analysis Smearing Parameters $t_{\rm sep}$ LP HP
---- -------- ---------- ------------------------------------- ---------------- ---- ----
R1 AMA 2-state $\{5,60\}$ 10,12,14,16,18 96 3
R2 LP VAR $\{3,22\}$, $\{5,60\}$, $\{7,118\}$ 12 96
R3 AMA VAR $\{5,46\}$, $\{7,91\}$, $\{9,150\}$ 12 96 3
R4 AMA 2-state $\{9,150\}$ 10,12,14,16,18 96 3
We caution the reader that some of the measurements have been made more than once in the different runs. The two calculations with smearing parameters $\{5,60\}$ (R1) and $\{5,60\}$ (part of R2) are identical. The two sets $\{5,60\}$ and $\{7,118\}$ (part of R2) and $\{5,46\}$ and $\{7,91\}$ (part of R3) differ in the number of iterations $N_{\rm GS}$ of the Klein-Gordon smearing operator and the choice of the location of the LP sources. Over the range investigated, we find that the results are insensitive to the value of $N_{\rm GS}$ and henceforth characterize the smearing by the single parameter $\sigma$. Different choices of the 96 randomly selected LP source positions on each configuration implies a different average over the gauge fields and the resulting difference provides a check on our estimation of the statistical errors. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:S9compareStats\] using data for $g_A$ with $\sigma = 9$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 12$ obtained from runs R3 and R4. Our final variational result V579 is also shown for comparison. We find that the difference in results from the two choices of LP source positions is comparable to our estimate of the statistical errors in the two measurements and the error in the V579 estimate, i.e., our estimation of errors is realistic.
![Comparison of estimates of unrenormalized $g_A$ obtained with $\sigma = 9$ and $t_{\rm sep} = 12$ from the two different ‘ runs R3 and R4. The choice of the 96 LP source positions on each configuration is different in the two runs and the resulting difference in estimates is consistent with our estimate of statistical errors. The gray error band and the solid line within it is the V579 variational estimate discussed in the text. []{data-label="fig:S9compareStats"}](gA_D5_r3_r4_s9){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Correlation Functions {#sec:CorrelationFunctions}
---------------------
The interpolating operator $\chi$ used to create and annihilate the nucleon state is $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(x) = \epsilon^{abc} \left[ {q_1^a}^T(x) C \gamma_5
\frac{(1 \pm \gamma_4)}{2} q_2^b(x) \right] q_1^c(x)
\label{eq:nucl_op}\end{aligned}$$ with color indices $\{a, b, c\}$, charge conjugation matrix $C = \gamma_0 \gamma_2$, and the two different flavors of light quarks $q_1$ and $q_2$. The non-relativistic projection $(1 \pm \gamma_4)/2$ is inserted to improve the signal, with the plus and minus sign applied to the forward and backward propagation in Euclidean time, respectively. The 2-point and 3-point nucleon correlation functions at zero momentum are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf C}_{\alpha \beta}^{\text{2pt}}(t)
&= \sum_{\mathbf{x}}
\langle 0 \vert \chi_\alpha(t, \mathbf{x}) \overline{\chi}_\beta(0, \mathbf{0})
\vert 0 \rangle \,,
\label{eq:corr_funs2}
\\
{\mathbf C}_{\Gamma; \alpha \beta}^{\text{3pt}}(t, \tau)
&= \sum_{\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{x'}}
\langle 0 \vert \chi_\alpha(t, \mathbf{x}) \mathcal{O}_\Gamma(\tau, \mathbf{x'})
\overline{\chi}_\beta(0, \mathbf{0})
\vert 0 \rangle \,,
\label{eq:corr_funs3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the spinor indices. The source time slice $t_i$ is translated to $t_i=0$; $t_f=t$ is the sink time slice; and $\tau$ is the time slice at which the bilinear operator $\mathcal{O}_\Gamma^q(x) = \bar{q}(x) \Gamma q(x)$ is inserted. The Dirac matrix $\Gamma$ is $1$, $\gamma_4$, $\gamma_i \gamma_5$ and $\gamma_i \gamma_j$ for scalar (S), vector (V), axial (A) and tensor (T) operators, respectively. Here, subscripts $i$ and $j$ on gamma matrices run over $\{1,2,3\}$, with $i<j$. The charges $g_\Gamma^q$ in the nucleon state $\vert N(p, s) \rangle$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle N(p, s) \vert \mathcal{O}_\Gamma^q \vert N(p, s) \rangle
= g_\Gamma^q \bar{u}_s(p) \Gamma u_s(p)\end{aligned}$$ with spinors satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_s u_s(\mathbf{p}) \bar{u}_s(\mathbf{p}) = {{\text{$\not \! p$}} + m_N} \,.
$$ To analyze the data, we construct the projected 2- and 3-point correlation functions $$\begin{aligned}
C^{\text{2pt}}(t) & = {\langle \operatorname{Tr}[ \mathcal{P}_\text{2pt} {\mathbf C}^{\text{2pt}}(t) ] \rangle} \nonumber \\
C_{\Gamma}^{\text{3pt}}(t, \tau) & = \langle \operatorname{Tr}[ \mathcal{P}_{\rm 3pt} {\mathbf C}_{\Gamma}^{\text{3pt}}(t, \tau) ]\rangle \, .
\label{eq:3pt_2pt_proj}\end{aligned}$$ The operator $\mathcal{P}_\text{2pt} = (1+\gamma_4)/2$ is used to project on to the positive parity contribution for the nucleon propagating in the forward direction. For the connected 3-point contributions, $\mathcal{P}_{\rm 3pt} =
\mathcal{P}_\text{2pt}(1+i\gamma_5\gamma_3)$ is used. Note that the 3-point function in Eq. becomes zero if $\Gamma$ anti-commutes with $\gamma_4$, so only $\Gamma = 1$, $\gamma_4$, $\gamma_i \gamma_5$ and $\gamma_i \gamma_j$ elements of the Clifford algebra survive. To extract the charges, we make 2-state fits to the 2- and 3-point correlation functions defined in Eq. as described next.
Behavior of the Correlation Functions {#sec:2state}
-------------------------------------
Our goal is to extract the matrix elements of the various bilinear quark operators between ground state nucleons. The lattice operator $\chi$, given in Eq. , couples not only to the nucleon but to all its excitations and multiparticle states with the same quantum numbers that are allowed on the lattice. The correlation functions, therefore, get contributions from all these intermediate states. Using spectral decomposition, the behavior of the 2- and 3-point functions is given by the expansion: $$\begin{aligned}
C^\text{2pt}
&(t_f,t_i) = \nonumber \\
&{|{\cal A}_0|}^2 e^{-M_0 (t_f-t_i)} + {|{\cal A}_1|}^2 e^{-M_1 (t_f-t_i)} \nonumber \\
&+ \ldots \,,\nonumber \\
C^\text{3pt}_{\Gamma}&(t_f,\tau,t_i) = \nonumber\\
& |{\cal A}_0|^2 \langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0 \rangle e^{-M_0 t_{\rm sep}} +{}\nonumber\\
& |{\cal A}_1|^2 \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle e^{-M_1 t_{\rm sep}} +{}\nonumber\\
& {\cal A}_0{\cal A}_1^* \langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle e^{-M_0 (\tau-t_i)} e^{-M_1 (t_f-\tau)} +{}\nonumber\\
& {\cal A}_0^*{\cal A}_1 \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0 \rangle e^{-M_1 (\tau-t_i)} e^{-M_0 (t_f-\tau)} \nonumber \\
& + \ldots \,,
\label{eq:2pt_3pt}\end{aligned}$$ where we have shown all the contributions from the ground and one excited state. For simplicity, all the source positions are shifted to $t_i=0$, and in 3-point functions, the source-sink separation $t_f - t_i \equiv {\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. The states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ represent the ground and “first” excited nucleon states, respectively. Throughout the paper it will be understood that, in practice, fits using Eq. lump the contributions of all excited states into these two states, so demonstrating convergence of the estimates with respect to $t_{\rm sep}$ is important.
To extract the charges $g_A$, $g_S$, $g_T$ and $g_V$, we only need operator insertion at zero momentum, in which case ${\cal
A}_0$ and ${\cal A}_1$ are real and the matrix element $\langle 0 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle = \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0
\rangle$.[^1] Thus, keeping one excited state in the analysis requires extracting seven parameters from fits to the 2- and 3-point functions.[^2] We use Eqs. for the analysis of all the charges and form factors and call it the “2-state fit”.
Five of the seven parameters, $M_0$, $M_1$ and the three matrix elements $\langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0 \rangle \equiv g_\Gamma$, $\langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle $ and $ \langle 1 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$ are physical provided the discretization errors and higher excited-state contaminations have been removed. The amplitudes ${\cal A}_0$ and ${\cal A}_1$ depend on the choice of the interpolating nucleon operator and/or the smearing parameters used to generate the smeared sources. It is evident from Eq. that the ratio of the amplitudes, ${\cal
A}_1/{\cal A}_0$, is the quantity to minimize in order to reduce excited-state contamination as it determines the relative size of the overlap of the nucleon operator with the first excited state.[^3]
We first estimate the four parameters, $M_0$, $M_1$, ${\cal A}_0$ and ${\cal A}_1$ from the 2-point function data and then use these as inputs in the extraction of matrix elements from fits to the 3-point data. Both of these fits, to 2- and 3-point data, are done within the same jackknife process to take into account the correlations between the errors. We performed both correlated and uncorrelated fits to the nucleon 2- and 3-point function data. In all cases in which the correlated fits were stable under changes in the fit ranges the two fits gave overlapping estimates. The final analysis of the 2-point function data used correlated $\chi^2$ fits. Since correlated fits to 3-point functions with multiple $t_{\rm sep}$ did not work in some cases, we used uncorrelated $\chi^2$ for 3-point fits for uniformity. The errors in both 2- and 3-point correlation functions have been calculated using a single elimination jackknife method.
To extract the three matrix elements $\langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma |
0 \rangle \equiv g_\Gamma$, $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0
\rangle$ and $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$ from the 3-point functions for each operator $\mathcal{O}_\Gamma =
\mathcal{O}_{A,S,T,V}$ insertion, we make one overall fit using the data at all values of the operator insertion time $\tau$ and the various source-sink separations $t_{\rm sep}$ using Eq. . In practice, in all the fits, we neglect the data on the 3 points on either end, adjacent to the source and the sink, of the 3-point functions for each $t_{\rm sep} $ as they have the largest excited-state contamination. To the extent that the central values of $\tau$ dominate the 2-state fit, Eq. , to data at a single ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$, the contributions of all higher states vanish in the limit $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$. We extract this limit using the 2-state fit to data at multiple values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ in the range 0.8–1.4 fm. Also, as is evident from Eq. , the contribution of the matrix element $\langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$ cannot be isolated from fits to 3-point function data obtained at a single finite value of $t_{\rm sep}$.
Post facto, using Eq. and reliable estimates of $\langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle $, $ \langle 1 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$, the mass gap $M_1-M_0$, and the ratio ${\cal A}_1/{\cal A}_0$ one can bound the size of the excited-state contamination at central values of $\tau$ for a given source-sink separation $t_{\rm sep}$.
The variational Method {#sec:var}
----------------------
One can also reduce excited-state contamination by implementing a variational analysis (see [@Dragos:2015ocy] and references therein for previous use of the variational method for calculating nucleon matrix elements).[^4] This can be done by calculating 2-point and 3-point functions in two ways by (i) using a basis of nucleon interpolating operators with different overlap with the ground and excited states. The operator given in Eq. is one such operator. (ii) Constructing multiple correlation functions with the same interpolating operator but defined with smeared quark fields using a number of different smearing sizes. In this work, we explore the second method in runs R2 and R3. In each of these two runs, the calculation is done using three different smearing parameters $S_i$ summarized in Table \[tab:4runs\]. The 2-point correlation function for the nucleon at each time $t$ is then a $3 \times 3$ matrix, $G^{\rm
2pt}_{ij}(t)$, made up of correlation functions defined in Eqs. , and with source smearing $S_i$ and sink smearing $
S_j$. The best overlap with the ground state is given by the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ obtained from the generalized eigenvalue relation [@Fox:1981xz]: $$\begin{aligned}
G^{\rm 2pt}(t+\Delta t) u_i = \lambda_i G^{\rm 2pt}(t) u_i \,,
\label{eq:EV}\end{aligned}$$ where $u_i$ are the eigenvectors with eigenvalues $\lambda_i$. The matrix $G^{\rm 2pt}(t)$ at each $t$ should be symmetric up to statistical fluctuations, so we symmetrize it by averaging the off-diagonal matrix elements. To select the $t$ and $\Delta t$ to use in the analysis, we show in Fig. \[fig:Mfromeigenvalue\] the nucleon mass $M_N(\lambda_0) = -
(\ln \lambda_0)/\Delta t$ obtained from the ground state eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ for a range of combinations. The criteria we used for choosing the $t$ and $\Delta t$ used in the final analysis are: (i) the interval should be sensitive to both the ground and the excited states, (ii) the correlation functions should exhibit a good statistical signal over this range, (iii) the estimate of $M_N$ from $\lambda_0$ should be close to the final estimate of the ground state mass, and (iv) the resulting 2-state fit to the projected 2-point function should have a small value for the ratio ${\cal A}_1/{\cal
A}_0$. Data in Fig. \[fig:Mfromeigenvalue\] show that $M_N$ starts to plateau towards its asymptotic value for $t {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$ }}5$ and the errors show a significant decrease for $\Delta t > 2$. These trends still leave a number of “equally” good choices based on our four criteria, for example, $t=6$ and $\Delta t=3$ or $t=5$ and $\Delta
t=4$. We selected $t=6$ and $\Delta t = 3$.
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
With a good estimate of $u_0$, the expectation is that the ground state, in the projected functions $u_0^T G^{\rm 2pt}(t) u_0$ dominates at earlier $t$. In Fig. \[fig:N2ptV357\], we compare the behavior of the nucleon effective mass obtained from correlation functions with different smearing and with the projected variational V357 and V579 data. We find that as the smearing size $\sigma$ is increased, the plateau sets in at earlier time (top panel). The V357 data are a little below $S_7 S_7$ (middle panel) while V579 overlap with $S_9
S_9$ (bottom panel). In Fig. \[fig:M1eff\], we compare the effective mass plot for the excited state, i.e., that obtained by subtracting the ground state result from the nucleon correlation function. Estimates of $M_1$ increase from $S_5 S_5$ to $S_9 S_9$ to V579, indicating that the contribution of higher excited states becomes larger as more of the first excited state is removed. Also, the excited state signal in V579 dies out by $t \approx 8$. This behavior of $M_1$ informed our choice $t =6$ and $\Delta t=3$ with which we estimated the eigenvectors $u_i$.
![Plot of the effective mass for the excited state evaluated from the $S_5 S_5$, $S_9 S_9$ and V579 nucleon correlation functions after subtraction of the respective ground state fit. []{data-label="fig:M1eff"}](effmass_proton_excited_D5_S5_S9_V579){width="0.98\linewidth"}
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
Similarly, in the variational analysis for the 3-point functions $C^{\rm 3pt}(\tau,t_{\rm sep})$, from which various charges are extracted, the data at each $\tau$ and ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ are $3\times 3$ matrices. The ground state estimate is obtained by projecting these matrices $G^{\rm 3pt}$ using the $u_0$ estimated from the 2-point variational analysis, Eq. , i.e., $u_0^{T} G^{\rm
3pt}(\tau,t_{\rm sep}) u_0$. We use the eigenvectors determined with $t=6$ and $\Delta t=3$ for projecting the 3-point data at all $\tau$. These projected data define the variational 3-point function that is then fit using the 2-state ansatz given in Eq. , but with the $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma
| 1 \rangle$ term set to zero, to obtain the charges. Note that the eigenvectors $u_i$ do not depend on $t_{\rm sep}$. Also, we use the same $u_0$ for all $\tau$.
To understand the sensitivity of this projected 3-point data to our choice $t=6$ and $\Delta t=3$ for estimating $u_0$, we show $g_A$ data for 5 representative combinations, that satisfy our selection criteria, in Fig. \[fig:gAvsDeltat\]. We find that all five give estimates are consistent and have errors of roughly the same size. Estimates from the combination $\{t,\Delta t\} = \{4,2\}$ and $\{4,4\}$ are about $0.5\sigma$ below the other three, $\{5,4\}$, $\{6,3\}$ and $\{6,5\}$. We consider the latter three to be equally good choices.
In the variational analysis carried out using data at a single $t_{\rm sep}$, the signal for a reduction in the excited-state contamination in the projected correlation function is a larger flatter plateau, i.e., it should show less dependence on the operator insertion time $\tau$ compared to a correlation function with the same $t_{\rm sep}$ but with a single smeared source. We illustrate this feature using the data from R2 for $g_A$ in Fig. \[fig:R2R3compVar\].[^5] The four variational estimates have a larger plateau and a larger value compared to $S_5
S_5$ with $t_{\rm sep} = 12$. This improvement is less obvious when comparing V579 to the $S_9 S_9$ data because, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:excited\], $S_9 S_9$ has much smaller contributions from the excited states and has a plateau comparable in extent to V579.
If $ \langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$ is the dominant contamination, one can also set up and solve an optimization condition using the $3 \times 3$ matrix of 3-point data $M(\tau) \equiv
\operatorname{Tr}[{\cal P}_\Gamma C_\Gamma^{\rm 3pt}(t_{\rm sep}, \tau)]$. In this case, one needs to determine the projection vector $\zeta$ such that $\zeta^{T} M(\tau) \zeta$ is insensitive to $\tau$. Again, to be sensitive to excited states in the determination of $\zeta$, one needs to choose $\tau$ in a region where the excited-state effect is significant. Also, a good estimate of $\zeta$ should make the projected correlation function flatter. This analysis, in general, needs to be done separately for each charge. We have not carried out this more elaborate analysis.
Test of the coherent sequential source method {#sec:coherent}
---------------------------------------------
The coherent sequential source method is a technique to reduce computational cost in the connected 3-point functions [@Bratt:2010jn]. It relies on the observation that for a large enough lattice independent measurements can be made using a distributed array of sources. Then, instead of calculating a separate sequential propagator from each sink, a single coherent sequential propagator may be calculated from the sum of all the sink source points.
In our calculations on the $a081m312$ lattices, the signal in the nucleon 2-point function becomes poor for $t > 16$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:N2ptV357\]. We, therefore, partition the lattice with Euclidean time extent $T=64$ into three sublattices of length $21$ ($(T/3)_{\rm int}$) [@Yamazaki:2009zq]. We calculate the 2- and 3-point functions on the three sublattices of a given lattice in a single computer job. We start by calculating three quark propagators from randomly selected source positions on the time slices $t_i = r,\ r + 21$ and $ r + 42$, where $r \in \{1-21\}$. (To decrease correlations, $r$ is offset by 9 time slices between successive configurations). The three measurements of the 2-point functions are made using these three independently calculated propagators. The calculation of the 3-point functions is done by inserting a zero-momentum nucleon state at Euclidean times $t_f = t_i
+ t_{\rm sep}$ using these propagators and the interpolating operator given in Eq. . These nucleon states at the three sink time slices $t_f$ have uncontracted spin and color indices, associated with either the $u$ or the $d$ quark in the nucleon interpolating operator. These states are used as sources to generate the corresponding $u$ and $d$ sequential propagators. An illustration of the construction of these three sources in different parts of the lattice is shown in Fig. \[fig:3sources\].
![Illustration of the construction of the sequential sources, $u_i$, for each spin and color component of the $u$ quark in three well-separated regions of the lattice. The insertion of the neutron at each of the three sink time slices $t_f$ is done using quark propagators $P_i$ generated independently from three initial time slices $t_i$. The three sources, $u_i^{\rm seq}$, are then added to produce the coherent sequential source. []{data-label="fig:3sources"}](coherent_seq_src3){width="0.98\linewidth"}
![Illustration of the construction of the 3-point function in the first of the three regions using the coherent sequential source propagator, $P^{\rm seq}$. The original propagator, $P$, from the source $u$ at $t_i^1$ is contracted with the quark bilinear operator at an intermediate time $\tau$ marked with a cross and $P^{\rm seq}$ from the sequential source $u$ at $t_f^1$. The contributions of the other two sources to $P^{\rm seq}$ are shown by the black dotted lines and average to zero by gauge invariance because the 3 sources are not connected by either gauge links or quark lines. []{data-label="fig:coherent"}](coherent_seq_prop){width="0.98\linewidth"}
To obtain the 3-point function, this sequential propagator from $t_f =
t_i + t_{\rm sep}$ and the original propagator from $t_i$ are then contracted with the operator at all intermediate time slices $\tau$ between $t_i$ and $t_f$ using Eq. .
In the coherent sequential source method the three regions of the lattice are regarded as independent. Under this assumption, the three $u$ ($d$) sources with nucleon insertion at $r+t_{\rm sep}$, $r+21+t_{\rm sep}$ and $r+42+t_{\rm sep}$ can be added before the inversion for creating the sequential $u$ ($d$) propagators, respectively. Such a summed source is called a coherent source [@Bratt:2010jn] and using it reduces the computational cost from $N_{\rm meas}+2\times N_{\rm meas}$ to $N_{\rm meas} + 2$ inversions when $N_{\rm meas}$ measurements are done at the same time on different parts of the lattice.
The contributions of a coherent source in the region, say $r \le t \le r+t_{\rm sep}$, is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:coherent\]. The contributions from the other two sources, shown by dotted lines, to gauge invariant correlation functions are formally zero on gauge averaging, however, they can increase the statistical fluctuations. Therefore, one has to demonstrate that for a finite statistical sample, the extra noise introduced is small so that there is an overall reduction in computational cost. The magnitude of the noise, for fixed statistics, is reduced by increasing the distance between the sources, which we accomplish by choosing $N_{\rm meas}=3$ partitions on a lattice with $T=64$.
To validate the assumption that with our coherent source construction and finite statistics, the measurements in the region, for example, $r
\le t \le r+t_{\rm sep}$ do not have significantly enhanced errors due to contributions from the nucleon sources at $r+21 + t_{\rm sep}$ and $r+42 + t_{\rm sep}$, i.e., their contribution averages to zero and there is no significant increase in the error estimates, we simulated 100 configurations with the same parameters and source/sink locations as Run 4 but without using the coherent source trick. The data for the four charges, summarized in Table \[tab:coherent\], show that (i) the difference in the mean values for the 3-point function data, averaged over these 100 configurations, is smaller than the statistical errors in all cases and (ii) there is no significant difference in the error estimates with the coherent source trick. Parenthetically, we remark that in the case of correlation functions at large momenta (needed for the form factor calculations), the differences in the means are as large as $30\%$, however, the statistical errors in these data are $O(1)$. Note that any difference or any additional noise in any of the correlation functions due to the coherent source trick is even smaller in our final analysis with the full set of 443 configurations.
Analysis $g_A$ $g_S$ $g_T$ $g_V$
------------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -----------
Coherent 1.368(50) 1.34(23) 1.132(44) 1.217(32)
No Coherent 1.377(47) 1.33(25) 1.138(44) 1.199(33)
: Comparison of estimates for the four charges with and without the coherent sequential source trick using the $S_9 S_9$ setup with a subset of 100 configurations. []{data-label="tab:coherent"}
Our overall conclusion is that with a judicious partitioning of the lattice with a large $T$ extent, the coherent sequential source method does not give rise to a detectable increase in the statistical errors for the charges. The reduction in the computational cost is significant: it reduces the number of inversions from $N_{\rm meas} + 2 \times
N_{t_{\rm sep}} \times N_{\rm meas}$ to $N_{\rm meas} + 2 \times
N_{t_{\rm sep}}$, which for $N_{\rm meas}=3$ and $N_{t_{\rm sep}}=5$ is a reduction by a factor of 2.5.
The AMA Method for High Statistics {#sec:AMA}
----------------------------------
To increase the statistics, given a fixed number of configurations, the calculation was carried out using the all-mode-averaging (AMA) technique [@Blum:2012uh] with $96$ low precision (LP) and $3$ high precision (HP) measurements, respectively. Also, the calculations used the coherent sequential source method discussed in Sec. \[sec:coherent\] to reduce the computational cost. To implement these methods, we carried out three measurements on a given configuration at the same time. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:coherent\], the three starting source points were placed on three time slices $t_i = r$, $r+21$ and $r+42$ and offset by 9 time slices between successive configurations to improve decorrelations.
The locations of the 32 LP source points on each of these three time slices $t_i$ were selected as follows to reduce correlations: the first point was selected randomly and the remaining 31 points were offset by multiples of $N_x=16$, $N_y=8$ and $N_z=8$. The resulting 96 LP estimates for 2- and 3-point functions from these sources are, [*a priori*]{}, biased since the Dirac matrix is inverted with a low precision stopping criterion. To remove this bias, we place an additional high precision (HP) source on each of the 3 time slices from which we calculate both LP and HP correlation functions. Thus, in our implementation of the AMA method, $93+3$ LP and 3 HP measurements were done on each configuration for runs R1, R3 and R4. In R2, no HP measurements were made and the results are averages over the 96 LP measurements.
Using HP and LP correlators on each configuration, the bias corrected 2- and 3- point functions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
C^\text{AMA}&
= \frac{1}{N_\text{LP}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_\text{LP}}
C_\text{LP}(\mathbf{x}_i^\text{LP}) \nonumber \\
+& \frac{1}{N_\text{HP}} \sum_{i=1}^{N_\text{HP}} \left[
C_\text{HP}(\mathbf{x}_i^\text{HP})
- C_\text{LP}(\mathbf{x}_i^\text{HP})
\right] \,,
\label{eq:2-3pt_AMA}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_\text{LP}$ and $C_\text{HP}$ are the correlation functions calculated in LP and HP, respectively, and $\mathbf{x}_i^\text{LP}$ and $\mathbf{x}_i^\text{HP}$ are the two kinds of source positions. The bias in the LP calculation (first term) is corrected by the second term provided the correlation functions are translationally invariant, which the 2- and 3-point functions are. If the algorithm used to invert the Dirac matrix handles all modes well, $i.e.$ the HP and LP calculations from the same source point are correlated, then the error in the AMA estimate is dominated by the LP measurement and the bias correction term does not significantly increase the error.
We used the multigrid algorithm for inverting the Dirac matrix [@Babich:2010qb] and set the low-accuracy stopping criterion $r_{\rm LP} \equiv |{\rm residue}|_{\rm LP}/|{\rm source}| =
10^{-3}$ and the HP criterion to $r_{\rm HP} = 10^{-10}$. To quantify the bias, we have compared the AMA and LP estimates for both the 2- and 3-point correlation functions themselves and for the seven fit parameters $M_0$, $M_1$, ${\cal A}_0$, ${\cal A}_1$, $\langle 0 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0 \rangle$, $\langle 0 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1
\rangle $ and $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma 1 \rangle$. In each case we find that the difference between the two is a tiny fraction (few percent) of the statistical error in either.
We illustrate the size and behavior of the bias correction term in the pion and nucleon 2-point correlators as a ratio to the signal in Fig. \[fig:bias2pt\]. In the case of the nucleon 2-point function we find that the bias correction term is ${\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ }}10^{-4}$ of the signal for all $t$. In the case of the pion 2-pt function, which has the smallest errors and whose signal does not degrade with $t$, the correction term grows with $t$ but remains $<
10^{-3}$ for $t < 25$. In Fig. \[fig:bias3pt\], we show the data for the four charges. In the cases of $g_A$, $g_T$ and $g_V$, the effect is again $O(10^{-4})$. It is $O(10^{-3})$ for $g_S$ but in this case the statistical errors are also correspondingly larger. In Table \[tab:results\], we show that the results for the unrenormalized charges with and without the bias correction term are essentially identical. Based on such comparisons that have been carried out for all the correlation functions, we conclude that any possible bias in the LP calculations is negligible compared to our current statistical errors.
![The ratio of the bias correction term defined in Eq. to the AMA correlator as a function of operator insertion time $\tau$ for the four charges. We show data from both runs R1 and R4. []{data-label="fig:bias3pt"}](D5_Crxn_3pt_A "fig:"){width="0.96\linewidth"} ![The ratio of the bias correction term defined in Eq. to the AMA correlator as a function of operator insertion time $\tau$ for the four charges. We show data from both runs R1 and R4. []{data-label="fig:bias3pt"}](D5_Crxn_3pt_S "fig:"){width="0.96\linewidth"} ![The ratio of the bias correction term defined in Eq. to the AMA correlator as a function of operator insertion time $\tau$ for the four charges. We show data from both runs R1 and R4. []{data-label="fig:bias3pt"}](D5_Crxn_3pt_T "fig:"){width="0.96\linewidth"} ![The ratio of the bias correction term defined in Eq. to the AMA correlator as a function of operator insertion time $\tau$ for the four charges. We show data from both runs R1 and R4. []{data-label="fig:bias3pt"}](D5_Crxn_3pt_V "fig:"){width="0.96\linewidth"}
In current lattice QCD simulations of nucleon charges and form factors, the most computationally expensive part is the generation of lattices. Thus one wants to extract the most precise results from a fixed number of gauge configurations by having a large number of LP measurements on each configuration. To consider the cost effectiveness of the AMA method, we use the data presented in this work to compare the decrease in errors with 96 LP + 3 HP measurements versus 35 HP measurements. These two calculations have the same computational cost on these lattices because one HP measurement takes the same time as three LP ones. As discussed above, since there is no detectable difference in the values or errors between LP and HP measurements, we, therefore, use the more extensive LP data to make this comparison. In Fig. \[fig:scaling\], we show the decrease in errors with the number of LP measurements made on each gauge configuration for both the 2-point nucleon correlation function and the four charges. These errors were calculated by first averaging over randomly selected 3, 6, 12, 24 or 48 of the 96 measurements on each configuration and then performing a jackknife analysis over the 443 configurations. We find that the errors decrease by $\approx 1.4$ between LP=35 and 96, i.e., a gain in statistics by a factor of 2. The continued reduction in errors up to $96$ LP measurements is what gives a factor of 2 saving with the 96 LP + 3 HP over 35 HP measurements. This, post facto, justifies using $O(100)$ measurements on each configuration. In a related study [@Bhattacharya:2016], we found that at the physical pion mass, one HP measurement costs as much as 17 LP ones with the multigrid inverter. Thus, the cost effectiveness of the AMA method increases very significantly as the light quark masses are lowered towards their physical value.
Lastly, as discussed earlier, a second feature we incorporate in the AMA calculation to improve statistical precision by reducing correlations between measurements is to choose the source points randomly within and between configurations.
Our conclusion is that already on $M_\pi=300$ MeV lattices, the AMA method is a cost effective way to increase the statistics. Our results suggest a stronger statement for the calculation of nucleon charges and form factors: with an inverter such as multigrid that does not exhibit critical slowing down and becomes more efficient as the quark mass is reduced, using $r_{\rm LP} = 10^{-3}$ as the stopping criteria does not give rise to any significant bias compared to the statistical errors estimated from $O(100,000)$ measurements. The LP measurement should, therefore, be considered unbiased at this level of statistical precision and performing $O(100)$ measurements per configuration is cost effective.
Statistical Errors {#sec:statistics}
==================
In this section, we study the size of errors in 2- and 3-point correlation functions as a function of the smearing size $\sigma$ and the source-sink separation $t_{\rm sep}$ and compare them to those in the variational estimates.
Statistical Errors in 2-point Functions {#sec:2ptstats}
---------------------------------------
The nucleon 2-point correlation function was calculated 8 times over the course of the four runs. The resulting values of the two masses $M_0$ and $M_1$ and the amplitudes ${\cal A}_0$ and ${\cal A}_1$ are given in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\] along with the fit range $t_{\rm min}-t_{\rm max}$. All the estimates for $M_0$ are consistent within errors. Note that the two sets of $S_5 S_5$ and $S_7 S_7$ measurements from runs R2 and R3 are different because different LP source positions were used, i.e., the average over gauge field fluctuations is different. In both cases we find that the difference in the estimates is smaller than the quoted statistical errors in either measurement.
Type Fit Range $aM_0$ $aM_1$ ${\cal A}_0^2$ ${\cal A}_1^2$ ${\cal A}_1^2/{\cal A}_0^2$ $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}$
----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------
$S_5 S_5$ 4–15 0.4717(38) 0.850(40) 2.85(13)e-08 3.45(19)e-08 1.212(59) 0.86
$S_3 S_3$ 6–20 0.4720(50) 0.844(41) 6.01(41)e-07 1.54(17)e-06 2.57(19) 0.79
$S_5 S_5$ 4–15 0.4717(38) 0.850(40) 2.85(13)e-08 3.45(19)e-08 1.211(59) 0.86
$S_7 S_7$ 4–15 0.4696(44) 0.855(83) 5.50(30)e-12 4.14(53)e-10 0.752(78) 0.60
V357 2–14 0.4736(25) 1.194(47) 6.43(14)e-11 9.82(61)e-11 1.526(81) 0.59
$S_5 S_5$ 4–15 0.4709(40) 0.849(40) 2.80(14)e-08 3.41(18)e-08 1.219(60) 0.99
$S_7 S_7$ 4–15 0.4683(46) 0.854(83) 5.38(31)e-12 4.14(52)e-10 0.769(77) 0.67
$S_9 S_9$ 3–15 0.4700(32) 1.031(84) 4.70(15)e-12 4.48(66)e-12 0.95(12) 0.60
V579 2–14 0.4710(27) 1.148(55) 1.316(32)e-12 1.73(13)e-12 1.316(83) 0.60
$S_9 S_9$ 4–15 0.4652(52) 0.87(12) 4.42(29)e-12 3.25(73)e-12 0.74(13) 0.81
$S_9 S_9$ 3–15 0.4682(35) 0.986(83) 4.59(17)e-12 4.27(57)e-12 0.93(10) 0.84
$S_9 S_9$ 2–15 0.4701(27) 1.061(48) 4.70(12)e-12 4.93(27)e-12 1.05(5) 0.88
In Fig. \[fig:N2ptV357\], we compare the estimates for the effective mass, $M_{N,eff}(t+0.5) = \ln (C^{\rm 2pt}(t)/C^{\rm 2pt}(t+1))$, obtained from runs with different smearing parameters and with the variational estimates. Together with the results given in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\], we note that
- the excited-state contamination decreases with $\sigma$ over the range studied and the plateau sets in at earlier time slices, however, the errors in the data increase with $\sigma$.
- The V357 estimate of $M_{N, {\rm eff}}$ lies below $S_7 S_7$ data and the V579 values overlap with the $S_9 S_9$ data. The errors in the V357 variational data shown in Fig. \[fig:N2ptV357\] are larger than in $S_7 S_7$ but the results of the fits shown in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\] have smaller errors. The same is true for V579 versus the $S_9 S_9$ data. This is because, to get the final estimates, the V357 and V579 data are fit with a smaller $t_{\rm min}$ as shown in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\].
- Estimates of $M_0$, using the 2-state fit and the variational analysis, agree within errors in all cases as shown in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\].
- Estimates of $M_1$ from the individual 2-state fits agree, however, the variational ansatz gives a significantly larger value. This feature is found to be independent of our choice of $t$ and $\Delta t$ in the construction of the variational ansätze. This is because the estimates are being extracted with a smaller $t_{\rm min}$, so the contributions of the higher states are larger. One can see a similar behavior in the $S_9 S_9$ estimates shown for three different fit ranges in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\]. Also note that the errors in estimates from fits with a smaller $t_{\rm min}$ are smaller.
- The ratio ${\cal A}_1^2 / {\cal A}_0^2$, reducing which reduces the excited-state contamination, is found to decrease on increasing the smearing size from $\sigma=3$ to $\sigma=7$. Our estimate for $S_9
S_9$ with our best fit-range 3—15 is larger than that for $S_7 S_7$, but on using a common fit range, $4-15$, one finds a leveling off for $\sigma {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$ }}7$. This stabilization leads us to conclude that $\sigma
\approx 7$, or $\sigma \approx 0.57$ fm in physical units, is the best compromise choice between reducing the ratio ${\cal A}_1 / {\cal A}_0$ and keeping the statistical errors small.
- Two-state fits to the variational correlation functions are done with an earlier starting time slice, as they have little sensitivity to the excited-states beyond $t=6$ and become unstable for $t_{\rm min} {\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}$ }}4$. Comparing the two variational runs, we note that the ratio ${\cal A}_1^2/{\cal A}_0^2$ for V579 is smaller than for V357, similar to the trend seen in the 2-state fit.
- The data in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\] show that ${\cal A}_1^2/{\cal
A}_0^2$ increases as $t_{\rm min}$ is decreased. While, this pattern is clear for each method, it is not obvious how to compare the values between methods. Even for the same fit range, the value from the variational method is significantly larger than that from the single smearing 2-state fit even though the data suggest that the overall excited state contamination in $M_0$ and the charges is smaller. The most likely explanation is that the contributions of higher states is larger at small $t$ but these die off faster due to their larger masses.
The bottom line is that the errors in $M_0$, $M_1$, ${\cal A}_0$ and ${\cal A}_1$ shown in Table \[tab:2ptfits8\] are sensitive to the fit range, which in turn depends on $\sigma$. As the excited-state contamination is reduced, fits can be made with an earlier starting time $t_{\rm min}$ and the errors in $M_0$ and $M_1$ become smaller. However, with a smaller $t_{\rm min}$, the estimated $M_1$ and the ratio of amplitudes ${\cal A}_1^2/{\cal A}_0^2$ is larger, most likely due to the larger contribution of the higher excited states at short Euclidean times. To get estimates for $M_1$ and ${\cal A}_1$ that are insensitive to the fit range will require much more precise data to which a 3-state fit can be made.
Statistical Errors in the 3-point Functions {#sec:3ptstats}
-------------------------------------------
The errors in the charges are a combination of the statistical errors in the data for the correlation functions and the uncertainty in the fits used ($n-$state, fit-range, $\cdots$) to extract the matrix elements. This is true in both methods: the 2-state fit and the variational analysis. To exhibit the behavior of the charges as a function of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ and $\tau$, we show in Fig. \[fig:3pterrors\], and in all similar figures henceforth, the data for the 3-point function divided by the result of the 2-point fit, ${\cal A}_0^2 \exp{(-M_0
{\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits})} + {\cal A}_1^2 \exp{(-M_1 {\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits})}$. This construction of the “ratio” plot is a variant of the standard method in which the data for the 2-point function at appropriate ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$, and not the result of the fit, are used for the normalization.
In Fig. \[fig:3pterrors\], we compare the $t_{\rm sep} = 10, 12, 14$ data for the isovector charges between R1 ($\sigma = 5$) and R4 ($\sigma = 9$) runs. We find that the excited-state contamination in $g_A$ and $g_S$ is significantly reduced in the data with $\sigma =
9$, however, the errors are about 50% larger on each $t_{\rm sep}$ when compared to the $\sigma = 5$ data. In the case of $g_T$, the excited-state contamination at central values of $\tau$ is smaller than $ 5\%$ in both cases with the $\sigma = 5$ data showing a slightly smaller effect and smaller statistical errors. The data also show that the statistical errors increase by about $80\%$ for every two units of $t_{\rm sep}$. To first approximation, this holds for all four charges and for both smearing sizes. Thus, to reduce computational cost, the goal is to tune methods to get the $t_{\rm
sep} \to \infty $ estimate from simulations with the smallest $t_{\rm sep}$.
In Fig. \[fig:S5S9\], we extend this comparison to include the results of the 2-state fit. We find that the two $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$ estimates, $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$, overlap for all four charges, and the final error estimates are comparable even though the errors in the 3-point data $C^{\rm 3pt}(\tau,{\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits})$ for $S_9 S_9$ are larger. Based on the observation that the 2-state fit to the $S_5 S_5$ data gives a reliable $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty $ estimate even though the excited-state contamination is significant whereas the $S_9 S_9$ data show much smaller excited-state contamination but the fit is less reliable as the data overlap and have larger errors, we again conclude that $\sigma \approx 7$ is the best compromise choice for reducing the excited-state contamination in these charges and having small enough errors in the data at different ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ to give confidence in a 2-state fit. To improve the estimates from such 2-state fits, the statistical errors in the larger $t_{\rm sep}$ data need to be reduced.
Excited-State Contamination {#sec:excited}
===========================
The overall goal is to get the best $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimates on each ensemble for a given computational cost. In this Section, we investigate the efficacy of using different smearing parameters, the 2-state fit with data at multiple $t_{\rm sep}$ and a variational analysis towards this goal. The final results for the charges are given in Table \[tab:results\]. The overall observation is that for each of the four charges, all four estimates agree within $1 \sigma$, however, the errors in the estimates from the variational analysis V357 (V579) are about $60\%$ ($35\%$) smaller than those from $S_5 S_5$ ($S_9 S_9$), respectively.
Analysis $g_A$ $g_S$ $g_T$ $g_V$
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
$S_5 S_5$ 1.395(29) 1.15(15) 1.106(26) 1.194(19)
$S_5 S_5$\* 1.395(29) 1.15(15) 1.106(26) 1.194(19)
$S_9 S_9$ 1.368(24) 1.25(13) 1.116(20) 1.216(14)
$S_9 S_9$\* 1.369(24) 1.25(13) 1.116(20) 1.216(14)
V35 1.365(13) 1.173(60) 1.123(10) 1.213(8)
V37 1.375(15) 1.183(66) 1.114(11) 1.206(8)
V57 1.381(16) 1.189(70) 1.112(12) 1.204(9)
V357 1.386(16) 1.185(75) 1.116(13) 1.205(10)
V57 1.373(16) 1.166(78) 1.108(13) 1.207(10)
V59 1.382(17) 1.202(84) 1.113(14) 1.209(10)
V79 1.385(18) 1.214(86) 1.115(15) 1.210(11)
V579 1.386(18) 1.220(87) 1.116(15) 1.210(11)
V579\* 1.386(18) 1.220(87) 1.116(15) 1.210(11)
: Estimates of the unrenormalized charges from the four analyses. The $S_5 S_5$ data are with fits to $t_{\rm sep} = 12,
14, 16, 18$ and the $S_9 S_9$ data are with fits to $t_{\rm sep} =
10, 12, 14, 16$. The variational results are from the analyses of the $3 \times 3$ V357 and V579 and their $2\times 2 $ subsets. The results marked with an asterisk are obtained from just the LP data and given here to show that the bias correction term in the 2- and 3-point functions has negligible impact on final estimates of the charges.[]{data-label="tab:results"}
In Fig. \[fig:R2R3compVar\], we compare the variational estimates for the unrenormalized charges from runs R2 (left) and R3 (right). We also show the R1 $\sigma=5$ data with $t_{\rm sep} = 12, 14, 16$ (left) and R4 $\sigma=9$ data with $t_{\rm sep} = 10, 12, 14$ (right). We observe the following features in the variational estimates:
- The V357 and V579 estimates overlap for all the charges. The errors in the V579 estimates are marginally larger than those in V357.
- The size of the errors in the V357 and V579 data for all four charges agree with those from $S_5 S_5$ with $t_{\rm sep} = 12$ and lie in between those in the $S_9 S_9$ data with $t_{\rm sep} = 12$ and $14$.
- $g_A$: The data converge from below and the variational data also show a small increase between $V35 \to V37 \to
V57 \to V357$ with the V35 estimates being about $1\sigma$ below V357. Thus, to get estimates to within $1\%$ accuracy, we estimate that a three smearing variational analysis is needed.
- $g_S$: All the variational estimates overlap while the single smearing data converge from below. The significant curvature in the data from both methods suggests that the $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_S | 0
\rangle$ matrix element dominates the excited-state contamination. The errors in all the data and estimates for $g_S$ are about a factor of 5 larger than those in $g_A$ or in $g_T$.
- $g_T$: The data for the four combinations, V35, V37, V57 and V357 (or V59, V59, V79 and V579) overlap but the curvature in the data again points to a significant contribution from $ \langle 1 |
\mathcal{O}_T | 0 \rangle$. The data for $g_T$ converge from above. The small downward trend in $S_9 S_9$ data with increasing $t_{\rm sep}$ leads to a $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$ value that is about $0.5\sigma $ smaller than the variational estimates.
- $g_V$: No significant trends indicating excited-state contamination are observed. Statistical fluctuations dominate the error. All the estimates are consistent within errors that are $\approx 1\%$.
Our conclusion on the variational method, looking especially at the data for $g_A$, is that one needs the full $3 \times 3$ variational ansatz V357 if the smearing size is restricted to $\sigma \le 7$. In the case of V579, one finds that V79 and V579 give consistent estimates, so a $2 \times 2$ analysis may be sufficient. The conservative approach, in the absence of detailed information on the smearing sizes to use, would be to use a $3 \times 3$ variational ansatz if results with $< 2\%$ total uncertainty are desired.
In Fig. \[fig:S5S9vsVar\], we compare the estimates for the unrenormalized isovector charges $g_A$, $g_S$, $g_T$ and $g_V$ obtained from the 2-state fit to R1 data with $\sigma=5$ and $t_{\rm
sep} = [12, 14, 16, 18]$ with the R4 data with $\sigma=9$ and $t_{\rm
sep} = [10, 12, 14, 16]$. We also show the $3 \times 3$ variational estimates V357 (R2) and V579 (R3) obtained using $t_{\rm sep} = 12$. Comparing the two methods we find:
- The excited-state effect in $g_A$ in the $S_5 S_5$ data is large but the 2-state ansatz fits the data and gives a $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate that agrees with the V357 and V579 values.
- The excited-state contamination in $g_A$ is much smaller in the $S_9
S_9$ data. However, since the data with $t_{\rm sep} = 10, 12, 14$ overlap, the fit gives a $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate that is about $1\sigma $ below the V357 and V579 estimates. (It is also about $1\sigma$ below the estimate from the fit to $S_5 S_5$ data as shown in Fig. \[fig:S5S9\].) The combined one sigma difference between the overlapping $t_{\rm sep}=10,
12, 14$ data and the $t_{\rm sep}=16$ data reduces the confidence in the 2-state fit. This case highlights a generic problem: for the 2-state fit to give the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate with $< 1\%$ error, the statistics have to be large enough that the trend in the data is resolved at at least three values of $t_{\rm sep}$ .
- In lattice calculations with dynamical fermions, the factor limiting the statistics is the number of independent gauge configurations available. For a fixed statistical sample, the errors in our data increase by $\approx 80\%$ with each two units of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ as discussed previously. Consequently, the error in the 2-state fit estimate increases as data at larger ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ are included in the multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ analysis to get the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value. For example, the estimates for $g_A$, using R1 with $S_5 S_5$, are 1.353(18), 1.366(20), 1.378(22), 1.382(25), 1.395(29), and 1.424(44) with fits to ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}= [10, 12, 14]$, $[10, 12, 14, 16]$, $[10,
12, 14, 16, 18]$, $[12, 14, 16]$, $[12, 14, 16, 18]$ and $[14,
16, 18]$ data, respectively. Our best estimate, 1.395(29), is obtained by neglecting the data at ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}= 10$, which have the largest excited state contamination. In comparison, the V357 variational result with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}= 12$ is 1.386(16). We anticipate that the error in the variational method would also increase with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$.
- For $g_S$, the overall trend in the $S_5 S_5$ data with $t_{\rm sep} =
10, 12, 14, 16$ is it converges from below and show significant excited-state contamination. The $S_9 S_9$ data at each $t_{\rm sep} =
10, 12, 14, 16$ agree with V357 and V579 data. The excited-state contamination is manifest in all the data as the curvature with $\tau$. The 2-state fit to $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$ gives an estimate consistent with V357 and V579.
- For $g_T$, the 2-state fits to $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$ data with $t_{\rm sep} = [12, 14, 16, 18]$ and $t_{\rm sep} = [10, 12, 14, 16]$, respectively, give consistent results and are about $1\sigma$ below V357 and V579. Surprisingly, the $S_5 S_5$ data show smaller curvature than $S_9 S_9$ data. Overall, excited-state contamination is smaller than in $g_A$ and $g_S$ with the total variation with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ at the central value of $\tau$ being ${\raisebox{-0.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}$ }}5\%$.
- All estimates for $g_V$ are consistent within $ 1\%$ uncertainty. The largest difference is between the $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$ estimates, which is about $1\sigma$.
To summarize, our comparison shows that once good choices of the smearing sizes and $t_{\rm sep} $ are known, the two methods give reliable and consistent results but the variational estimates have smaller errors with the same statistics because they were obtained from a smaller value of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$.
The important question is the following: does the consistency of the four analyses confirm that the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\to \infty$ value has been obtained? In Fig. \[fig:gA\_one\_tsep\_fit\], we compare the trends in the estimates of $g_A$ and their errors by making independent 2-state fits with $\langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle =0 $ to data at a fixed value of $t_{\rm sep}$. We find that the estimates from the $S_5 S_5$ data increase with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. This behavior is consistent with the general trend observed in all the data—the estimate of $g_A$ converge from below. Even though the total variation between ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=10$ and $18$ estimates is less than 3$\sigma$, taken at face value, this trend would indicate that the V357 and V579 results are underestimates. On the other hand, the incremental increase with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ has to go to zero at sufficiently large ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. Unfortunately, the errors in the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\ge 16$ estimates, crucial to determining the value of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ by which the asymptotic value is reached, are too large.
The situation is not resolved by the $S_9 S_9$ data as they do not show a uniform trend—the data with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=10,\ 12$ and $14$ are flat and below V357 and V579, whereas the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=16$ and $18$ data are above but their significance is less as they have large errors. Since the differences are about one combined sigma, it is hard to quantify trends with current statistics. For example, as shown in the top right panel of Fig. \[fig:gA\_one\_tsep\_fit\], the two $S_9 S_9(12)$ data points from R3 and R4 (see Fig. \[fig:S9compareStats\] for the data versus $\tau$) differ by $1\sigma$. If we use the $S_9 S_9(12)$ point from R3 (shown with the dotted error bar) to determine the trend, we would conclude that the $S_9 S_9$ data also show a rising trend and the observed consistency of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=10,\ 12$ and $14$ estimates from R4 is a statistical fluctuation. No such fluctuation is seen in the two $S_5 S_5(12)$ data points from R1 and R3 plotted in the top left panel of Fig. \[fig:gA\_one\_tsep\_fit\].
A comparison of the estimates in Fig. \[fig:compare12\], where we plot all the results obtained from data with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=12$, shows that the errors in the V357 (V579) result are comparable to those in $S_5
S_5(12)$ ($S_9 S_9(12)$) with the same statistics but with less excited-state contamination. Equally important, the trends in the data in Figs. \[fig:gA\_one\_tsep\_fit\] and \[fig:compare12\] show that the error estimates in the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ values for $S_5
S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$, given in Table \[tab:results\], are reasonable and cover the uncertainties discussed here.
{width="0.98\linewidth"}
We compare the behavior of $g_T$ in Figs. \[fig:compare12\] and \[fig:gT\_one\_tsep\_fit\]. The overall trend, that $g_T$ converges from above, would imply that the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=10,\ 12$ and $14$ estimates from both the $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$ data are better estimates of the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value and lie about $1\sigma$ below V357 and V579 results. On the other hand, with current statistics, all the estimates are consistent within one combined $\sigma$. Note that, unlike $g_A$, the two sets of results for $S_9 S_9(12)$ and also those for $S_5 S_5(12)$ and $S_7 S_7(12)$, obtained using different source positions, are in very good agreement.
The comparison of the scalar charge $g_S$ is shown in Figs. \[fig:compare12\] and \[fig:gS\_one\_tsep\_fit\]. The data are consistent within their much larger error estimates and no trend with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ is apparent. Also, similar to the case of $g_T$, the two independent estimates of $g_S$ from $S_5 S_5(12)$, $S_7 S_7(12)$ and $S_9 S_9(12)$ are in very good agreement.
Our overall conclusion, based on the data shown in Figs. \[fig:gA\_one\_tsep\_fit\], \[fig:compare12\], \[fig:gT\_one\_tsep\_fit\] and \[fig:gS\_one\_tsep\_fit\] that compare results from fixed ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ analyses, is that the errors in the V357 (V579) estimates are similar to those in the $S_5 S_5 $ ($S_9 S_9 $) values with the same $t_{\rm
sep} = 12$, but the excited-state contamination in $g_A$ is smaller. In the case of $g_S$, the errors are large and all the estimates are consistent. There is a small but consistent trend indicating an increase in the estimates of $g_A$ and $g_S$ towards the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. The situation with $g_T$ is less clear. Considering the results for all the three charges, we again conclude that a smearing size $\sigma \approx 7$ is optimal for a 2-state fit analysis with multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. In the variational analysis, there is no significant difference between V357 and V579.
Lastly, we briefly comment on the similar behavior of excited-state contamination observed in the calculation of nucleon matrix elements and its dependence on smearing parameters and ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ by other lattice QCD collaborations [@Bali:2014nma; @Abdel-Rehim:2015owa; @Capitani:2015sba; @Djukanovic:2015hnh]. These three collaborations first use different amounts of APE smearing to smooth the links and then construct smeared sources using Wuppertal (Gaussian) smearing. A detailed comparison of their results with our analysis is not straightforward because each collaboration has used different smearing methods, smearing sizes and values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ on different ensembles. For example, translating RQCD collaboration’s [@Bali:2014nma] parameters would give smearing sizes between 0.7–0.9 fm on their various ensembles. The smearing size used by the ETMC collaboration is $\approx 0.5$ fm and they report similar excited-state contamination in the extraction of all the charges [@Abdel-Rehim:2015owa]. The Mainz group [@Capitani:2015sba; @Djukanovic:2015hnh] also tunes the smearing size to $\approx 0.5$ fm in their study of electric and magnetic form factors. Our work shows that the size of the excited-state contamination in the extraction of various charges and form factors is sensitive to the smearing parameters and values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ simulated. It is, therefore, important to demonstrate that the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\to \infty$ value has been obtained and compare errors in this limit.
Which Method is More Cost Effective? {#sec:Cost}
====================================
In the previous Sec. \[sec:excited\], we showed that both the 2-state fit with data at multiple $t_{\rm sep}$ and the variational analysis with multiple smearings can be made essentially equally effective in reducing excited-state contamination and give overlapping estimates. The errors in the variational analysis are, however, 35–60% smaller compared to the estimates from the $S_9 S_9$ 2-state analysis with multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ as shown in Table \[tab:results\]. Comparing data at fixed ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=12$ shows that the variational method yields estimates closer to the asymptotic value for $g_A$, while for $g_S$ the two estimates $S_7 S_7 (12)$ and $S_9 S_9(12) $ are as good. The trend in $g_T$ is not clear, but if the convergence from above is validated by higher precision data, then $S_7 S_7 (12)$ would be the preferred estimate. Being able to obtain the $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$ estimate from the smallest value of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ is important because the errors grow by $\approx 80\%$ for every two units of $t_{\rm sep}$.
To decide between the two methods—variational versus the 2-state fit to data at multiple $t_{\rm sep}$, we present a cost-benefit analysis assuming that the best value of the smearing parameter $\sigma$ (for example, $\sigma=7$ in this work) has already been determined using trial runs. Also, based on the discussion in Sec. \[sec:excited\], we will mostly use $g_A$, and its extrapolation to $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$, to compare the two methods as it shows large excited-state contamination. Next, based on the $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9 S_9$ data, we assume that the errors in a 2-state fit to $S_7 S_7$ data with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=10,\ 12,\ 14$ and $16 $ will be about $50\%$ larger than those from V579. Lastly, we assume that the sequential $u$ and $d$ propagators are calculated using the coherent sequential source trick with $N_{\rm meas}$ source locations being processed simultaneously on each configuration. Keeping in mind that the goal is to get the best estimate for the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value with a fixed computational cost, we count the number of inversions of the Dirac matrix required for the minimum computation in each case as follows.
- A 2-state fit with $N_{\rm tsep}$ values of $t_{\rm sep}$ requires $N_{\rm meas} + 2 \times N_{\rm tsep}$ inversions: Our analyses indicate that $N_{\rm tsep}=3$ is sufficient and $N_{\rm tsep} = 4$ allows for validation. Typical values of $N_{\rm meas}$ on lattice sizes currently being used are either 3 or 4. For $N_{\rm meas}=3$, one needs 9 inversions for $N_{\rm tsep}=3$ and 11 for $N_{\rm
tsep}=4$. Doubling the statistics to improve the fit would increase the cost to 22 inversions for $N_{\rm tsep}=4$. However, recognizing that the reduction in errors is required mainly in our ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=16$ data, doubling its statistics would increase the cost to 16 inversions.
- A variational analysis with $N_{\rm smear}$ smearings requires $N_{\rm
smear} \times N_{\rm meas} + (2 \times N_{\rm smear} \times N_{\rm
smear}) \times N_{\rm tsep}$ inversions if all combinations of the source and sink 3-point functions are calculated. Our analysis suggests that $N_{\rm smear}=3$ is needed for high precision. In that case, for $N_{\rm meas}=3$ and $N_{\rm tsep}=1$ one needs 27 inversions.
This cost can be reduced significantly if a good estimate of the eigenvector $u_0$ used for constructing the projected variational correlation function is known before starting the calculation of the 3-point functions. In that case the dot product of the $N_{\rm smear}
\times N_{\rm smear}$ matrix of zero-momentum nucleon sources at the sink with $u_0$ can be taken before the final inversion to construct the sequential propagators. This trick would reduce the number of sequential propagators to calculate from $ 2 \times N_{\rm smear}
\times N_{\rm smear}$ to $2 \times N_{\rm smear}$. For each of the $N_{\rm smear}$ projected sources, the coherent source can be constructed in the same way as before, i.e., by repeating the operation on the $N_{\rm
meas}$ time slices and adding the sources after projection using $u_0$. With this simplification, the cost is reduced to $N_{\rm smear} \times
N_{\rm meas} + (2 \times N_{\rm smear} \times N_{\rm tsep})$ inversions, which for $N_{\rm meas}=N_{\rm smear}=3$ and $N_{\rm
tsep}=1$ is 15 inversions and increases to 21 for $N_{\rm
tsep}=2$. Lastly, we anticipate, based on the $S_5 S_5$ and $S_9
S_9$ analyses showing that the errors increase by a factor of $\approx 0.8$ for increase in ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ by two units, that a similar increase would be present in the variational analysis, i.e., errors in a ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}= 14$ variational calculation, done to confirm that the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\to \infty $ value has been obtained, would be larger by a factor of $\approx 1.8$.
In Sec. \[sec:excited\], we found that estimates of $g_S$, $g_T$, and $g_V$ from a 2-state fit to just the $t_{\rm sep} = 16$ data are also compatible with those from the variational analysis but the errors are larger by a factor of about two. To raise the precision of the 2-state fit with $N_{\rm tsep} = 4$ to the level of the variational result, i.e., achieve comparable errors, we would need to roughly double the statistics. In this scenario, the computational cost of a $3 \times 3$ variational analysis with a good estimate of $u_0$ would be more cost effective (15 versus $2 \times 11=22$ inversions). However, if the statistics for only the ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}=16$ data is doubled, then the 2-state fit is equally cost effective (15 versus 16 inversions).
In the most conservative approach, assuming two values of $t_{\rm
sep}$ need to be simulated in the variational approach to demonstrate convergence to the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty $ estimate, as indicated by the discussion in Sec. \[sec:excited\], or one needs double the statistics in the 2-state state fit with $N_{\rm tsep}=4$, the two methods are again equally cost effective (21 versus 22 inversions).
The cost effectiveness of the 2-state fit method increases as the quark mass is reduced and the lattice size $T$ is increased. On our $64^3 \times 128$ lattices at $M_\pi \approx 200$ MeV we can use $N_{\rm meas}=5$ or even $6$ since the signal in the nucleon 2-point correlation function dies out by $t \approx 20$. For $N_{\rm
meas}=5$, the 2-state fit with $N_{\rm tsep} = 4$ would cost 13 inversions, while a $ N_{\rm smear}=3$ variational analysis with $t_{\rm sep}=1$ and known $u_0$ would cost 21 inversions.
A somewhat different conclusion is reached in Ref. [@Dragos:2015ocy], in which the authors claim that the variational method offers a more efficient and robust method for the determination of the nucleon matrix elements. Some of the reasons for their conclusion that the variational method is decidedly better are:
- Their calculation was done on a finer lattice with $a=0.074$ fm. Thus, to first approximation, all our length scales should be multiplied by $1.1$ when comparing with their analysis.
- The much higher statistical precision of our calculation (42,528 versus 1050 measurements) allows us to better resolve the trends in both methods.
- Their variational analysis was done with three smearing sizes, $\sigma
\approx 4.1, 5.8$ and $ 8.3$. These three sizes cover the value $\sigma=7.7$ corresponding to $\sigma \approx 0.57$ fm we consider optimal. Thus, we expect their analysis to give a good estimate with $t_{\rm sep} =13$, which, in physical units, is equivalent to the $t_{\rm sep} =12$ used in our variational analysis.
- Their 2-state fits were based on data with $\sigma \approx 4.1$ ($N_{\rm GS}=32$), for which the excited-state contamination is very large as shown in this work. With such an unoptimized value of $\sigma$ and given that their data for $g_A$ with $t_{\rm sep} = 16,
19$ and $22$ has large errors, it is not surprising that their $t_{\rm
sep} \to \infty$ estimate from a 2-state fit has much larger errors compared to their variational estimate. For the same reasons, we suspect that their 2-state fit slightly underestimates the $t_{\rm
sep} \to \infty$ value.
- They do not provide a cost estimate for the two analyses. Assuming that they constructed the full $3 \times 3$ matrix of 3-point correlation functions in their variational analysis, it is 13 versus 27 inversions for the 2-state versus the variational approach.
- They did not evaluate the change in the cost effectiveness of the two methods as the quark mass is decreased and the lattice size $T$ is increased correspondingly. With larger $N_{\rm meas}$, the relative cost effectiveness of the 2-state fit method increases.
To summarize, we have compared the two methods using the optimal smearing sizes. Our conclusion on cost effectiveness is based on the best case scenario of a tuned value of $\sigma$ for both methods and using three smearing sizes with a known result for $u_0$ in the variational analysis. We have also assumed that the same choice of the smearing parameters and $t_{\rm sep}$ are equally effective for all matrix elements. We find that both methods give results that are consistent within errors. The variational method is more cost effective if results at a single value of $t_{\rm sep}$ are sufficient to obtain the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value and a good estimate of $u_0$ is known beforehand. The 2-state fit with four values of $t_{\rm sep}$ and double the statistics at the larger ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ values has the advantage of the built in check of the convergence to the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate that can be made separately for each observable. Lastly, the cost effectiveness of the 2-state fit method increases as the lattice size $T$ is increased and the quark mass is lowered to its physical value because a larger number of measurements, $N_{\rm meas}$, can be made simultaneously on each configuration and $N_{\rm meas}$ sources at the sink timeslice added in the coherent source method to produce the sequential propagator.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have presented a high statistics study of isovector charges of the nucleon using (2+1)-flavor clover lattices generated using the RHMC algorithm. The focus of this work is to investigate methods to improve the statistical precision of the data and reduce the excited-state contamination in matrix elements of quark bilinear operators within nucleon states. We show that both the variational method and the 2-state fit with data at multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ are equally effective at reducing excited-state contamination once the smearing parameters and the values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ have been tuned.
With the current lattice parameters, our ability to conclude which method gives a more reliable estimate of the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ value and is more cost effective is limited by statistics since all the estimates are consistent within $1\sigma$ error estimates. To demonstrate that the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate has been obtained requires doing the variational calculation at two values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ and in the 2-state fit using at least 3 values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}\ge 1$ fm in both cases. The advantage of simulating multiple values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ in either method is to be able to evaluate the convergence to the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ limit as a function of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$. The cost of adding additional values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ is much less in the 2-state fit method compared to a $3 \times 3$ variational analysis.-1
For a fixed number of gauge configurations available and measurements made, the errors in the variational method with a fixed ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$($
\approx 1$ fm in our study) are consistent with those from the 2-state fit to data with the same ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ but the excited-state contamination is smaller, so it gives a better estimate of the $t_{\rm sep} \to
\infty$ limit. The error in the 2-state fit with multiple ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ method are larger because data with/at larger ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ are needed to reduce excited-state contamination and errors in the data for the 3-point functions grow rapidly with ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$.
Assuming that the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ estimate has been obtained in all four runs R1–R4 analyzed in this study with $a=0.081$ fm, $M_\pi=312$ MeV lattices of size $T=64$ and $N_{\rm meas}=3$, the $3
\times 3$ variational method is computationally more cost effective than the 2-state fit to data at four values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ because the errors are about $50\%$ smaller. The cost becomes the same if one doubles the statistics in the 2-state method to make the errors roughly equal and simulates a second ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ in the variational calculation to confirm the convergence to the $t_{\rm sep} \to \infty$ limit.
The cost effectiveness of the 2-state method increases rapidly as the light quark mass is reduced towards its physical value and the lattice size $T$ is increased correspondingly because the number of simultaneous measurements, $N_{\rm meas}$, that can be made on each configuration and benefit from the coherent sequential source method increases with $T$. Since the cost of the lattice calculations at a fixed value of the lattice spacing is dominated by the analysis of ensembles close to the physical values of the quark mass, one should carefully choose the method that is more cost effective in that limit.
Our overall conclusion is that both methods are effective in reducing the excited-state contamination and have their relative strengths. The choice depends on the number of gauge configurations available, the value of the light quark mass, the lattice size, and the effort needed to tune the smearing parameters, the eigenvector $u_0$ and the values of ${\mathop{t_{\rm sep}}\nolimits}$ adequately prior to the calculation of the 3-point functions.
R.G. thanks Jack Dragos for discussions on their variational analysis. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. The calculations used the Chroma software suite [@Edwards:2004sx]. The work of T.B., R.G. and B.Y. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics under contract number DE-KA-1401020 and the LANL LDRD program. The work of JG was supported by PRISMA Cluster of Excellence at the University of Mainz. The work of HWL is supported in part by the M. Hildred Blewett Fellowship of the American Physical Society. J. N. is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under grant Contract Number DE-SC0011090. ME is supported by DOE grant number DE-FG02-96ER40965. B.J., K.O., D.G.R., S.S. and F.W. are supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177.
[^1]: The charge $g_V$ is one for a conserved vector current. The local vector operator we are using is not conserved and only $Z_V g_V = 1$. In many of the calculations of interest we construct ratios $Z_\Gamma/Z_V$ and $g_\Gamma/g_V$ as they have a better signal due to the cancellation of some of the systematic errors [@Bhattacharya:2015wna]. We therefore include $g_V$ in the analysis.
[^2]: Including a second excited state would introduce five additional parameters, $M_2$, ${\cal A}_2$, $\langle 0 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 2 \rangle$, $\langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 2
\rangle$ and $\langle 2 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 2 \rangle$.
[^3]: With increasing precision of data, we will be able to add additional states to the ansatz. The goal will then be to reduce all the higher state amplitudes, ${\cal A}_n/{\cal A}_0$, by tuning the nucleon interpolating operator.
[^4]: A different version of the variational method, in which the sequential propagator is calculated starting at the point of insertion of the operator, is discussed in [@Owen:2012ts]. We have not explored the cost effectiveness of that approach.
[^5]: Note that the residual contribution of the matrix element $ \langle 1 | \mathcal{O}_\Gamma
| 1 \rangle$ cannot be isolated from $ \langle 0 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 0 \rangle$ by the 2-state fit to data at a single $t_{\rm sep}$. The effect of a non-zero $ \langle 1 |
\mathcal{O}_\Gamma | 1 \rangle$ is to raise or lower all the data points but not change the curvature.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The combination of the first-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data with other finer scale cosmic microwave background (CMB) experiments (CBI and ACBAR) and two structure formation measurements (2dFGRS and Lyman $\alpha$ forest) suggest a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with a running spectral power index of primordial density fluctuations. Motivated by this new result on the index of primordial power spectrum, we present the first study on the predicted lensing probabilities of image separation in a spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model with a running spectral index (RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model). It is shown that the RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model suppress the predicted lensing probabilities on small splitting angles of less than about 4$^{''''}$ compared with that of standard power-law $\Lambda$CDM (PL-$\Lambda$CDM) model.'
author:
- 'Tong-Jie Zhang'
- 'Zhi-Liang Yang'
- 'Xiang-Tao He'
bibliography:
- 'ztjcos-lensbib.bib'
title: Strong Lensing Probabilities in a Cosmological Model with a Running Primordial Power Spectrum
---
Introduction
============
Mapping the mass distribution of matter in the universe has been a major challenge for modern observational cosmology. One of the direct procedures to weigh matter in the universe is measuring its deflection of light by gravity. The statistics of gravitational lensing can provide us with a very powerful probe of the mass distribution of the Universe. It is well known that the Jodrell-Bank VLA Astrometric Survey (JVAS) and the Cosmic Lens All-Sky Survey (CLASS) [@2000IAUS..201E..47B; @2003MNRAS.341....1M; @2003MNRAS.341...13B] have provided us with observations of strong lensing probabilities for small image separations ranging from $0.3''$ to $3''$. By comparing predicted lensing probabilities with observations, we can examine the mass distributions of dark matter halos, in particular, their inner density slopes [@2004ApJ...600L...7H; @2003MNRAS.344.1237R].
Based on the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model, which has become the standard theory of cosmic structure formation, the lensing probabilities strongly depend on the density profiles of CDM halos. The lensing model is usually described by a singular isothermal sphere (SIS), the Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) model [@1996ApJ...462..563N; @1997ApJ...490..493N], or generalized NFW (GNFW) density profiles of dark halos [@1996MNRAS.278..488Z]. [@2002ApJ...566..652L] employed a semi-analytical approach to analyze the gravitational lensing of remote quasars by foreground dark halos and checked the plausibility of various lensing models. They found that no model can completely explain the current observations: the SIS models predict too many lenses with large splitting angles, while the NFW models predict too few small splitting angles. They therefore further developed a two-population halo model for lensing: small mass halos with a steep inner density slope and large mass halos with a shallow inner density slope, concluding that a combination of SIS and NFW halo models can reproduce the current observations reasonably well. Unlike previous work that directly models the density profiles of dark matter halos semi-analytically, [@2004ApJ...602L...5Z] generalized the density profiles of dark matter halos from high-resolution N-body simulations by means of generalized Navarro-Frenk-White (GNFW) models of three populations with slopes, $\alpha$, of about -1.5, -1.3 and -1.1 for galaxies, groups and clusters, respectively. He presented the calculations of lensing probabilities using these GNFW profiles for three populations in various spatially flat cosmological models with a cosmological constant $\Lambda$. He showed that the compound model of density profiles does not match well with the lensing probabilities derived from the combined data of JVAS/CLASS. Recently, [@2004astro.ph..7298M] compared predictions on small scale structure for the $\Lambda$CDM model by numerical simulations with observed flux ratios, and found that the disagreements between monochromatic flux ratios and simple lens models can be explained without any substructure in the dark matter halos of primary lenses. However, spectroscopic lensing observations of Q2237+0305 require more small mass dark halos than that expected in the $\Lambda$CDM model.
In particular, a power spectrum of primordial fluctuation, $P_p(k)$, should be assumed in advance in the calculation of lensing probabilities. Inflationary models predict a approximately scale-invariant power spectra for primordial density (scalar metric) fluctuation, $P_p(k)\propto k^n$ with index $n=1$ [@1982PhRvL..49.1110G; @1983PhRvD..28..679B]. The combination of the first-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data with other finer scale cosmic background (CMB) experiments (Cosmic Background Imager \[CBI\], Arcminute Cosmology Bolometer Array Receiver \[ACBAR\]) and two observations of large-scale structure (the Anglo-Australian Telescope Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey \[2dFGRS\] and Lyman $\alpha$ forest) favor a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with a running index of the primordial power spectrum (RSI-$\Lambda$CDM), while the WMAP data alone still suggest a best-fit standard power-law $\Lambda$CDM model with the spectral index of $n\approx 1$ (PL-$\Lambda$CDM) [@2003ApJS..148..175S; @2003ApJS..148..213P]. However, there still exist the intriguing discrepancies between theoretical predictions and observations on both the largest and smallest scales. While the emergence of a running spectral index may improve problems on small scales, there remain a possible discrepancy on the largest angular scales. It is particularly noted that the running spectral index model suppress significantly the power amplitude of fluctuations on small scales [@2003ApJS..148..175S; @2003ApJ...598...73Y]. This imply a reduction of the amount of substructure within galactic halos [@2002PhRvD..66d3003Z]. [@2003ApJ...598...73Y] studied early structure formation in a RSI-$\Lambda$CDM universe using high-resolution cosmological N-body/hydrodynamic simulations. They showed that the reduced small-scale power in the RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model causes a considerable delay in the formation epoch of low-mass minihalos ($\sim10^6 M_{\sun}$) compared with the PL-$\Lambda$CDM model, although early structure still forms hierarchically in the RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model. Thus the running index probably affect the strong lensing process of distant sources by intervening dark matter halos because the lensing probabilities strongly depend on the abundance of dark halos formed in the evolution of the universe. In this letter, we will present the first calculation of lensing probabilities in a RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model to explore the effect of running spectral index of primordial fluctuation on strong lensing probabilities. We adopt a spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model through this letter.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. We describe strong lensing probabilities and mass function of dark halos in Section 2 and 3 respectively. The cross-sections for producing multiple images are described in Section 4. Our results is shown in Section 5, while a conclusion and discussion are given in Section 6.
Strong Lensing Probability
==========================
The lensing probability with image separation larger than $\Delta\theta$ is given by [@1992grle.book.....S] $$P(>\Delta\theta)=\int p(z_s)dz_s
\int^{z_{\mathrm{s}}}_0\frac{dD_{\mathrm{p}}(z)}
{dz}dz\int^{\infty}_0\bar{n}(M,z)\sigma(M,z)dM. \label{prob}$$ In this expression, $D_{\mathrm{p}}(z)=c/H_0\int^z_0 dz/(1+z)E(z)$ is the proper distance from the observer to the lens at redshift $z$ where the expansion rate of the universe $E(z)=\sqrt{\Omega_\mathrm{m} (1+z)^3+\Omega_{\Lambda}}$ in a spatially flat cosmological model, and $p(z_s)$ is the redshift distribution of distant sources. The physical number density $\bar{n}(M,z)$ of virialized dark halos of masses between $M$ and $M+dM$ is expressed as $\bar{n}(M,z)=n(M,z)(1+z)^3$ and $\sigma(M,z)$ is the cross-section defined in the lens plane for forming multiple images.
Mass Function of Dark Halos
===========================
In the standard hierarchical theory of structure formation, the comoving number density of virialized dark halos per unit mass $M$ at redshift $z$ can be given by the Press and Schechter (PS) formula [@1974ApJ...187..425P]: $n(M,z)=dN/dM=\rho_0
f(M,z)/M$ where $\rho_0$ is the mean mass density of the universe today and, instead of PS formula in this letter, the mass function $f(M,z)$ takes the form of an empirical fit from high-resolution simulation [@2001MNRAS.321..372J] $$f(M,z)=\frac{0.301}{M}\frac{d\ln\Delta^{-1}(M,z)}{d\ln
M}\exp(-|\ln\Delta^{-1}(M,z)+0.64|^{3.88}).
\label{jenkins}$$ Here, $\Delta(M,z)=\Delta(M)D(z)$ and $D(z)=e(\Omega(z))/e(\Omega_{\mathrm{m}})(1+z)$ is the linear growth function of density perturbation , in which $e(x)=2.5x/(1/70+209x/140-x^2/140+x^{4/7})$ and $\Omega(z)=\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}(1+z)^3/ E^2(z)$. The present variance of the fluctuations within a sphere containing a mass $M$ can be expressed as $\Delta^2(M)=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int^{\infty}_0P(k)
W^2(kr_{\mathrm{M}})k^2dk$, where $W(kr_{\mathrm{M}})=3[\sin(kr_{\mathrm{M}})/(kr_{\mathrm{M}})^3-
\cos(kr_{\mathrm{M}})/(kr_{\mathrm{M}})^2]$ is the Top-hat window function in Fourier space and $
r_{\mathrm{M}}=(3M/4\pi\rho_0)^{1/3}$. The power spectrum of CDM density fluctuations is $P(k)=P_p(k)T^2(k)$ where the matter transfer function $T(k)$ is given by [@1999ApJ...511....5E], and $P_p(k)$ is the primordial power spectrum of density fluctuation. The scale-invariant primordial power spectrum in the PL-$\Lambda$CDM model is given by $P_p(k)=Ak^{n_s}$ with index $n_s$=1 and that in the RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model is assumed to be $P_p(k)=P(k_0)(k/k_0)^{n_{s}(k)}$, where the index $n_{s}(k)$ is a function of length scale $$n_{s}(k)=n_{\rm s}(k_0) +\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\rm d}n_{s}(k)}{{\rm
d}\ln k}\ln \left(\frac{k}{k_0}\right).$$ The pivot scale $k_0$=0.05 h Mpc$^{-1}$, $n_{\rm s}(k_0)$=0.93, and $dn_{s}/d\ln k$=-0.03 are the best-fit values to the combination data of the recent CMB experiments and two other large-scale structure observations [@2003ApJS..148..175S]. For both PL-$\Lambda$CDM and RSI-$\Lambda$CDM models, the amplitude of primordial power spectrum, $A$ and $P(k_0)$, are normalized to $\sigma_8=\Delta
(r_{\mathrm{M}}=8h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc})$, which is the rms mass fluctuations when present universe is smoothed using a window function on a scale of $8h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$.
The Cross-sections for Producing Multiple Images
================================================
The cross-section for producing multiple images relies on the density profile of dark matter halos. Based on previous work [@2002ApJ...566..652L; @2004ApJ...602L...5Z], we model dark halos as an SIS for $M<M_{c1}$ and NFW profile for $M>M_{c1}$, respectively, where $M_{c1}\sim10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$ corresponds to the cooling mass scale [@2000ApJ...532..679P; @2001ApJ...559..531K].
The Cross-section for SISs
--------------------------
The mass density for a lens of SIS is $\rho(r)=\sigma_v^2/2\pi G
r^2$ where $\sigma_v$ is the velocity dispersion [@1992grle.book.....S]. Thus the surface mass density of the SIS satisfies $\Sigma(\xi)= \sigma_v^2/2G\xi$ where $\xi\equiv|\vec{\xi}|$, $\vec{\xi}$ is the position vector in the lens plane. By defining the length scales in the lens plane and the source plane as $\xi_0=4\pi(\sigma_v/c)^2d^A_L
d^A_{LS}/d^A_S\,,\eta_0=\xi_{0}d^A_S/d^A_L$ respectively, we can simplify the lensing equation and obtain the image separation of SIS lensing $$\Delta\theta=1.27^{\prime}({d^A_{LS}\over
d^A_S})M_{15}^{2/3}E(z)^{2/3},$$ where $M_{15}=M/(10^{15}\mathrm{h} ^{-1}M_{\sun})$ is dimensionless halo mass. Here $d^A_S$ and $d^A_L$ are the angular diameter distances from the observer to the source and to the lens object respectively, while $d^A_{LS}$ is the same quantity but from the lens to the source object. Therefore, the cross-section defined in the lens plane for forming two images by an SIS lens with splitting angle $\Delta\theta
>\Delta\theta_0$ can be expressed as $\sigma(M,z)=\pi\xi_0^2\vartheta
(\Delta\theta-\Delta\theta_0)$ where $\vartheta$ is a step function.
The Cross-section for NFW Models
--------------------------------
The GNFW density profile can be expressed in the form $\rho(r)={\rho_s r_s^3/r^{\alpha}(r+r_s)^{3-\alpha}}$ [@1996MNRAS.278..488Z] where $0<\alpha<3$. The GNFW density profile reduces to the case of NFW if $\alpha=1$. The mass of a dark halo within $r_{200}$ can be defined as $M=4\pi\int^{r_{200}}_0\rho
r^2dr=4\pi\rho_\mathrm{s}r_\mathrm{s}^3f(c_1)$, and $r_{200}$ is the radius of a sphere around a dark halo within which the average mass density is $200$ times the critical mass density of the universe. The function $f(c_1)=\int_0^{c_1} {x^2 dx/x^\alpha
(1+x)^{3-\alpha}}$ and $c_1=r_{200}/r_\mathrm{s}$ is the concentration parameter and takes the form [@2001ApJ...559..572O; @2002ApJ...568..488O; @2004astro.ph..8573O] $$\begin{aligned}
c_1(M_{15},z)=c_{\rm norm}
\frac{2-\alpha}{1+z}[10M_{15}]^{-0.13},
\label{c1}\end{aligned}$$ where $z$ is the redshift of halo, $c_{\rm norm}=8$ [@2001MNRAS.321..559B]. So $\rho_\mathrm{s}$ and $r_\mathrm{s}$ can be related to mass $M_{15}$ and redshift $z$ by
$$\rho_\mathrm{s}=\rho_\mathrm{c_0}
E^2(z)\frac{200}{3}\frac{c_1^3}{f(c_1(M_{15},z))},\
r_\mathrm{s}=\frac{1.626}{c_1}\frac{M_{15}^{1/3}}
{E^{2/3}(z)}h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc},$$
where $\rho_{c_0}$ is the critical mass density of the universe today. The lensing equation for the GNFW profile is given by $y=x-\mu_s g(x)/x$; $\vec{\xi}=\vec{x}r_s$ and $\vec{\eta}=\vec{y}r_s d^A_S/d^A_L$ are the position vectors in the lens plane and the source plane respectively, $g(x) \equiv
\int_0^x u du \int_0^{\infty} \left(u^2 +z^2\right)^{-\alpha/2}
\left[\left(u^2+z^2\right)^{1/2} +1\right]^{-3+\alpha} dz$, and $$\mu_s\equiv{4\rho_s r_s\over \Sigma_{\rm
cr}}=0.002(\frac{\rho_s}{\rho_{c_0}})({r_s\over 1 h^{-1} {\rm
Mpc}})({d^A_R\over c/H_0}), \label{alps}$$ where $\mu_s$ is a parameter on which the efficiency of producing multiple images is strongly dependent. Here $\Sigma_{\rm
cr}={c^2\over 4\pi G}\,{d^A_S\over d^A_L d^A_{LS}}$ is the critical surface mass density, and $d^A_R=d^A_L d^A_{LS}/d^A_S$. The lensing equation curves are symmetrical with respect to the origin. Multiple images can be formed when $|y|\leq y_{\rm cr}$, where $y_{\rm cr}$ is the maximum value of $y$ when $x<0$ or the minimum value for $x>0$. Generally speaking, there exist three images for $|y|< y_{\rm cr}$. We will just consider the outermost two images stretched by the splitting angle $\Delta\theta$ when more than two images are formed. Therefore, we can write the cross-section as $\sigma\left(M,z\right) \approx \pi y_{\rm cr}^2
r_s^2\,\vartheta\left(\Delta\theta - \Delta\theta_0\right)$ with $\Delta\theta>\Delta\theta_0$ in the lens plane for multiple images produced by a GNFW lens at $z$. Here splitting angle $\Delta\theta$ is given by $\Delta\theta={r_s\Delta x/d^A_L}
\approx{2 x_0 r_s/d^A_L}$ and $x_0$ is the positive root of the lensing equation $y(x)=0$.
Numerical Results
=================
In this letter, we assume spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM models characterized by the matter density parameter $\Omega_{\mathrm
m}$, vacuum energy density parameter $\Omega_{\Lambda}$. For both PL-$\Lambda$CDM and RSI-$\Lambda$CDM models, we take cosmological parameters to be the new result from the WMAP: Hubble constant $h=0.71$, $\Omega_{\mathrm m}=0.27$, $\sigma_8=0.84$ [@2003ApJS..148....1B; @2003ApJS..148..175S] and $M_{c1}=1.5\times10^{13}h^{-1}M_{\sun}$. As mentioned above, the lensing probability depend strongly on the abundance of viralized dark halos. The mass function of dark halos directly involve the calculation of primordial power of density fluctuation. According to Eq.(\[prob\]), it is clear that the effect of running spectral index on mass function of halos cause the difference of lensing probabilities between the two models.
Although the redshift distribution of quasars in the JVAS/CLASS survey is still poorly known, the prediction of [@1990MNRAS.247...19D] model and the CLASS lensing sub-sample redshift measurements suggest that the redshift distribution for CLASS unlensed sources can be modelled by a Gaussian distribution with mean redshift $<z_s>$=1.27 [@2000AJ....119.2629M] and dispersion $\sigma_z$=0.95 [@2002PhRvL..89o1301C; @2003MNRAS.341...13B; @2003MNRAS.341....1M]. Thus in this letter we adopt the Gaussian redshift distribution of quasars with the mean redshift $<z_s>$=1.27 and dispersion $\sigma_z$=0.95. In the definition of cross-section for forming two images, we just consider the criterion $\Delta\theta$, and neglect another one $q_r$ that is the flux density (brightness) ratio of multiple images [@1992grle.book.....S]. In order to investigate the effect of central black holes or bulges on lensing probability, introduced $q_r$ into the calculation for lensing cross-section. Due to the existence of central black holes or galactic bulges, $y_{cr}$ becomes extremely large when $|x|$ approaches zero. Thus $y_{cr}$ can be determined by the consideration of $q_r$ together with $\Delta\theta$. However for GNFW halo models in the absence of central black holes or galactic bulges, the lensing equation curves are so smooth that we do not need to define cross-section by $q_r$. As for SISs, it is necessary to introduce $q_r$ because both the predicted lensing probabilities and the determination of the cosmic equation of state $\omega$ are quite sensitive to $q_r$ . Our objective in this letter is to examine the effect of running spectral index on the predicted lensing probabilities, so for explicit we neglect this selection criterion $q_r$ for forming multiple images. In such cases, we calculate lensing probabilities with image separations greater than $\Delta\theta$ according to the compound model of SIS and NFW halo profile in both PL-$\Lambda$CDM and RSI-$\Lambda$CDM models. Our numerical results are shown in Fig.\[f2eps\] together with the observational one from JVAS/CLASS. As we expect, there is slight difference between the two models on large image separations, while this difference enlarges with the decrease of the splitting angle. More specifically, the RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model can reduce the predicted lensing probabilities on small splitting angle of less than about 4$^{''}$ compared with that of PL-$\Lambda$CDM model.
Conclusions and Discussion
==========================
Motivated by the new result on the index of primordial power spectrum from a combination of WMAP data with other finer scale CMB experiments and other large-scale structure observations, we present the first study on the predicted lensing probability in a $\Lambda$CDM model with a running spectral index. In a popular cosmological model from the new fit results mentioned above: $h=0.71$, $\Omega_{\mathrm m}=0.27$, $\sigma_8=0.84$, we calculate lensing probabilities with image separations greater than $\Delta\theta$ according to the compound model of SIS and NFW halo profile in both PL-$\Lambda$CDM and RSI-$\Lambda$CDM models. From the analysis above, we can see that the running spectral index mainly affect the predicted lensing probability on small image separation. It is well known that structures in the universe forms hierarchically in standard CDM models. [@2003ApJ...598...73Y] found that although this hierarchical formation mechanism do not work well in RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model compared with that in PL-$\Lambda$CDM model and it also is not clear that the PS theory can be used in RSI-$\Lambda$CDM model, the mass function measured by high-resolution cosmological N-body/hydrodynamic simulations overall match the PS mass function for both RSI-$\Lambda$CDM and PL-$\Lambda$CDM model.
In addition, because the running spectral index model predicts a significant lower power of density fluctuation on small scales than the standard PL-$\Lambda$CDM model [@2003ApJS..148..175S; @2003ApJ...598...73Y], it should also attract considerable attention in studies on weak lensing by large-scale structure [@2003astro.ph..8446I], especially on skewness [@2003ApJ...592..664P; @2003ApJ...598..818Z] which characterizes the non-Gaussian property of $\kappa$ field in the nonlinear regime.
We are very grateful to the anonymous referee for constructive suggestion. T.J.Zhang would like to thank Ue-Li Pen, Peng-Jie Zhang, Xiang-Ping Wu, Bo Qin and CITA for their hospitality during his visits to the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics(CITA), University of Toronto and the cosmology groups of the National Astronomical Observatories of P.R.China. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (grants No.10473002 and 10273003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Cassini spacecraft’s last orbits directly sampled Saturn’s and revealed a much more chemically complex environment than previously believed. Observations from the Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) aboard Cassini provided compositional measurements of this region and found an influx of material raining into Saturn’s upper atmosphere from the rings. We present here an in-depth analysis of the CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ signal from INMS and provide further evidence of external material entering Saturn’s atmosphere from the rings. We use a new mass spectral deconvolution algorithm to determine the amount of each species observed in the spectrum and use these values to determine the influx and mass deposition rate for these species.'
bibliography:
- 'Saturn.bib'
title: 'Compositional Measurements of Saturn’s Upper Atmosphere and Rings from Cassini INMS'
---
We measure the density profiles of H$_2$, He, CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ in Saturn’s from Cassini INMS.
We use a new mass spectral deconvolution algorithm to determine the relative abundances of different species found in the mass spectra.
We report further evidence of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ entering Saturn’s atmosphere from the rings at a rate of at least 10$^3$ kg/s.
Plain Language Summary {#plain-language-summary .unnumbered}
======================
The Cassini spacecraft’s last orbits around Saturn provided measurements to help us understand how the rings of Saturn interact with its upper atmosphere. Using measurements from the mass spectrometer aboard the spacecraft, we find that a lot of material from the rings is entering Saturn’s atmosphere. We use a new method to determine the amount of water, methane, and ammonia that are entering the atmosphere from the rings and find that this large influx could be deplete the ring system in a relatively short amount of time.
Introduction
============
In September 2017, the Cassini-Huygens mission to the Saturn system came to an end as the spacecraft intentionally entered the planet’s atmosphere. Prior to entry, the Cassini spacecraft spent its last five months executing a series of 22 highly inclined “Grand Finale” orbits through the previously unexplored region between Saturn and its extensive ring system, yielding the first ever direct sampling of this region and the planet’s upper atmosphere. The unique trajectory of these orbits along with the spacecraft’s proximity to Saturn allowed for unprecedented studies of the planet’s complex interactions with the surrounding environment. During these orbits, Cassini obtained measurements near the equatorial ring plane at various heights above the planet’s 1-bar pressure level. The final five of these orbits reached the lowest altitudes and directly sampled Saturn’s upper thermosphere while orbits prior to these sampled the region between the planet and its innermost D ring. The spacecraft’s last encounter, known as the “Final Plunge,” represents the deepest sampling of Saturn’s atmosphere and provided measurements down to approximately 1370 km above the 1-bar pressure level before losing contact with Earth.
The Grand Finale data returned from the spacecraft’s last months have already revolutionized our understanding of this unique region in our solar system, highlighting ring-planet interactions like never before. used measurements from Cassini’s Magnetospheric Imaging Instrument (MIMI) to conclude that interactions between the upper atmosphere and inner edge of the D ring resulted in small dust grains entering Saturn’s atmosphere from the rings in a narrow region near the equatorial ring plane. Using the Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA), which is sensitive to larger particles than MIMI, observed a greater influx of exogenous material with a greater latitudinal spread that reached into Saturn’s mid latitude region. Ionospheric fluctuations as a consequence of ring-atmosphere coupling have also been observed. Using electron density measurements from the Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) instrument, reported a highly variable ionosphere with large decreases in ionization in regions where the planet is shadowed by the rings. Additionally, used measurements from the ion mode of the Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) to conclude that the composition of light ion species in Saturn’s ionosphere can only be explained by the presence of heavier molecular species coming from the rings.
Although the measurements from Cassini’s final orbits redefined our understanding of ring-atmosphere interactions, the idea of “ring rain”, where external material from the rings enters Saturn’s upper atmosphere, has existed for decades and evidence for this phenomenon was first reported during the Voyager era. Using radio occultation data from the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft, proposed the first ionospheric model of Saturn in which exogenous charged water particles from the rings were used to explain the observed electron density at Saturn, which was an order of magnitude less than models predicted. More recently, using ground based observations from the Keck telescope, and found significant variations in Saturn’s midlatitude H$_3$$^+$ intensity that could not be explained by solar activity. Instead, they concluded that these variations can be attributed to the transport of charged species derived from water via regions of the rings that are magnetically linked to the atmosphere.
Cassini’s Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) provided the first in situ compositional measurements of Saturn’s upper atmosphere during the Grand Finale. Two of the instrument’s main objectives at this time were to determine the abundances of H$_2$ and He, the major constituents of Saturn’s atmosphere, and to characterize any interaction between the upper atmosphere and the rings. These measurements were taken well above Saturn’s homopause, the level below which an atmosphere is well-mixed and assumes a scale height in accordance with the mean mass of an atmospheric molecule. Above the homopause, molecular diffusion is a mass dependent process. Thus, a molecule whose mass is heavier than the bulk atmosphere will decrease in abundance above the homopause more rapidly than a lighter molecule. As a result of this mass-dependent diffusive separation, models of Saturn’s upper atmosphere suggested that only the abundant lighter species H$_2$ and He would be detected, with other heavier minor species being well below the instrument’s detection limit (see e.g., ). However, the compositional measurements from INMS revealed a surprisingly large amount of heavier constituents influencing the upper atmosphere, with the evidence again suggesting that a material influx from the rings is the most likely source of these heavier molecules.
used measurements from the neutral mode of INMS to determine the density profiles of low mass constituents and the neutral temperature profile in Saturn’s upper atmosphere. They reported the distributions of H$_2$, He, and CH$_4$ in Saturn’s equatorial thermosphere, noting that the density profiles of H$_2$ and He are consistent with an atmosphere in diffusive equilibrium, but that the higher than expected amounts of CH$_4$ in this region of the atmosphere can only be attributed to an external source with a flux of approximately 1.2 $\times$ 10$^{13}$ m$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. and analyzed a larger portion of the instrument’s mass range, confirming the existence of heavy neutral hydrocarbons infalling from the rings into the atmosphere and attributing the influx to certain regions of the D ring. and both concluded that at least 10$^4$ kg/s of endogenous material was being deposited into Saturn’s upper atmosphere from the rings during these observations. This surprisingly large and unsustainable influx of material led the authors to conclude that this influx must be transient and a result of a recent perturbation in the D ring causing an unusually high amount of material to fall into the planet.
In this study, we expand on the neutral INMS results first presented in to include other species with external origins. We use a new sophisticated mass spectral deconvolution algorithm for interpreting mass spectra returned by spacecraft as detailed in . The species of interest for this study are H$_2$O, CH$_4$, and NH$_3$. We limit our scope to these three species due to their importance in the outer solar system and in understanding ring composition and in order to focus on a segment of the mass spectrum where the signature of these three molecules overlap significantly (*m/z* 12 to 20 amu).
Instrument and Observations
===========================
Measurements presented in this paper rely on data from the Closed Source Neutral (CSN) mode of the Ion and Neutral Mass Spectrometer (INMS) aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The primary focus of INMS was to characterize the composition, density, and temperature structure of Titan’s upper atmosphere and its interaction with Saturn’s magnetospheric plasma. A detailed description of the instrument can be found in . The instrument’s excellent performance throughout the spacecraft’s 13 years in orbit allowed for a large number of studies that drastically improved our understanding of Titan’s atmosphere. The instrument also directly sampled the plumes of Enceladus multiple times beginning in 2008. Thus, a detailed understanding of the instrument and how it functions in various environments found in the Saturn system already exists (see e.g., ).
The CSN mode of this instrument measures neutral species by first ionizing the molecules. This fragments each molecule into a characteristic pattern and the unique spectral signature of the resulting ionized fragments are then detected by the instrument in order to determine the composition of the inflowing sample. The inflowing material enters a spherical antechamber and travels to an ionization region where it is ionized by a collimated electron beam at 70 eV. The resulting ions are deflected onto the instrument’s detectors by a dual radio frequency quadrupole mass analyzer, which filters the ions according to their mass-to-charge (*m/z*) ratio. The instrument’s dual detector system is electronically biased, with the majority of ions deflected onto the primary detector and a small fraction making it to the low gain secondary detector, which is utilized only in instances when the count rate of the primary detector saturates. Data are recorded in mass channels from 1 to 99 atomic mass units (amu) with a resolving power of 1 amu.
This paper focuses on measurements taken during Cassini orbits 288 to 293, the lowest altitude passes of Cassini’s Grand Finale orbits which directly sampled Saturn’s thermosphere. These data can be found in the Planetary Plasma Interactions (PPI) node of the NASA Planetary Data System (PDS) public archive (https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu) [@waite_inms]. Orbits 288 to 292 sampled Saturn’s atmosphere down to an altitude of about 1600 to 1700 km above Saturn’s 1-bar pressure level. Orbit 289 was not optimized for INMS observations and will not be discussed in our analysis. Orbit 293, which included atmospheric entry, provided measurements down to approximately 1370 km above the 1-bar pressure level. INMS measurements in mass channel 2 are used to determine the H$_2$ density in the atmosphere and were taken every $\sim$0.6 s around closest approach. Measurements in other mass channels of particular interest were taken every $\sim$1 s. The spacecraft’s velocity during these orbits was approximately 30 km/s. This corresponds to a spatial resolution of 18 km and 30 km, respectively, along the spacecraft trajectory. Additional orbital information can be found in Table \[tab:orbitalinfo\].
-------- ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------------------------------- --
Orbit Date Latitude Longitude LST Altitude Grav. Potential
Number ($^{\circ}$) ($^{\circ}$) (hr) (km) ($\times$ 10$^8$ J kg$^{-1}$)
288 14 August 2017 -4.8 -167.5 11.7 1705 6.695
290 27 August 2017 -4.9 160.5 11.5 1626 6.702
291 2 September 2017 -5.0 -34.0 11.4 1639 6.700
292 9 September 2017 -5.0 130.4 11.4 1675 6.697
293 15 September 2017 9.2 -54.3 10.8 1367 6.722
-------- ------------------- -------------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------------------------------- --
: Orbital information for the measurements used in this study. These were the last orbits of the Cassini spacecraft and represented the lowest altitude sampling of Saturn’s upper atmosphere. Cassini entered Saturn’s atmosphere during orbit 293.
\
\
\[tab:orbitalinfo\]
Methods
=======
Data Reduction
--------------
Although INMS has been extensively characterized for studies of Titan’s N$_2$-dominated atmosphere (see e.g., ), it is crucial to ensure that the instrument is still behaving as expected in Saturn’s H$_2$-dominated atmosphere. Thus, data reduction is an especially important procedure for this particular data set since the instrument was performing in a new environment for which it was not designed. Additionally, the spacecraft orbited Saturn at speeds approximately 5 times faster than typical Titan flybys during these final orbits. This could impart excess energy into the system which could dissociate molecules entering the instrument’s antechamber before ionization. Thus, it is likely that a fraction of the signal recorded by the instrument is from fragments of larger particles outside of the instrument’s mass range. However, as reported in , the abundance of larger organics seen in the spectra is at least an order of magnitude lower than that of CH$_4$ and would not have a very significant impact on the CH$_4$ abundance. They also report that the H$_2$ profile derived from INMS before and after closest approach suggests that effects from the spacecraft’s speed are negligible in close proximity to the planet. Other recent studies also find no significant effects on the measurements from the spacecraft’s high speed [@yelle18; @perry18; @miller20] and our analysis thus far shows no evidence of issues stemming from the spacecraft’s speed.
Many factors affect the response of the instrument. These factors have been extensively characterized for Titan’s atmosphere and methods for correction are detailed in , , , and . We adopt similar methods here and recharacterize the corrections to ensure that they are suitable for Saturn conditions. These include background subtraction and corrections for detector dead-time, calibration sensitivity, ram pressure enhancement, and counter saturation, which are briefly explained below.
The instrument’s dual detector system includes a high gain primary detector which is known to saturate near closest approach in mass channels relevant to the most abundant species in the atmosphere. This leads to signal decay at closest approach as seen in Figure \[fig:detector\]. When this occurs, counts from the secondary detector, albeit with a lower signal-to-noise ratio, can be utilized to obtain an accurate determination of the density profile. In order to take advantage of the primary detector’s much higher signal-to-noise ratio, we use a nonlinear conversion technique between the primary and secondary detectors as detailed in . In doing so, we are able to utilize slightly saturated count rates from the primary detector, significantly reducing the amount of noise in the density profile. Saturation of the primary detector is a species dependent process. At Titan, detector saturation occurred in mass channels associated with the atmosphere’s major constituents, N$_2$ and CH$_4$, at *m/z* 14, 15, 16, 28, and 29 amu. At Saturn, the only channel that experiences saturation is *m/z* 2 amu, which tracks H$_2$ in the atmosphere. This saturation can be seen in Figure \[fig:detector\], where the count rate from the primary detector in mass channel 2 is plotted against the count rate from the secondary detector for all of the final orbits. At lower counts the detectors are linearly correlated but as the count rate of the primary detector increases, the signal begins to decay and the detectors lose their linear correlation. The relationship between the detectors can be described using an empirical equation, as described in :
$$C_2 = a_0 C_1 \exp \{ \tan[(a_1 C_1)^{a_2}] \},$$
\[eq:detector\_relationship\]
where $a_0$, $a_1$, and $a_2$ are free parameters constrained by the data. The free parameters for each orbit are listed in Table \[tab:free\_parameters\]. Characterizing this relationship allows us to use slightly saturated counts from the primary detector up to 4.2 $\times$ 10$^{6}$ counts/s. At this point, the empirical relationship no longer traces the primary detector’s signal decay and the correction is no longer applicable, prompting the use of counts from the secondary counter. However, an instantaneous switch from the primary to secondary detector at 4.2 $\times$ 10$^{6}$ counts/s could introduce discontinuities in the derived density profiles, which in turn would affect the retrieved temperature profile. To remove this effect, we introduce continuously varying weighting functions to calculate densities in the transition region as detailed in .
![Left: Count rate in mass channel 2 (H$_2$) from the secondary detector (C$_2$) as a function of count rate in mass channel 2 from the primary detector (C$_1$) for all five orbits analyzed here. The dashed line represents the linear correlation between these detectors at lower count rates and is the trend that the signal would follow if the primary detector was not affected by saturation. The solid line represents the nonlinear empirical relationship (equation 1) used to correct for saturation in the primary detector. Doing so increases the signal to noise ratio in our results and allows us to use measurements from the primary detector up to 4.2 $\times$ 10$^{6}$ counts/s. Right: Count rate of both detectors in mass channel 2 as a function of latitude for orbit 290. Closest approach to Saturn, where the signal is highest, occurs near -5$^{\circ}$ latitude. As the spacecraft approaches Saturn, the primary detector (black) saturates which leads to a signal decay, while the lower signal secondary detector (blue) does not. We are able to combine measurements from both detectors and determine a corrected count rate to be used to determine a proper H$_2$ density in Saturn’s atmosphere (red).[]{data-label="fig:detector"}](detectorfigs.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
-------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------
Orbit $a_0$ $a_1$ $a_2$
Number
288 3.291 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.689 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 2.556
290 3.975 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.506 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 3.223
291 3.718 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.362 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 3.061
292 3.632 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.351 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 3.117
293 3.528 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.507 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 7.020
All 3.378 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ 1.373 $\times$ 10$^{-7}$ 2.620
-------- -------------------------- -------------------------- -------
: Free parameters used in the empirical relationship between the count rates from the primary and secondary detectors for mass channel 2 (H$_2$.)
\
\[tab:free\_parameters\]
The INMS flight unit (FU) was calibrated with neutral species relevant to Titan’s atmosphere before launch and additional calibration of other species continued after launch using the identical engineering unit (EU). Thus, a calibration database to compare known fragmentation patterns to observed measurements exists. Due to response differences between the FU and EU, calibration of the peak sensitivity of each species must be performed in order to utilize EU calibration measurements to understand observations using the FU. developed an algorithm to characterize these sensitivity differences based on measurements of species that were calibrated using both units and we utilize these results here since many of these molecules are also relevant to Saturn’s upper atmosphere. Additionally, the ram pressure of the inflowing sample in CSN mode leads to a density enhancement in the instrument that varies as a function of molecular mass, angle of attack of the instrument, temperature of the ambient gas, and speed of the spacecraft. This ram enhancement factor was previously characterized in for Titan flybys, and we use the same approach to correct for the ram enhancement factor here. Corrections for contamination from thruster firings of the spacecraft, which occasionally affect the counts in mass channel 2 during Titan flybys, are not done here since thrusters were not used near closest approach for these final orbits.
Additionally, Saturn’s high rotation rate and significantly oblate shape invalidates the common assumption that atmospheric variations are purely radial. Instead, we assume here that Saturn’s atmospheric properties vary with gravitational potential, $\phi$, and we use $\phi$ as the vertical coordinate in our analysis. This modification includes adopting the updated gravitational potential for Saturn found in . This process is detailed in the supporting information of .
Although the instrument records data before and after closest approach to the planet, our analysis utilizes solely inbound data. INMS has a well-documented behavior where certain species entering the instrument adsorb to the chamber’s walls. This adsorption can lead to wall chemistry within the instrument and/or desorption at a later time (see e.g., ). This effect is observed near closest approach to the planet, when the number density of molecules is highest, and predominantly affects outbound measurements which leads to an artificial outbound density enhancement for certain species. For this reason, we do not utilize these measurements here and focus on direct inbound measurements.
While wall adsorption leads to difficulties in properly interpreting the outbound measurements for some mass channels, this effect is actually valuable in determining what species might be present in the measurements. Only certain species are affected by wall adsorption and subsequent chemistry within the instrument. Inert species and CH$_4$ are known not to contribute to wall adsorption (see e.g., ), whereas other species, such as H$_2$O and NH$_3$, exhibit significant effects due to wall adsorption. Using this knowledge, it can be deduced whether certain species are present in the measurements based solely on the inbound/outbound asymmetry of relevant mass channels. An example of this is seen in Figure \[fig:inbound\_outbound\]. Mass channel 4, which tracks He (an inert species), exhibits a symmetric profile before and after closest approach. On the other hand, mass channel 18, which tracks H$_2$O, exhibits a significant asymmetric distribution before and after closest approach indicative of wall effects for this species. Mass channel 15 is primarily a combination of signal from fragments associated with CH$_4$ and/or NH$_3$. The asymmetric distribution implies that the signal measured in this mass channel must have some contribution from NH$_3$ since the signal from a lack of NH$_3$ would have had no asymmetry at closest approach. In this figure, the left axis of altitude is the height above Saturn’s 1-bar pressure level that corresponds to the gravitational potential values seen on the right axis. The profile of inbound measurements for mass channels 15 and 18 suggests that measurements in these channels directly before closest approach (below $\phi$ of approximately 6.69 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (1750 km) could also be slightly affected by a density enhancement for orbits 288 to 292. Proper correction for this enhancement would require extensive knowledge of how each species interacts within the chamber and subsequent modeling to correct for this asymmetry and is beyond the scope of this paper.
![Count rate of mass channels 4, 15, and 18 as a function of altitude and gravitational potential from orbit 290. The lighter shade for each mass channel represents the inbound profile and the darker shade represents the outbound profile. The inbound and outbound profiles of mass channel 4 (He) are nearly identical since this species does not adsorb to the instrument’s chamber walls or participate in wall chemistry. Mass channel 18 (H$_2$O) is known to be affected by wall adsorption and chemistry in the instrument, which is the reason for the significant inbound/outbound asymmetry. Mass channel 15 is a combination of signal from CH$_4$ and NH$_3$. Since CH$_4$ is not affected by wall adsorption in the instrument, this asymmetry indicates that NH$_3$ must be contributing to the signal.[]{data-label="fig:inbound_outbound"}](inboundoutbound.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Mass spectral deconvolution
---------------------------
Species identification and density determination from INMS measurements is complicated by the fact that multiple species contribute to the signal of individual mass channels, creating a complex combination of mass peaks associated with a mix of the fragmentation patterns of the species within the sample. An accurate density determination of species within the atmosphere must begin by first determining the relative contribution of each species to each mass channel. This is done by combining the peak intensities of the fragmentation patterns of each species from calibration data weighted by a relative contribution from each species that results in the best fit to the measured mass spectrum. Thus, one must solve a system of linear equations:
$$I_{i} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n}F_{i,j}N_{j}$$
\[eq:mass\_spec\]
The relative intensities of the fragmentation peaks produced by a certain species are highly dependent on the instrument used, thus it’s crucial to have an accurate instrumental fragmentation pattern database to compare to observations returned by the spacecraft. As stated above, we focus here on the region of the mass spectrum from 12 to 20 amu and the primary species contributing to this region: CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. Figure \[fig:massfrag\]c compares the overlapping fragmentation patterns of these three species from calibration data. Although INMS was calibrated for many species relevant to both Titan and Saturn, unfortunately the instrument was never calibrated for NH$_3$. As a consequence, calibration data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) mass spectral library must be utilized for NH$_3$. Figures \[fig:massfrag\]a and b compare the INMS calibration data of CH$_4$ and H$_2$O to data from NIST. Although NIST calibrations provide an adequate estimate on what to expect during the flight instrument’s performance, there are significant deviations in fragmentation peak intensity in certain mass channels for both species. Furthermore, the instrument’s calibration on Earth was performed in an environment very different from that of Saturn, which could lead to discrepancies between the fragmentation patterns found in the calibration database and the actual measurements returned from the instrument. Deviations stemming from the aging of the instrument, which was launched in 1997, could also affect the instrument’s performance over time and lead to further discrepancies between calibration values and returned measurements. Although a calibration database is of utmost importance, an accurate and complete database of fragmentation patterns relevant to this study does not exist.
![(a and b) Comparison of INMS and NIST calibration data for CH$_4$ (a) and H$_2$O (b). The differences in fragmentation peak intensities, along with a lack of INMS calibration data for some species, complicate analysis of the spectra returned by INMS. (c) Overlapping fragmentation patterns of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ which all contribute to the INMS signal in the region m/z = 12 - 20 amu. CH$_4$ and H$_2$O data are from INMS calibration measurements. NH$_3$ data are from the NIST spectral library. (d) Signal from INMS from orbit 290 []{data-label="fig:massfrag"}](massfragcompare.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In order to overcome the challenges brought about by the calibration data from INMS, our mass spectral deconvolution algorithm employs a Monte-Carlo based approach to handle the uncertainty in fragmentation peak intensities of each species [@gautier19]. We allow for $\pm$15% variation in individual peak intensities from the original database, which is a combination of INMS calibration data and NIST values when INMS data is unavailable. This process is done 500,000 times, thus creating 500,000 individual fragmentation databases that are then used to decompose the measured mass spectrum. The output of the deconvolution includes the relative abundances of each species in the database based on the randomized fragmentation pattern database that was input into the model. We keep the best-fitting 2% (best-fitting 10,000 mass spectral fits) of these simulations for analysis based on the outputs with the minimal residuals to the data. This allows us in the end to retrieve a statistical solution to our issue, providing the most probable concentration for a given species as well as a probability density function (PDF) in order to quantify the variation in a species’ concentration throughout the best-fitting simulations saved for analysis. Although we allow the peak intensities to vary by 15%, the main peaks for the best-fitting simulations saved for analysis vary by only a few percent and the less significant peaks typically vary no more than $\sim$10%.
In solving for the relative concentration of each species, we are able to determine the mixing ratio for these species from our model. An example of a mass spectral fit along with PDFs is shown in Fig. 4 for orbit 290 with an averaged mass spectrum from a gravitational potential height of The black outline bars in Figure \[fig:mzfit\] show the measured mass spectrum and the colored bars represent the modeled contribution of each molecule to the mass channel. For this study, we use H$_2$, He, CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ to fit the mass spectrum up to 20 amu. There is no signal detected from 5 to 11 amu. The signal below 5 amu is predominantly from H$_2$ and He, and above 11 amu is a combination of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. A detailed analysis for H$_2$ and He was published previously in . These species will be discussed here only for comparison and are included in our modeling in order to retrieve accurate mixing ratio information since these are the two major constituents of Saturn’s atmosphere. We assume that the region from 12 to 20 amu is contributed only by CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. In reality, it is likely that fragments of other molecules with higher masses also contribute to these mass channels. However, higher mass species will not dissociate into fragments that contribute significantly to the predominant peaks associated with CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ (16, 17, and 18 amu), so the small contributions from the fragments of higher mass species are not included in this study. These fragments will mostly contribute to mass channels 12 and 14 amu (corresponding to signal from ionized carbon and nitrogen, respectively), which are consistently underfit by our model. As a consequence, the results presented here should be considered upper limits for the mixing ratios of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. Future work will address the entirety of the mass spectrum (up to 99 amu), which could result in a slight revision to the mixing ratio values presented here. In any case, the modeled spectra provide reasonable fits to the data, with the major peaks from 15 to 18 amu being reproduced by the model very well. Mass channels 19 and 20, whose signal has contributions from isotopes of H$_2$O, are underfit by our current modeling efforts. The signal at 19 amu is significantly higher than expected and could be a consequence of contamination from filament desorption (see e.g., ), however this source of background contamination is poorly quantified. Mass channel 20 could have contributions from other molecules at higher masses, including argon which contributes to the signal as Ar$^{2+}$. Nonetheless, accurate measurements of isotopes for these species are beyond the scope of this paper and will be addressed in upcoming work.
![ (a) Example of mass spectrum deconvolution result using our Monte-Carlo approach for orbit 290. Black outline bars represent the measured INMS spectrum. Colored segments represent the contribution of each species as calculated by the model. Contributions shown here are the average contribution of the best-fitting 2% of 500,000 simulations. (b–d) Probability densities of the mixing ratio of each species in the sample as retrieved by the model for the best-fitting 2% of simulations.[]{data-label="fig:mzfit"}](MZ1220fit.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Density determination
---------------------
After correcting the raw INMS counts as described above, we are able to utilize the mass spectral deconvolution algorithm to derive number density profiles for the species. In order to do so, the count rates for each mass channel are divided into bins with a width of $\phi$ = 0.01 J kg$^{-1}$ and the deconvolution is performed for each separate gravitational potential bin. The average output of the best-fitting 2% of simulations is then used to determine the relative contribution of each species to its dominant mass channel. This is done using mass channels 16, 17, and 18 amu, which are the molecular peaks of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$, respectively, and have very high signal. CH$_4$ and H$_2$O both have peaks which are relatively free of significant contamination by other species: 12 and 13 amu for CH$_4$, and 18 to 20 amu for H$_2$O. This, along with comparison to the peak intensities within the region where there is contribution from other species, provides convincing evidence that these species are in fact present in the measured mass spectrum. The NH$_3$ contribution, on the other hand, must be constrained by mass channel 17, which is the species’ parent peak but has significant contribution from both CH$_4$ and H$_2$O. Thus, NH$_3$ detection and quantification relies more heavily on our modeling efforts than that of CH$_4$ and H$_2$O. However, as stated previously, there is evidence that NH$_3$ is present within the spectrum due to the asymmetry of the measurements around closest approach as shown in Figure \[fig:inbound\_outbound\].
We utilize counts from the instrument as long as the signal-to-noise ratio is sufficient for analysis. For He, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$, the loss of signal occurs at a higher $\phi$ (lower altitude) than CH$_4$ and H$_2$ due to the lower abundance of these three species in the region. Thus, we obtain density profiles for H$_2$ and CH$_4$ that extend to a lower $\phi$ (higher altitude) from closest approach than the other species. After running the Monte Carlo algorithm described above, we determine the density profiles by weighting the corrected count rate from the species’ main mass channel with the relative contribution of that species returned by the model for each $\phi$ bin. Results using this method are shown in Fig. 5. Running independent simulations in each $\phi$ bin provides us with reasonable results for each species. The average output of each $\phi$ bin from the best-fitting 2% of simulations is then combined to create a density profile, which produces smooth and consistent profiles for each species. This consistency demonstrates the power of our new method in helping to determine the contribution of each species when the available calibration data for an instrument is insufficient. Errors associated with these density profiles are a combination of 1$\sigma$ uncertainties due to counting statistics from the data and 1$\sigma$ standard deviation from the modeling results. H$_2$ and He have a higher signal-to-noise ratio in their dominant mass channels and are better constrained by the model, leading to small errors associated with these species. They are also well constrained by the model since there is no interference from other species in their relevant mass channels. Measurements for H$_2$O and NH$_3$ have a lower signal and these species have a greater spread in the modeling results, leading to slightly larger error bars for these species.
Results and Discussion
======================
Density profiles and mixing ratios
----------------------------------
Density profiles of H$_2$, He, CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ from Cassini’s last orbits are shown in Figure \[fig:density\]. Although these results agree with and are an extension of the work presented in , we obtain the density profiles of H$_2$, He, and CH$_4$ using slightly different methods. In , we obtain density profiles of these species by using the corrected measurements in the dominant mass channels for each species (*m/z* 2, 4, and 16 amu, respectively) without fitting the mass spectrum. This method is reasonable since there is very little interference from other species in these three mass channels. In order to expand our analysis to H$_2$O and NH$_3$, we determine density profiles by binning the data and employing the mass spectral deconvolution as described above. Our new method does not modify the results of H$_2$ and He since there is no overlapping signal in their dominant mass channels. The results of CH$_4$ are changed by about 2% on average, which is well within the errors associated with the measurements.
![Inbound density profiles of He, CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ versus altitude and gravitational potential for all five orbits analyzed. The density profiles of H$_2$ are also included in each figure for comparison. Density profiles are constructed by averaging INMS measurements in gravitational potential bins of 0.01 J kg$^{-1}$, then running a mass spectral deconvolution for each individual bin. Error bars are a combination of 1$\sigma$ uncertainties from counting statistics and 1$\sigma$ uncertainties from the mass spectral deconvolution.[]{data-label="fig:density"}](densitynew.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
We obtain density profiles for CH$_4$ from closest approach for each orbit up to $\phi$ of approximately 6.59 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (2850 km) and for He from closest approach up to $\phi$ of approximately 6.67 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (2050 km). H$_2$O and NH$_3$ show greater variability in their density profiles from orbit to orbit, leading to differences in signal and consequently differences in the extent of their retrieved density profiles. The profiles presented here provide further evidence from INMS for an external source providing Saturn’s upper atmosphere with a variety of unexpected species, as previously reported in . The density of species as heavy as CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ should decrease rapidly above Saturn’s homopause as a consequence of diffusive separation. However, the scale heights of these species and their presence in this region of the atmosphere are inconsistent with these species being native to Saturn’s interior and emerging via upward diffusion. He, on the other hand, decreases rapidly above the homopause and follows the expected scale height and density profile of a molecule of its mass in a H$_2$-dominated atmosphere.
Figure \[fig:MR\] shows the average mixing ratio for each species for each orbit. In order to compare the orbits, we determine these mixing ratios using an averaged mass spectrum that incorporates the region of the atmosphere where all five orbits have reliable data. This corresponds to the region of the atmosphere of approximately 6.69 to 6.66 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (1700 to 2050 km). One notable observation is the variability of these external species, and especially the depletion of H$_2$O and NH$_3$ during orbit 293 (atmospheric entry). All orbits aside from orbit 293 measured Saturn’s atmosphere at similar conditions with closest approach to the planet around 5$^{\circ}$ S (see Table \[tab:orbitalinfo\]). Orbit 293, however, entered Saturn’s atmosphere around 9$^{\circ}$ N before crossing the equatorial ring plane. The difference in the region sampled for orbit 293 could be the explanation for depletion in H$_2$O and NH$_3$ during atmospheric entry.
The mixing ratio of He shows very little variation and is around 3.0 $\pm$0.2 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ for this region of the atmosphere. CH$_4$ shows more variability than He, but measurements are roughly consistent among orbits, ranging from 1.4 to 3.8 $\times$ 10$^{8}$. The large variability of H$_2$O and NH$_3$ among orbits, as well as the prevalence of CH$_4$ as a dominant external species, are surprising and unexpected, but potential explanations for these results do exist. First, as noted in , the prevalence of CH$_4$ over H$_2$O and NH$_3$ could be tied to the volatility of these species. Their sublimation pressures, shown in Figure \[fig:SVP\], vary by orders of magnitude at temperatures relevant to Saturn’s inner rings of $\sim$80 to 115 K [@filacchione14; @tiscareno19]. Saturn’s rings are constantly exposed to magnetospheric plasma, cosmic ray impacts, micrometeorite bombardment, and other high energy phenomena, resulting in the ejection of surface ring material which liberates gas molecules from the rings. If these species are present in the rings and are liberated from ice particles in this way, then it is more likely for emitted H$_2$O and NH$_3$ molecules to recondense back onto ring particles while CH$_4$ is preferentially lost into Saturn’s atmosphere.
![Averaged mixing ratios of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. We use measurements taken between $\phi$ of 6.69 and 6.66 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (1700 to 2050 km), where reliable data for all orbits exist, to create the integrated spectra used to determine mixing ratios. Variability among orbits for these volatile species is evident, especially for orbit 293 (atmospheric entry) which measured a different region of Saturn at closest approach and shows a large depletion in H$_2$O and NH$_3$. Error bars are a combination of 1$\sigma$ uncertainties from counting statistics and 1$\sigma$ uncertainties from the mass spectral deconvolution.[]{data-label="fig:MR"}](MR.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
It is also possible that H$_2$O and NH$_3$ are entering Saturn’s atmosphere from the rings in a charged form (i.e., H$_3$O$^+$ and NH$_4$$^+$), which would elude detection by INMS. H$_2$O and NH$_3$ have much higher proton affinities (691.0 and 853.6 kJ mol$^{-1}$, respectively) than CH$_4$ (543.5 kJ mol$^{-1}$) [@hunter98], making them more susceptible to proton transfer. If H$_2$O and NH$_3$ are more easily protonated after liberation from ring particles, they would not be detected by INMS since the ion mode of the instrument was limited to masses below 8 amu during these orbits due to the speed of the spacecraft [@cravens18; @moore18]. It is also possible that these charged molecules are transported away from the equatorial region via magnetic field lines and deposited into Saturn’s atmosphere at higher latitudes that were not observed by INMS. Indeed, recently reported evidence that charged water was entering Saturn’s midlatitude region from the rings via magnetic field lines. An improved understanding of these potential transport processes will require continued monitoring from ground and space based observations and additional in situ measurements from future missions.
![Sublimation pressure curves for CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ [@fray09] at temperatures relevant to Saturn’s rings. []{data-label="fig:SVP"}](SVPcurve.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Flux and mass deposition rate calculations
------------------------------------------
To quantify the influx of material from the rings, we use a 1-D model to understand the exospheric temperature and external flux in the upper atmosphere. This model is described extensively in the supporting information of , who use the model to provide a detailed analysis of the CH$_4$ influx into Saturn’s atmosphere. We follow the same method here with the addition of H$_2$O and NH$_3$. Briefly, we assume hydrostatic equilibrium and solve the standard diffusion equation with $\phi$ as the vertical coordinate. The mixing ratio of a species is given by
$$X_{i}(\phi) = X_{i}(\phi_\circ)\exp\int_{\phi_\circ}^{\phi}\mathrm{d}{\phi}'\frac{D_i}{D_i + K}\frac{m_i - m_a}{RT} - \int_{\phi_\circ}^{\phi}\mathrm{d}{\phi}'\frac{F_i}{gN_a(D_i + K)}\exp(\int_{\phi_\circ}^{\phi}\mathrm{d}{\phi}''\frac{D_i}{D_i + K}\frac{m_i - m_a}{RT})
\label{eq:diffusion}$$
where $X_i$ is the mixing ratio of the minor constituent, $D_i$ is the molecular diffusion coefficient, $K$ is the eddy diffusion coefficient, $m_i$ is the molecular mass of the minor constituent, $m_a$ is the average molecular mass of the atmosphere, $R$ is the gas constant for H$_2$, $T$ is the temperature, $g$ is the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration, $N_a$ is the density of H$_2$, and $F_i$ is the flux of the minor constituent. The first term of this equation represents molecular diffusion within the atmosphere and the second term describes the vertical distribution of a molecule with a non-zero external flux into the atmosphere.
We determine the temperature using the H$_2$ density profile for each orbit. For the plunge, which probes deeper into the atmosphere, we determine the temperature profile using a Bates profile for a thermosphere [@bates51]. The other orbits probe higher in the atmosphere and we determine the temperature by fitting an isothermal model to the H$_2$ density profiles. The temperature results are found in Table 3 and were originally published in , where further discussion and interpretation is presented. We also adopt the eddy diffusion profile from , which has a constant value in the uppermost region of the atmosphere of K$_\infty$ = 1.4 $\times$ 10$^{4}$ m$^2$s$^{-1}$, although a wide variety of K profiles can be used to fit the data. The molecular diffusion coefficients for He and CH$_4$ in H$_2$ are taken from . We calculate the molecular diffusion coefficients for H$_2$O and NH$_3$ in H$_2$ with the theoretical approach outlined in based on the Lennard-Jones potential. Molecular diffusion coefficients for these species at $\phi$ of 6.69 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ are 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{6}$ m$^2$s$^{-1}$ for He, 6.2 $\times$ 10$^{5}$ m$^2$s$^{-1}$ for CH$_4$, 8.0$\times$ 10$^{5}$ m$^2$s$^{-1}$ for H$_2$O, and 8.4 $\times$ 10$^{5}$ m$^2$s$^{-1}$ for NH$_3$.
Helium is native to the planet and exhibits a mixing ratio decreasing with altitude in accordance with a species following diffusive separation in a well-mixed atmosphere. Thus, our model needs no external flux (F$_i$ = 0) to properly fit the He measurements. On the other hand, H$_2$O, CH$_4$, and NH$_3$ all exhibit roughly constant mixing ratios in the upper atmosphere, which is expected for a minor constituent entering the atmosphere externally [@connerney84]. To determine the external flux we utilize inbound measurements taken before the slight density enhancement observed for H$_2$O and NH$_3$, which excludes measurements taken below $\phi$ of 6.69 $\times$ 10$^{8}$ J kg$^{-1}$ (1750 km) for orbits 288 to 292. Measurements can be fit using a constant external flux and results for all orbits are found in Table 3.
-------- ----------------- ---------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Orbit Temperature Molecule Flux Mass Deposition
Number (K) ($\times$ 10$^{12}$ m$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) Rate ($\times$ 10$^{2}$ kg s$^{-1}$)
288 368.8 $\pm$ 1.1 CH$_4$ 7.0 $\pm$ 1.3 12.5 $\pm$ 2.3
H$_2$O 1.6 $\pm$ 0.7 3.1 $\pm$ 1.4
NH$_3$ 0.5 $\pm$ 0.3 1.0 $\pm$ 0.5
Total 9.0 $\pm$ 1.5 16.6 $\pm$ 2.7
290 363.7 $\pm$ 1.0 CH$_4$ 13.9 $\pm$ 1.6 25.0 $\pm$ 2.8
H$_2$O 1.5 $\pm$ 0.6 2.9 $\pm$ 1.3
NH$_3$ 0.5 $\pm$ 0.2 1.0 $\pm$ 0.5
Total 15.9 $\pm$ 1.7 29.0 $\pm$ 3.1
291 339.6 $\pm$ 1.2 CH$_4$ 24.7 $\pm$ 5.1 44.3 $\pm$ 9.1
H$_2$O 13.7 $\pm$ 4.5 27.6 $\pm$ 9.0
NH$_3$ 5.6 $\pm$ 1.8 10.7 $\pm$ 3.3
Total 44.0 $\pm$ 7.0 82.6 $\pm$ 13.2
292 372.1 $\pm$ 1.0 CH$_4$ 25.7 $\pm$ 6.8 46.0 $\pm$ 1.2
H$_2$O 1.2 $\pm$ 0.5 2.3 $\pm$ 1.1
NH$_3$ 1.0 $\pm$ 0.4 1.8 $\pm$ 0.7
Total 27.8 $\pm$ 6.8 50.2 $\pm$ 12.3
293 351.1 $\pm$ 1.2 CH$_4$ 12.2 $\pm$ 1.6 19.8 $\pm$ 2.8
H$_2$O 0.4 $\pm$ 0.4 0.8 $\pm$ 0.8
NH$_3$ 0.1 $\pm$ 0.1 0.3 $\pm$ 0.2
Total 11.7 $\pm$ 1.6 20.8 $\pm$ 2.9
-------- ----------------- ---------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
: Temperature, flux, and mass deposition rate results.
\
\[tab:results\]
The variability in the influx of external material measured among orbits, especially for H$_2$O and NH$_3$, leads to large fluctuations in the observed amount of material deposited into the atmosphere. We quantify the mass deposition rate (MDR) for each species into the atmosphere using the equation
$$MDR = F_i m_i \times 2\pi r_{Saturn}^2\theta,$$
where $F_i$ is the flux of molecule $i$, $m_i$ is the molecular mass of molecule $i$, and the second term represents the surface area of Saturn that is affected by the deposition of external material. We use a latitudinal width ($\theta$) for the influx region of 16$ ^{\circ}$. This width corresponds to the location at which we observe a decrease in signal of the minor constituents, which occurs at approximately $\pm$8$ ^{\circ}$ from the ring plane. It is possible that the affected region of Saturn is larger than this, however a larger width cannot be deduced from our measurements due to the loss of signal.
Mass deposition rates for all three species are found in Table 3. Although previous studies indicate that the rings are composed overwhelmingly of H$_2$O ice (see recent review by and references therein), we find that CH$_4$ represents the largest fraction of the total MDR in our results. Previous remote observations do indicate the presence of a non water ice component to the rings, however no study has definitively determined the composition of this material. In fact, discreet searches for spectral features of CH$_4$ and NH$_3$ in ring observations found no significant amounts of either species [@nicholson08]. Recent in situ Grand Finale observations using Cassini’s Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA) observed a much higher silicate fraction in the D ring than previously inferred from optical and microwave measurements [@hsu18]. It remains unclear why in situ measurements from INMS and CDA observe a much more significant fraction of non water ice material in the rings. Remote observations suggest that the non water material is intimately mixed within the water ice grains [@filacchione14; @cuzzi18]. If these minor components exist in the rings as inclusions within water ice grains or as clathrates, it is possible that the resolution of existing remote observations cannot distinguish the signal from pure water ice. If water ice is deposited back onto ring particles as suspected it is also possible that the water ice is shielding the spectroscopic signature of the minor constituents within the rings, which could be part of the reason that non water ice components have evaded detection via remote observations.
H$_2$O and NH$_3$ exhibit greater variations in deposition rate than CH$_4$ from orbit to orbit, with a tenfold increase observed during orbit 291. In total, the mass deposition rate into Saturn for these three species spans from 1.7 to 8.3 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ kg/s. This is a substantial amount of incoming material and these results represent a lower limit on the amount entering Saturn from the rings since we are focusing here only on a limited set of the full mass range of the instrument. INMS detected many other species with higher mass also entering Saturn’s atmosphere [@waite18]. Using different methods, and reported $>$10$^4$ kg/s of material entering the atmosphere based on INMS observations. This higher mass material is beyond the scope of this paper and will be discussed in upcoming publications.
Recent Grand Finale results suggest that the mass of Saturn’s rings is actually lower than most previous results, approximately 1.54 $\pm$ 0.49 $\times$ 10$^{19}$ kg [@iess19]. If we use very straightforward assumptions that the rings are able to spread over time (via viscous spreading, satellite interactions, and micrometeoritic bombardment) and continuously feed the influx of material into the atmosphere, that our influx values are constant over time, and that there are no other sources replenishing the rings, then our mass deposition results suggest that the entire ring system could be depleted in approximately 120 million years. More realistically, viscous spreading throughout the rings is not effective enough to deplete the entirety of the ring system [@salmon10]. The bulk of this infalling material is coming from Saturn’s diffuse innermost D ring, which could result in an extremely short lifetime for the D ring and no notable effects for the more massive rings that are located further from the planet. The D ring is most likely sustained over time by material from the neighboring C ring, so it is possible that this influx is also affecting the C ring. Furthermore, observations of the D ring since the Voyager era indicate that it is rather dynamic and recent disturbances within the ring [@hedman07; @hedman14] suggest that this large influx could be a recent and temporary development. If this is the case, the large influx of material observed in Cassini’s last orbits might be a transient episode that is not indicative of typical influx values.
Conclusions
===========
Cassini’s Grand Finale orbits performed the first ever in situ observations of Saturn’s upper atmosphere. The surprisingly complex measurements returned by INMS provide us with the unique opportunity to measure the composition of the rings and understand the impact of ring rain on Saturn’s equatorial atmosphere. In this study, we present further evidence of ring material inflowing into Saturn’s upper atmosphere from Cassini’s last few orbits, building on previous INMS results first reported in . The region of the INMS mass range presented here (m/z = 12 - 20 amu) indicates that CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ are entering Saturn’s equatorial region through dynamic ring-atmosphere interactions. We have not analyzed here the entirety of the mass range (up to 99 amu), which includes evidence for a large amount of higher mass organics also present in Saturn’s upper atmosphere, and will be discussed in future work.
Identification and quantification of these species in the returned mass spectra are made difficult by their overlapping signals in INMS measurements. This is further complicated by the fact that INMS calibration data do not exist for all species of interest and measurements from the standard NIST mass spectral library are not an identical substitute for INMS calibration values. To overcome this, we adopt a new approach to mass spectral deconvolution that uses a Monte-Carlo randomization of the peak intensity of each fragment for each species [@gautier19]. This method allows us to generate thousands of simulated databases to model the INMS measurements and provides a probability density for the mixing ratio of each species in the database. Retrieved mixing ratios confirm the presence of a large abundance of CH$_4$ as previously reported in and , and highlight the variability of CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$. This variability could be connected to the volatility of these species or their differing proton affinities, which could allow for H$_2$O and NH$_3$ to more readily enter Saturn’s atmosphere from the rings in a charged form at different latitudes.
Retrieved density profiles of these species, along with Saturn’s main atmospheric constituents H$_2$ and He, show that while He is in diffusive equilibrium above the homopause as expected, CH$_4$, H$_2$O, and NH$_3$ are not. Their presence in this region of the atmosphere and their nearly constant mixing ratio is consistent with an external source, which must be Saturn’s rings. The measured influx for these orbits ranges from 9 to 44 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ m$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$, which translates to 1.7 to 8.3 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ kg s$^{-1}$ being deposited into Saturn’s atmosphere. These results represent a lower limit on the influx from INMS observations and are thus far consistent with previous INMS measurements [@waite18; @perry18], and further expand on observations of ring-atmosphere interactions (e.g., ).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a semiclassical model of an atom moving in the evanescent field of a microtoroidal resonator. Atoms falling through whispering-gallery modes can achieve strong, coherent coupling with the cavity at distances of approximately 100 nanometers from the surface; in this regime, surface-induced Casmir-Polder level shifts become significant for atomic motion and detection. Atomic transit events detected in recent experiments are analyzed with our simulation, which is extended to consider atom trapping in the evanescent field of a microtoroid.'
address: '$^1$ Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics 12-33, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA'
author:
- 'N. P. Stern$^1$, D. J. Alton$^1$, and H. J. Kimble$^1$'
title: Simulations of atomic trajectories near a dielectric surface
---
=1
Introduction
============
Strong, coherent interactions between atoms and light are an attractive resource for storing, manipulating, and retrieving quantum information in a quantum network with atoms serving as nodes for quantum processing and storage and with photons acting as a long-distance carrier for communication of quantum information [@Kimble:2008]. One realization of a quantum node is an optical cavity, where light-matter interactions are enhanced by confining optical fields to small mode volumes. In the canonical implementation, a Fabry-Perot resonator with intracavity trapped atoms enables a panoply of cavity quantum electrodynamics (cQED) phenomena using single photons and single atoms, and thereby, validates many aspects of a cQED quantum node [@Miller:2005; @Wilk:2007].
Despite these achievements, high-quality Fabry-Perot mirror cavities typically require significant care to construct and complex experimental instrumentation to stabilize. These practical issues have begun to be addressed by atom chips [@Reichel:2002; @Folman:2002], in which atoms are manipulated in integrated on-chip microcavity structures offering a scalable interface between light and matter [@Vahala:2003; @Colombe:2007; @Gehr:2010]. Owing to their high quality factors, low mode volumes, and efficient coupling to tapered optical fibers [@Armani:2003], microtoroidal resonators are a promising example of microcavities well-suited for on-chip cQED with single atoms and single photons [@Spillane:2005]. Strong coupling [@Aoki:2006; @Alton:2010] and non-classical regulation of optical fields [@Dayan:2008; @Aoki:2009] have been demonstrated with atoms and the whispering-gallery modes of a silica microtoroidal resonator.
In our experiments with microtoroids, Cs atoms are released from an optical trap and fall near a silica toroid, undergoing coherent interactions with cavity modes as each atom individually transits through the evanescent field of the resonator. In the most recent work of [@Alton:2010], atom transits are triggered in real-time to enable measurement of the Rabi-split spectrum of a strongly-coupled cQED system. Whereas a single atom is sufficient to modify the cavity dynamics, falling atoms are coupled to the cavity for only a few microseconds. Atom dropping experiments necessarily involve a large ensemble of individual atomic trajectories and represent, consequently, a far more complex measurement result.
Interactions between a neutral atom and a dielectric surface modify the radiative environment of the atom resulting in an enhanced decay rate [@Lukosz:1977] and Casimir-Polder (CP) forces [@Sukenik:1993; @Bordag:2001]. These *perturbative* radiative surface interactions are usually insignificant in cQED experiments with Fabry-Perot resonators where atoms are far from mirror surfaces, but in microcavity cQED, atoms are localized in evanescent fields with scale lengths $\lambda/2\pi \sim 150$ nm near a dielectric surface. The experimental conditions for microtoroidal cQED with falling atoms in [@Alton:2010] necessarily involve significant CP forces and level shifts while simultaneously addressing strong coupling to optical cavity modes. Theoretical analysis of this experiment requires addressing both the strong atom-cavity interactions and atom interactions with the dielectric surface of the microtoroid. As reported in [@Alton:2010], spectral and temporal measurements offer signatures of both strong coupling to the cavity mode and the significant influence of surface interactions on atomic motion. The role of these effects is quantified with detailed simulation of the trajectories of falling atoms detected in the real-time at low photon numbers.
In this article, we discuss in detail the approach used to simulate atomic motion near the surface of an axisymmetric dielectric resonator under the influence of strong coherent interactions with cavity modes. The experimental detection method of [@Alton:2010] is implemented stochastically in a semiclassical simulation of atom trajectories. These simulations provide a perspective on the atomic motion of atom transits recorded in our microtoroid experiments, while offering additional insights into the loading of optical evanescent field traps. In section \[Sec:theory\], we outline the semiclassical model of a two-level atom coupled to the whispering gallery modes of a microtoroidal resonator. In section \[sec:OpticalForce\], we review the optical dipole forces which are a critical factor influencing atomic motion in an optical cavity. Our calculations of modified emission rates and Casimir-Polder surface interactions are detailed in section \[sec:Surface\]. Section \[sec:exp\] describes the implementation of our model for simulating recent atom-toroid experiments. Finally, section \[sec:trap\] extends our simulation to evanescent field traps around a microtoroid.
Atoms in a microtoroidal cavity {#Sec:theory}
===============================
We approach the motion of atoms moving under the influence of surface interactions and coherent cavity dynamics with a semiclassical method to efficiently simulate a large number of atom trajectories. For surface interactions, dispersion forces are calculated *perturbatively* using the linear response functions of SiO$_2$ and a multi-level atom. For nearly-resonant *non-perturbative* coherent interactions between atom and cavity, the atomic internal state and the cavity field are treated quantum mechanically within the two-level and rotating-wave approximations.
Simulations of atomic motion follow the semiclassical method detailed in [@Doherty:1997]. Mechanical effects of light are incorporated classically as a force ${\vec{F}}({\vec{r}})$ on a point particle atom at location ${\vec{r}}$. Trajectories ${\vec{r}}(t)$ are calculated with a Langevin equation approach to incorporate momentum diffusion from fluctuations. At each simulation time step $t^i$, the atomic velocity is calculated as: $$\label{eq:langevin}
v^{i+1}_j = v^{i}_j + F^i_j \Delta t/m_{\rm Cs} + \sqrt{2 D^i_{jj} \Delta t/m_{\rm Cs}^2} W^i_j$$ where ${\vec{v}}^i$ is the velocity at the $i$ time step, $m_{\rm Cs}$ is the atomic mass, and $\Delta t$ is the simulation time step $t^{i+1}-t^{i}$. The ${\vec{W}}^i$ are normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation of 1. Given the force ${\vec{F}}$ and diffusion tensor $D_{ij}$ as discussed in section \[sec:OpticalForce\], the atom trajectory ${\vec{r}}(t)$ and cavity transmission and reflection coefficients, $T(t)$ and $R(t)$ are calculated. A single atom strongly coupled to the cavity mode has a large effect on cavity fields and optical forces, requiring simultaneous solutions of atomic motion and cQED dynamics.
Full quantization of atomic motion leads to an unwieldy Hilbert space not conducive to efficient simulation. In contrast, semiclassical methods are well-suited for simulating atomic motion in experiments with falling atoms near resonators. The ratio of the recoil energy to the linewidth of the cesium $6S_{1/2}\rightarrow 6P_{3/2}$ transition is less than $10^{-3}$. Further, the recoil velocity of $\sim 3.5$ mm/s is much less than the typical velocity of falling atoms of order $200$ mm/s so that each spontaneous emission event represents a small momentum kick. Cavity fields and internal atomic states respond quickly to environment changes, allowing calculation of optical forces and momentum diffusion in a constant-velocity limit at time $t$ and energy shifts from surface interactions as if atom the atom were stationary. The remainder of this section discusses the quantum mechanical equations of motion for the atom and cavity fields in the low-probe intensity limit, to be followed later by contributions to the force ${\vec{F}}$ used in .
Modes of a microtoroidal resonator {#subsec:modes}
----------------------------------
An idealized microtoroid has axial symmetry, so we work in a standard cylindrical coordinate system ${\vec{r}}\rightarrow (\rho, \phi, z)$. The toroid is modeled as a circle of diameter $D_{\rm m}$ with dielectric constant $\epsilon$ revolved around the $z$-axis to make a torus of major diameter $D_{\rm M}$ (Fig. \[Fig-modes\](a)). The toroid is therefore defined by its minor diameter $D_{\rm m}$ and its principal diameter $D_{\rm p} = D_{\rm M}+D_{\rm m}$. The fabrication and characterization of high-quality microtoroids are described in detail elsewhere [@Armani:2003].
The axisymmetric cavity modes of interest are whispering-gallery modes (WGM), which lie near the edge of the resonator surface and circulate in either a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction. These modes are characterized by an azimuthal mode number $m$, whose magnitude gives the periodicity around the toroid and whose sign indicates the direction of propagation. The WGMs for $\pm m$ are degenerate in frequency but travel around the toroid in opposite directions. The mode electric fields for the WGM traveling waves are written as ${\vec{E}}({\vec{r}}) = E_{\rm max} {\vec{f}}(\rho, z) e^{i m \phi}$, where ${\vec{f}}(\rho, z) = {\vec{E}}(\rho, z)/E_{\rm max}$ is the mode function in the $\rho-z$ cross-section normalized by the maximum electric field $E_{\rm max}$. In general, backscattering couples these two modes so that a more useful eigenbasis for the system consists of the normal, standing wave modes characterized by a phase and the periodicity $|m|$. This backscattering coupling $h$ is assumed to be real, with the phase absorbed into the definition of the origin of the coordinate $\phi$. In addition, the mode’s field decays at a rate $\kappa_{\rm i}$ through radiation, scattering, and absorption. In our simulations, a cavity mode is fully described by its spatial mode function ${\vec{f}}({\vec{r}})$, its azimuthal mode number $m$, its loss rate $\kappa_{\rm i}$, and the coupling $h$ to the counter-propagating mode with mode number $-m$.
We model the microtoroid modes using a commercial finite-element software package (COMSOL) to solve numerically for the vector mode functions ${\vec{f}}(\rho, z)$ for modes of a given $m$ [@Oxborrow:2007]. Mode volumes are calculated from, $$V_{\rm m} = \frac{\int \! dV \, \epsilon({\vec{r}}) |{\vec{E}}({\vec{r}})|^2}{E_{\rm max}^2} = 2 \pi \int \! dA \, \epsilon(\rho, z) \rho f(\rho, z)^2$$ In this notation [@Spillane:2005], the coupling of a circularly polarized optical field to an atomic dipole located in the evanescent field of the cavity is calculated as: $$g({\vec{r}}) = \langle {\vec{d}}\cdot {\vec{E}}\rangle = f(\rho, z) e^{i m \phi} \sqrt{\frac{3 \pi c^3 \gamma}{{\omega^{(0)} _{\rm a}}^2 V_{\rm m}}}$$ where ${\vec{d}}$ is the dipole operator and $\omega^{(0)}_{\rm a} = 2\pi c/\lambda_0$ is the vacuum transition frequency of the two-level atom with free-space wavelength $\lambda_0$. WGMs are predominantly linearly polarized, and so we average over the dipole matrix elements to obtain an effective traveling wave coupling $g_{\rm tw}$ which is approximately $\sim 0.6$ of the value for circularly polarized light (see supplementary information of [@Aoki:2006]. Travelling wave modes of an axisymmetric resonator are not strictly transverse. For the toroid geometries considered here, with $D_{\rm p}, D_{\rm m} \gg \lambda$, the azimuthal component is small and we assume that the optical field is linear outside of the toroid. Since the cavity losses are dominated by absorption and defect scattering rather than the radiative lifetime set by the toroid geometry [@Spillane:2005], we let $\kappa_{\rm i}$ and $h$ be experimental parameters. Fig. \[Fig-modes\] shows the lowest-order mode with $m=118$ for a toroid with $\{D_{\rm p},D_{\rm m}\} = \{24, 3\}$ $\mu$m. The index $m$ is chosen so that the cavity frequency $\omega_{\rm c}$ is near the $6S_{1/2}\rightarrow 6P_{3/2}$ transition of Cs with $\omega_{\rm a}^{(0)}/2\pi = 351.7$ THz.
The local polarization of modes varies throughout the interior and exterior of the toroid. Approximate solutions for constant polarization suggest classifications as quasi-transverse modes, labeled transverse electric (TE) and transverse magnetic (TM) modes, although actual solutions are not transverse. A reasonable analytic approximation for the lowest-order mode function with mode number $m$ outside of the toroid is that of a Gaussian wrapped around the toroid’s surface that decays exponentially with distance scale set by the free space wavevector $1/\lambdabar_0 = 2 \pi/\lambda_0$, $$\label{eq:approxf}
f(\rho, z)\sim e^{-d/\lambdabar_0} e^{-(\psi/\psi_0)^2}$$ where $d(\rho,z) = \sqrt{(\rho-D_{\rm M}/2)^2+z^2} - D_{\rm m}/2$ is the distance to the toroid surface, $\psi(\rho, z) = \arctan \frac{z}{\rho-D_{\rm M}/2}$ is the angle around the toroid cross-section ($\psi=0$ at $z=0$), and $\psi_0$ is a characteristic mode width (see Fig. 1a). Higher order angular modes are characterized by additional nodes along the coordinate $\psi$.
![\[Fig-modes\] (a) A scanning electron microscope image of a microtoroid with definitions of the relevant parameters discussed in the text. (b) The lowest order mode function $f(\rho, z)$ of a toroid mode with $\{D_{\rm p}, D_{\rm m}\} = \{24, 3\}$ $\mu$m and $m = 118$ and $\lambda = 852$ mn. ](FIG-ModesFig1a_b)
Cavity QED in an axisymmetric resonator {#sec:theoryequations}
---------------------------------------
We consider a quantum model of a two-level atom at position ${\vec{r}}(t)$ coupled to an axisymmetric resonator shown schematically in Fig. \[Fig-Schematic\]. The terminology used here follows the supplemental material of [@Aoki:2006], [@Dayan:2008], and [@Alton:2010], but the general formalism can be found in additional sources (see [@Srinivasan:2007], for example). As described in section \[subsec:modes\], an axisymmetric resonator supports two degenerate counter-propagating whispering-gallery modes at resonance frequency $\omega_{\rm c}$ to which we associate the annihilation (creation) operators $a$ and $b$ ($a^\dagger$ and $b^\dagger$). Each traveling-wave mode has an intrinsic loss rate, $\kappa_{\rm i}$; the modes are coupled via scattering at rate $h$. External optical access to the cavity is provided by a tapered fiber carrying input fields $\{a_{\rm in}, b_{\rm in} \}$ at probe frequency $\omega_{\rm p}$. Fiber fields couple to the cavity modes with an external coupling rate $\kappa_{\rm ex}$. The output fields of the fiber taper in each direction are the coherent sum of the input field and the leaking cavity field, $\{a_{\rm out}, b_{\rm out}\} = -\{a_{\rm in}, b_{\rm in}\} + \sqrt{2\kappa_{\rm ex}} \{a, b\}$ [@Aoki:2006; @Dayan:2008].
We specialize to the situation of single-sided excitation, where $\langle b_{\rm in}\rangle=0$. The input field $a_{\rm in}$ drives the $a$ mode with strength $\varepsilon_{\rm p} = i \sqrt{2 \kappa_{\rm ex}} \langle a_{\rm in} \rangle$ so that the incident photon flux is $P_{\rm in}=\langle a^\dagger_{\rm in} a_{\rm in}\rangle = |\varepsilon_{\rm p}|^2/2\kappa_{\rm ex}$. Experimentally accessible quantities are the transmitted and reflected photon fluxes, $P_{\rm T}=\langle a^\dagger_{\rm out} a_{\rm out}\rangle$ and $P_{\rm R}=\langle b^\dagger_{\rm out} b_{\rm out}\rangle$, respectively. In experiments, data is typically presented as normalized transmission and reflection coefficients defined as $T = P_{\rm T}/P_{\rm in}$ and $R = P_{\rm R}/P_{\rm in}$. In the absence of an atom, the functions $T$ and $R$ for the bare cavity depend on the detuning $\Delta_{\rm cp} = \omega_{\rm c} - \omega_{\rm p}$ and the cavity rates $h$, $\kappa_{\rm i}$, and $\kappa_{\rm ex}$. At critical coupling, $\kappa_{\rm ex} = \sqrt{\kappa_{\rm i}^2 + h^2}$, the bare cavity $T\rightarrow 0$ when $\Delta_{\rm cp} = 0$ [@Spillane:2003].
![\[Fig-Schematic\] (a) Schematic of the atom-toroid system. Coherent optical fields in the tapered fiber couple into whispering-gallery cavity modes of an axisymmetric resonator. These fields can couple to an atomic transition with rate $g$, scatter to the counter-propagating mode ($h$), escape to the environment ($\kappa_{\rm i}$), or couple in/out of the fiber ($\kappa_{\rm ex}$). The atom is described as a two-level system with transition frequency $\omega_{\rm a}$ and spontaneous emission rate $\gamma$. (b) Imaginary part of the eigenvalues $\Lambda_i$ of the linearized systems as a function of detuning $\Delta= \omega_{\rm c}-\omega_{\rm a}^{(0)}$ for a Cs atom at $\phi = \pi/4$ and $g = 60$ MHz critically coupled to a cavity with parameters $\{\kappa_{\rm i}, h\}/ 2 \pi = \{8, 0\} $ MHz (Eqs. ).](FIG-SchematicFig2a_b)
The cavity modes $\{a, b\}$ both couple to a single two-level atom with transition frequency $\omega_{\rm a}$ at location ${\vec{r}}$. In the context of cQED, the atomic system is described by a single transition with frequency $\omega_{\rm a}$ with the associated raising and lowering operators $\sigma^{+}$ and $\sigma^{-}$ and an excited state field decay rate $\gamma$. The atomic frequency $\omega_{\rm a}({\vec{r}})$ may be shifted from the free-space value $\omega^{(0)}_{\rm a}$ by frequency $\delta_{\rm a}({\vec{r}})$ due to interactions with the dielectric surface. The coupling of the traveling-wave modes $\{a,b\}$ to the atomic dipole is described by the single-photon coupling rate $g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}})=g_{\rm tw}^{\rm max} f(\rho,z) {\rm e}^{\pm i \theta}$, where $f(\rho,z)$ is the cavity mode function and $\theta = m \phi$. A discussion of $f(\rho,z)$ for the modes of a microtoroid appears in section \[subsec:modes\]. For an atom in motion, $\omega_{\rm a}({\vec{r}})$, $\gamma({\vec{r}})$, and $g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}})$ are spatially-dependent quantities that depend on the atomic position ${\vec{r}}(t)$.
To study the atom-cavity dynamics, we write the standard Jaynes-Cummings-style cQED Hamiltonian for coupled field modes [@JaynesCummings:1963; @Aoki:2006]: $$\begin{aligned}
H/\hbar =&\omega_{\rm a}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+\sigma^- + \omega_{\rm c}\left( a^\dagger a + b^\dagger b \right) + h \left( a^\dagger b + b^\dagger a \right) +\left(\varepsilon^*_{\rm p}e^{i \omega_{\rm p}t} a + \varepsilon_{\rm p}e^{-i \omega_{\rm p}t} a^\dagger \right)\nonumber\\ \nopagebreak
&+\left(g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) a^\dagger\sigma^- + g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+ a \right) + \left( g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) b^\dagger \sigma^- + g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+ b \right).\end{aligned}$$ Following the rotating-wave approximation, we write the Hamiltonian in a frame rotating at $\omega_{\rm p}$ [@Aoki:2006; @Dayan:2008; @Srinivasan:2007]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian1}
H/\hbar =&\Delta_{\rm ap}({\vec{r}})\sigma^+\sigma^- + \Delta_{\rm cp}\left( a^\dagger a + b^\dagger b \right) + h \left( a^\dagger b + b^\dagger a \right) +\varepsilon^*_{\rm p} a + \varepsilon_{\rm p} a^\dagger \nonumber \\ &+ \left(g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) a^\dagger\sigma^- + g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+ a \right) + \left( g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) b^\dagger \sigma^- + g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+ b \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\rm ap}({\vec{r}}) = \omega_{\rm a}({\vec{r}}) - \omega_{\rm p}$ and $\Delta_{\rm cp} = \omega_{\rm c} - \omega_{\rm p}$. Dissipation from coupling to external modes is treated using the master equation for the density operator of the system $\rho$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MasterEquation}
\dot{\rho}=&-\frac{i}{\hbar} [H,\rho]+\kappa\left(2a\rho a^\dagger-a^\dagger a\rho - \rho a^\dagger a\right) + \kappa \left( 2b\rho b^\dagger - b^\dagger b \rho - \rho b^\dagger b\right)\nonumber \\ &+ \gamma\left(2\sigma^-\rho\sigma^+ - \sigma^+\sigma^-\rho - \rho\sigma^+\sigma^-\right)\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\kappa = \kappa_{\rm i} + \kappa_{\rm ex}$ is the total field decay rate of each cavity mode, and $2 \gamma({\vec{r}})$ is the atomic dipole spontaneous emission rate, which is orientation dependent near a dielectric surface (section \[sec:SpontEm\]).
The Hamiltonian can be rewritten in a standing wave basis using normal modes $A = (a+b)/\sqrt{2}$ and $B = (a-b)/\sqrt{2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hamiltonian2}
H/\hbar = &\Delta_{\rm ap}({\vec{r}}) \sigma^+\sigma^- + (\Delta_{\rm cp}+h) A^\dagger A + (\Delta_{\rm cp}-h) B^\dagger B \nonumber\\&+ \left( \varepsilon^*_{\rm p} A + \varepsilon_{\rm p} A^\dagger \right)/\sqrt{2} + \left( \varepsilon^*_{\rm p} B + \varepsilon_{\rm p} B^\dagger \right)/\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\
&+ g_{\rm A}({\vec{r}}) \left( A^\dagger\sigma^- + \sigma^+ A \right) - {i} g_{\rm B}({\vec{r}}) \left( B^\dagger\sigma^- - \sigma^+ B \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{\rm A}({\vec{r}}) = g_{\rm max} f(\rho,z) \cos \theta$, $g_{\rm B}({\vec{r}}) = g_{\rm max} f(\rho,z) \sin\theta$, and $g_{\rm max} = \sqrt{2} g_{\rm tw}^{\rm max}$. In the absence of atomic coupling ($g_{\rm tw} = 0$), these normal modes are eigenstates of . With $g_{\rm tw} \neq 0$, the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are dressed states of atom-cavity excitations. With $h=0$ and $g_{\rm tw} \neq 0$, the atom defines a natural basis in which it couples to only a single standing wave mode. For the modes $\{A, B\}$ defined above, coupling may occur predominantly, or even exclusively, to one of the two normal modes depending the azimuthal coordinate $\theta$. For such $\theta$, the system can be interpreted as an atom coupled to one normal mode in a traditional Jaynes-Cummings model with dressed-state splitting given by the single-photon Rabi frequency $\Omega_{(1)} = 2 g \equiv 2 g_{\rm max} f(\rho,z)$, along with a second complementary cavity mode uncoupled to the atom. Approximately for $g_{\rm tw} \gg h$, this interpretation is consistent for any arbitrary atomic coordinate $\theta$. For $h \neq 0 $ and comparable to $\kappa_{\rm i}$ with a fixed phase convention (such as Im$(h)=0$ used here), this decomposition is not possible for arbitrary atomic coordinate $\theta$; the atom in general couples to both normal modes as a function of $\phi$ [@Aoki:2006; @Srinivasan:2007].
The master equation can be numerically solved using a truncated number state basis for the cavity modes. Alternatively, the system is linearized by treating the atom operators $\sigma^{\pm}$ as approximate bosonic harmonic oscillator operators with $\left[\sigma^-,\sigma^+\right] \approx 1$. For a sufficiently weak probe field, the atomic excited state population is small enough that the oscillator has negligible population above the first excited level and the harmonic approximation is quite good. As part of this linearization, we factor expectation values of normally-ordered operator products into products of operator expectation values [@Doherty:1997; @Fischer:2001]. Reducing operators to complex numbers suppresses coherence, but numerical calculations confirm that this approximation is accurate when calculating cavity output fields and classical forces for the weak driving power levels considered here. In particular, experiments typically utilize a photon flux $P_{\rm T}=\langle a^\dagger_{\rm out} a_{\rm out}\rangle \sim 15$ cts/$\mu$s corresponding to an average cavity photon population of $\langle a^\dagger a \rangle \sim 0.1$. At these photon numbers, cavity expectation values effectively factorize such that $\langle a^\dagger a \rangle \approx \langle a^\dagger \rangle \langle a \rangle$ for the semiclassical treatment used here [@Hood:1998]. We use this approximation to write $P_{\rm T}=\langle a^\dagger_{\rm out} a_{\rm out}\rangle \approx \langle a^\dagger_{\rm out} \rangle \langle a_{\rm out}\rangle$, implying that we only need the complex number $\langle a_{\rm out}\rangle =-\langle a_{\rm in}\rangle + \sqrt{2\kappa_{\rm ex}} \langle a \rangle$ and its conjugate to calculate the cavity transmission at these photon numbers. This approximation is not sufficient for calculation of the $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ correlation function where the nonlinearities must be included [@Alton:2010].
The relevant equations of motion for the field amplitudes of the linearized master equation are, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:lineqs}
\langle \dot{a} \rangle & = -(\kappa + {i} \Delta_{\rm cp})~\langle a \rangle - {i} h~\langle b \rangle - {i} \varepsilon_{\rm p} - {i} g^*_{\rm tw}~\langle \sigma^- \rangle, \\
\langle \dot{b} \rangle & = -(\kappa + {i} \Delta_{\rm cp} )~\langle b \rangle - {i} h~\langle a \rangle - {i} g_{\rm tw}~\langle \sigma^- \rangle, \\
\langle \dot{\sigma^-} \rangle & = -(\gamma + {i} \Delta_{\rm ap} )~\langle \sigma^- \rangle - {i} g_{\rm tw}~\langle a \rangle - {i} g^*_{\rm tw}~\langle b \rangle. \label{Eq:sigma}\end{aligned}$$
Time and spectral dependence of this system of equations are governed by its eigenvalues $\Lambda_i$. The imaginary part of the eigenvalues as a function of detuning $\Delta \equiv \Delta_{\rm cp} - \Delta_{\rm ap} = \omega_{\rm c}-\omega_{\rm a}$ are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig-Schematic\]b. For large $\Delta\gg |g_{\rm tw}|$, the three eigenvalues include one atom-like eigenvalue and two cavity-like eigenvalues separated by the mode splitting $h$. For intermediate $\Delta$, there is an anti-crossing of two dressed-state eigenvalues $\Lambda_{\pm}$, while the third (cavity-like) $\Lambda_0$ is uncoupled to the atom.
For a slowly-moving atom, the mode fields remain approximately in steady state as the parameters evolve with the atom trajectory ${\vec{r}}(t)$. Analytic steady-state solutions to for $\langle a \rangle_{\rm ss}$ and $\langle b \rangle_{\rm ss}$ are:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:linsols}
\hspace{-3.0cm}\langle a \rangle_{\rm ss} & = {i} \varepsilon_{\rm p} \frac{\left(\gamma + {i}\Delta_{\rm ap}\right)\left[(\kappa + {i}\Delta_{\rm cp})\left(\gamma+{i}\Delta_{\rm ap}\right)+|g_{\rm tw}|^2\right]}{\left[{i} h (\gamma + {i} \Delta_{\rm ap})+(g^*_{\rm tw})^2 \right] \left[{i} h (\gamma+{i}\Delta_{\rm ap})+g_{\rm tw}^2\right]-\left[(\kappa+{i}\Delta_{\rm cp})(\gamma+{i}\Delta_{\rm ap})+|g_{\rm tw}|^2\right]^2} \label{eq:linsolsa} \\
\hspace{-3.0cm}\langle b \rangle_{\rm ss} & = - \frac{{i} h \left(\gamma+{i}\Delta_{\rm ap}\right)+g^2_{\rm tw}}{(\kappa+{i}\Delta_{\rm cp})(\gamma+{i}\Delta_{\rm ap})+|g_{\rm tw}|^2} \langle a \rangle_{\rm ss} \label{eq:linsolsb} \\
\hspace{-3.0cm}\langle \sigma^- \rangle_{\rm ss} & = -i \frac{g_{\rm tw} \langle a\rangle_{\rm ss} + g^*_{\rm tw} \langle b\rangle_{\rm ss} }{\gamma+i \Delta_{\rm ap}}. \label{eq:linsolss}\end{aligned}$$
Optical forces on an atom in a cavity {#sec:OpticalForce}
=====================================
Neutral atoms experience forces from the interaction of the atomic dipole moment with the radiation field. These optical dipole forces have a quantum mechanical interpretation as coherent photon scattering [@Gordon:1980; @Dalibard:1985]. For a light field near resonance with the atomic dipole transition, these optical forces can be quite strong, even at the single photon level; cavity-enhanced dipole forces [@Doherty:1997; @Horak:1997] have been exploited to trap [@Hood:2000] and localize [@Pinkse:2000] a single atom with the force generated by a single strongly-coupled photon. In this section, we discuss how the optical forces, their first-order velocity dependence, and their fluctuations are included in our semiclassical simulation.
Dipole forces
-------------
In a quantum mechanical treatment of light-matter interactions [@Dalibard:1985], the eigenstates of the system are dressed states of atom and optical field. The quantum mechanical optical force on the atom at location ${\vec{r}}$ can be found from the commutator of the atom momentum ${\vec{p}}$ with the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\rm int}$ consisting of the last two terms from the Hamiltonian : $$\label{Eq:force}
\hspace{-2cm}{\vec{F}} = \frac{d{\vec{p}}}{d t} = \frac{i}{\hbar}\left[H_{\rm int}, {\vec{p}} \right] = - \hbar \nabla g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \left(a^\dagger \sigma^- + \sigma^+ b\right) - \hbar \nabla g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \left( \sigma^+ a + b^\dagger \sigma^-\right)$$ The gradient from the position space representation of the momentum operator ${\vec{p}}$ only acts on $g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}})$ and not on the field operators [@vanEnk:2001; @Domokos:2002]. The steady-state expectation values of give the dipole force on the atom in the semiclassical approximation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:forceSC}
\hspace{-2cm}\langle{\vec{F}}\rangle_{\rm ss} = &- \hbar \nabla g^*_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \left(\langle a^\dagger\rangle_{\rm ss} \langle\sigma^-\rangle_{\rm ss} + \langle\sigma^+\rangle_{\rm ss} \langle b \rangle_{\rm ss}\right) \nonumber \\ &- \hbar \nabla g_{\rm tw}({\vec{r}}) \left( \langle \sigma^+\rangle_{\rm ss} \langle a\rangle_{\rm ss} + \langle b^\dagger\rangle_{\rm ss} \langle\sigma^-\rangle_{\rm ss}\right)\end{aligned}$$ As described in section \[Sec:theory\], the steady-state operator expressions are simplified by reducing expectation values of operator products to products of linearized steady-state operator expectation values. Ignoring fiber and spontaneous emission losses, an effective conservative dipole potential $U_{\rm d}$ can be defined by integration of .
Velocity-dependent forces on an atom
------------------------------------
Non-zero velocity effects on the force are found by including a first-order velocity correction in the steady state expectation values [@Fischer:2001; @Gordon:1980; @Domokos:2002]. Consider a vector of operators ${\vec{O}}$ whose expectation values obey a linearized equation system such as . Assuming a small velocity, we expand the operator expectation values $\langle {\vec{O}} \rangle$ as: $$\label{eq:vdep}
\langle {\vec{O}} \rangle = \langle {\vec{O}} \rangle_0 + \langle {\vec{O}} \rangle_1 + \ldots,$$ where the subscripts denote the order of the velocity $v$ in each term. If an atom is moving through these fields, then the cavity parameters depend in general on atomic position ${\vec{r}}$. As ${\vec{r}}$ changes in time, the fields must evolve in response. Consequently, the time derivative of the expectation value evolves not only from explicit time dependence, but from atomic motion as well. $$\label{eq:vdepss}
\langle \dot{{\vec{O}}} \rangle = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + {\vec{v}}\cdot {\vec{\nabla}} \right) \langle {\vec{O}} \rangle$$ Setting the explicit time derivatives in to zero, the perturbative expansion of the time derivative can be equated to the original linearized equation system. Collecting terms of each order in velocity gives an equation for the first-order term $\langle {\vec{O}} \rangle_1$ in terms of the zero-velocity steady-state solution $\langle {\vec{O}} \rangle_0$. This procedure requires the spatial derivative of the zero-order steady-state solutions, where spatial dependence enters through the atomic transition frequency $\omega_{\rm a}({\vec{r}})$, the spontaneous emission rate $\gamma({\vec{r}})$, and the atom-cavity coupling $g({\vec{r}})$. Only terms linear in velocity are kept in the operator products of the force ${\vec{F}}({\vec{r}})$ in .
In practice, first-order velocity corrections are small in our simulation. For example, Doppler shifts arising from spatial derivatives of the cavity modes are on the order of ${\vec{k}}\cdot {\vec{v}}$, where ${\vec{k}}$ is the mode wavevector. For typical azimuthal velocities of less than 0.1 m/s, the Doppler shift is less than 1 MHz. The effect becomes more significant as atoms accelerate to high velocities near the surface, but atomic level shifts from surface interactions are more significant in this regime than the Doppler shifts.
Momentum diffusion and the diffusion tensor in a cavity
-------------------------------------------------------
Quantum fluctuations of optical forces are treated by adding a stochastic momentum diffusion contribution to the atomic velocity in the Langevin equations of motion. We calculate the diffusion tensor components used in , $D_{ii}$, using general expressions for diffusion in an atom-cavity system generalized for the two-mode cavity of a toroid [@Murr:2006]: $$\label{Eq:Diffusion}
\hspace{-2cm}2 D_{ii} = (\hbar k)^2 2\gamma \left|\left\langle \sigma^- \right\rangle_{\rm ss}\right|^2 + \left| \hbar \nabla_i \left\langle \sigma^- \right\rangle_{\rm ss} \right|^2 2 \gamma + 2\kappa \left(\left| \hbar \nabla_i \left\langle a \right\rangle_{\rm ss} \right|^2 + \left| \hbar \nabla_i \left\langle b \right\rangle_{\rm ss} \right|^2\right)$$ for $i=x,y,z$, where $\gamma$ is the atomic field spontaneous decay rate. The first term represents fluctuations from spontaneous emission, the second term describes a fluctuating atomic dipole coupled to a cavity field, and the third represents a fluctuating cavity field coupled to an atomic dipole. is approximated using steady-state fields calculated from the linearized solutions to the master equation . Although included in the trajectory model, momentum diffusion does not significantly alter averages over ensembles of trajectories at the weak excitation levels and low atomic velocities used in the relevant experiments.
Effects of surfaces on atoms near dielectrics {#sec:Surface}
=============================================
In the vicinity of a material surface, the mode structure of the full electromagnetic field is modified due to the dielectric properties of nearby objects. These off-resonant radiative interactions modify the dipole decay rate of atomic states and shift electronic energy levels. This surface interaction varies spatially as the relative atom-surface configuration changes. The surface phenomena are dispersive and depend on the multi-level description of the atom’s electronic structure; they are calculated using traditional perturbation theory with the full electromagnetic field without focusing on a few select modes enhanced by a cavity in cQED.
Spontaneous emission rate near a surface {#sec:SpontEm}
----------------------------------------
When a classical oscillating dipole is placed near a surface, its radiation pattern is modified by the time-lagged reflected field from the dielectric surface. The spontaneous emission rate oscillates with distance $d$ from the surface, which can be interpreted as interference between the radiation field of the dipole and its reflection. The variation of the emission rate depends on whether the dipole vector is parallel or perpendicular to the surface, as intuitively expected from the asymmetry of image dipole orientations of dipoles aligned parallel and perpendicular to the surface normal. For either orientation, the spontaneous emission rate features a marked increase within a wavelength of the surface due to surface evanescent modes that become available for decay for $d \lesssim \lambdabar_0$.
We calculate the surface-modified dipole decay rates $\gamma^{(\|)}_{\rm s}(d)$ and $\gamma^{(\bot)}_{\rm s}(d)$ for a cesium atom near an SiO$_2$ surface following the methods of Refs. [@Lukosz:1977; @Li:1990] (see Fig. \[fig-gammadistance\]). This calculation involves an integration of surface reflection coefficients over possible wavevectors of radiated light. The integrand depends on the dielectric function of SiO$_2$ evaluated at the frequency $\omega_{\rm a}$ of the atomic transition. The orientations refer to the alignment of a classical dipole relative to the surface plane.
![Variations of the dipole decay rate $\gamma_{\rm s}(d)$ for a dipole oriented parallel $(\|)$ and perpendicular $(\bot)$ to the surface normal as a function of distance $d$ from a semi-infinite region of SiO$_2$. The decay rate is in units of the vacuum decay rate $\gamma_0$ and the wavelength of the transition is $\lambda = 852$ nm.[]{data-label="fig-gammadistance"}](FIG-GammaFig3)
Calculation of Casimir-Polder potentials
----------------------------------------
Radiative interactions with a surface are important components of motion for neutral atoms within a few hundred nm of a surface, with the potential for manipulating atomic motion through attractive [@Sukenik:1993] or repulsive forces [@Munday:2009]. Depending on the theoretical framework, these forces are naturally thought of as radiative self-interactions between two polarizable objects, fluctuations of virtual electromagnetic excitations, or as a manifestation of vacuum energy of the electromagnetic field. These surface interactions, represented by a conservative potential $U_{\rm s}$, are sensitive to the frequency dispersion of the electromagnetic response properties of the atoms and surfaces.
For an atom located a short distance $d\ll \lambda_0$ from a dielectric, the fluctuating dipole of the atom interacts with its own surface image dipole in the well-known nonretarded van der Waals interaction. Using only classical electrodynamics with a fluctuating dipole, the surface interaction potential is found to take the Lennard-Jones (LJ) form $U_{\rm s}^{\rm LJ} = -C_3/d^3$, where $C_3$ is a constant that depends on the atomic polarizability and dielectric permittivity of the surface [@London:1930; @London:1937; @Lennard-Jones:1932; @Fichet:1995]. At larger separations, virtual photons exchanged between atoms and surfaces cannot travel the distance in time $t \sim 1/\omega$ due to the finite speed of light. Consequently, the interaction potential is reduced, as first calculated in the 1948 paper by Casimir and Polder [@Casimir:1948]. The retarded surface potential takes the form $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ret} = -C_4/d^4$ for a constant $C_4$, where $C_4$ depends on both $c$ and $\hbar$ as this is fundamentally both a relativistic and quantum phenomenon. The full theory of surface forces for real materials with dispersive dielectric functions came with the work of Lifshitz [@Lifshitz:1956; @Dzyaloshinskii:1961]. This framework reduces to both the above situations for the proper limits, and, importantly, it accounts for finite temperatures, predicting a $U_{\rm s}^{\rm th} \propto d^{-3}$ potential caused by thermal photons dominant at large distances for $d \gg \hbar c/k_B T$ [@Antezza:2004]. In our discussion, we refer to these generalized dispersion forces as *Casimir-Polder* (CP) forces, whereas $U_{\rm s}^{\rm LJ} $, $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ret}$, and $U_{\rm s}^{\rm th}$ refer to the appropriate distance limits.
In microcavity cQED, evanescent field distance scales are set by the scale length of the evanescent field, $\lambdabar_0 = \lambda_0/2\pi = 136$ nm (for the Cs $D2$ line). The relevant distances ($0 < d \lesssim 300$ nm) span both the LJ and retarded regimes, but are much shorter than the thermal regime ($d>~5~\mu$m). In the transition region, the limiting power laws do not fully describe $U_{\rm s}$ over the relevant range of $d$. In our modeling, we utilize a calculation of $U_{\rm s}$ with the Lifshitz approach. The Lennard-Jones, retarded, and thermal limits arise naturally from the Lifshitz formalism [@Antezza:2004].
The potential $U_{\rm s}$ enters our simulation in two ways. First, the transition frequency $\omega_{\rm a}$ of the two-level atomic system shifts away from the vacuum frequency by $\delta_{\rm a} = (U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}({\vec{r}}) - U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}({\vec{r}}))/\hbar$, where $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}({\vec{r}})$ and $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}({\vec{r}})$ are the surface potentials for the ground and excited states, respectively. Since the atom transitions between the ground and excited states during its passage through the mode, the average net force used in calculations is found by weighting each contribution by the steady-state atomic state populations, $F_{\rm s} = F_{\rm s}^{\rm g} \left( 1- \langle \sigma^{\dag} \rangle_{\rm ss} \left\langle \sigma \right\rangle_{\rm ss } \right) + F_{\rm s}^{\rm ex} \langle \sigma^{\dag} \rangle_{\rm ss } \left\langle \sigma \right\rangle_{\rm ss }$.
We calculate $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$ and $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}$ for a cesium atom near a glass SiO$_2$ surface using the Lifshitz approach. This calculation depends on the dispersion properties of the response functions of materials, in this case the polarizability of the Cs ground state $\alpha(\omega)$ and the complex dielectric function $\epsilon(\omega)$ of the silica surface. Modeling of these functions is discussed in \[app:response\]. In particular, these response functions must be evaluated on the imaginary frequency axis $\omega = i \xi$, as shown in Figure \[Fig-Response\].
![\[Fig-Response\] Dispersive response functions for SiO$_2$ and Cesium atoms. (a) The dielectric function $\epsilon (i \xi)$ for SiO$_2$ evaluated for frequency $\xi$ along the imaginary axis. (b) Total atomic polarizability $\alpha (i \xi)$ for SiO$_2$ evaluated for frequency $\xi$ along the imaginary axis for the $6S_{1/2}$ ground state (red) and the $6P_{3/2}$ excited state calculated as described in \[app:response\]. ](FIG-ResponseFig4a_b)
Following the method of [@Blagov:2005], curvature of the toroid surface is implemented by treating the toroid as a cylinder with radius of curvature $R = D_{\rm m}/2$. The major axis curvature is neglected because for all relevant distances $d \ll D_M/2$. The resulting formula can be interpreted as a sum over discrete Matsubara frequencies $\xi_n = 2 \pi n k_B T/\hbar$ with an integration over transverse wave vectors, which we quote without derivation: [@Blagov:2005] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:CPLifshitz}
\hspace{-1cm}U_{\rm surf}(d) = &- k_B T \sqrt{\frac{R}{R + d}} {\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}}^{\prime} \alpha(i \xi_n) \int_0^{\infty} k_{\perp} \,d k_{\perp} \,e^{- 2 q_n d} \left[ q_n - \frac{1}{4(R + d)} \right] \nonumber \\ \hspace{-1cm}&\left\{ 2 r_{\parallel}(i \xi_n, k_{\perp}) + \frac{\xi_n^2}{q_n^2 c^2} \left[r_{\perp}(i \xi_n, k_{\perp}) - r_{\parallel}(i \xi_n, k_{\perp}) \right] \right\}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\alpha\left(i \xi_n\right)$ is the atomic polarizability and $r_{\parallel, \perp}\left(i \xi_n, k_{\perp}\right)$ are the reflection coefficients of the dielectric material evaluated for imaginary frequency $i \xi_n$. The primed summation implies a factor of $1/2$ for the $n =0$ term. The reflection coefficients for the two orthogonal light polarizations are: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:CPRef}
r_{\parallel}\left(i\xi_n, k_{\perp}\right) &= \frac{\epsilon\left(i \xi_n\right) q_n - k_n}{\epsilon\left(i \xi_n\right) q_n + k_n}\\
r_{\perp}\left(i\xi_n, k_{\perp}\right) &= \frac{k_n - q_n}{k_n + q_n}\end{aligned}$$ where $$q_n = \sqrt{k_{\perp}^2 + \frac{\xi_{n}^2}{c^2}},\qquad k_{n} = \sqrt{k_{\perp}^2 + \epsilon\frac{\xi^2_n}{c^2}}$$ and $\epsilon(i \xi_{n})$ is the complex dielectric function evaluated for imaginary frequencies $i \xi_{n}$. Depending on the author, $r_{\parallel}$ ($r_{\perp}$) is sometimes referred to as $r_{\rm TM}$ ($r_{\rm TE}$).
$U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$ is calculated by numerical evaluation of . $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}$ is also calculated using , but with an additional contribution accounting for real photon exchange from the excited state with the surface, which is proportional to ${\rm Re}\left[ \frac{\epsilon(\omega_{\rm a}) - 1}{\epsilon(\omega_{\rm a}) + 1}\right]$ in the LJ limit [@Fichet:1995; @Gorza:2006].
The atom-surface potential $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$ for the ground state of cesium near a SiO$_2$ surface is shown in Fig. \[Fig-CP\], including calculations for both a planar and a cylindrical surface. Without the cylindrical correction, the potential approaches the LJ, retarded, and thermal limits at appropriate distance scales. For the planar dielectric, our calculation yields $C_3/h = 1178$ Hz $\mu$m$^3$ and $C_4/h = 158$ Hz $\mu$m$^4$ for the LJ and retarded limits. Note that the transition region between LJ and retarded regimes occurs around $d\sim100$ nm, the relevant distance scale for the experiments we are modeling. For $d > D_{\rm m}$, the perturbative method accounting for the curvature is no longer accurate [@Blagov:2005], but at these distances, the surface forces are insignificant to atomic motion due to their steep power law fall-off. The excited state potential $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}$ has a similar form to $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$.
![\[Fig-CP\] Atom-surface potentials $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$ (red) and $U_{\rm s}^{\rm ex}$ (blue) for a cesium atom at distance $d$ from a SiO$_2$ surface. The solid lines are for a planar surface whereas the dashed lines are for a curved surface with radius of curvature $R = D_{\rm m}/2 = 1.5$ $\mu$m. The limiting regimes for $U_{\rm s}^{\rm g}$ with a planar surface are shown as dotted lines, each calculated from analytic expressions not using the Lifshitz formalism. The cylindrical surface correction weakens the potential, which is noticeable in the retarded and thermal regimes. ](FIG-CPFig5)
Simulating atoms detected in real-time near microtoroids {#sec:exp}
========================================================
In order for the semiclassical model to be applied to our falling atom experiments, we must simulate the atom detection processes. In particular, in [@Alton:2010], falling Cs atoms are detected with real-time photon counting using a field programmable gate array (FPGA), with subsequent probe modulation triggered by atom detection.
A microtoroidal cavity with frequency $\omega_{\rm c}$ is locked near the $6S_{1/2}, F=4 \rightarrow 6P_{3/2}, F=5$ atomic transition of Cs at $\omega_{\rm a}^0$ at desired detuning $\Delta_{\rm ca} = \omega_{\rm c} - \omega_{\rm a}^{(0)} $. Fiber-cavity coupling is tuned to critical coupling where the bare cavity transmission vanishes, $T \lesssim T_{\min} \simeq 0.01$. For atom detection, a probe field at frequency $\omega_{\rm p} = \omega_{\rm c}$ and flux $P_{\rm in} \sim 15$ cts/$\mu$s is launched in the fiber taper and the transmitted output power $P_{\rm T}$ is monitored by a series of single photon detectors. Photoelectric events in a running time window of length $\Delta t_{\rm th}$ are counted and compared to a threshold count $C_{\rm th}$. A single atom disturbs the critical coupling balance so that $T/T_{\rm min} > 1$, resulting in a burst of photons which correspond to a possible trigger event. Extensive details of the experimental procedure are given in [@Alton:2010] and the associated Supplementary Information.
Whereas only a single atom is required to produce a trigger, spectral and temporal data are accumulated over many thousands of trigger events since each individual atom is only coupled to the cavity for a few microseconds. Simulation is a valuable technique to disentangle atomic dynamics from the aggregate data and offer insights into the atomic motion which underlies the experimental measurements.
Simulation procedure
--------------------
Central to our simulations is the generation of a set of $N$ representative atomic trajectories for the experimental conditions of atoms falling past a microtoroid fulfilling the criteria for real-time detection. Since experimental triggering is stochastic, the trajectory set is generated randomly as well. For each desired collection of experimental parameters $\mathcal{P}$, a set of semiclassical atomic trajectories $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is generated that satisfies the detection trigger criteria. This ensemble is used to extract the cavity output functions $T(t, \Delta_{\rm ap})$ and $R(t, \Delta_{\rm ap})$. For each individual trajectory, $t=0$ is defined to be the time when the trajectory is experimentally triggered by the FPGA. For each set $\mathcal{P}$, $N$ is chosen large enough for a sufficient ensemble average to be obtained for the final output functions, which is typically at least 400 unique triggered trajectories.
Within each simulation, the probe field is fixed to a given $\omega_{\rm p}$. Cavity behavior is determined by the parameters $\omega_{\rm c}$, $h$, $\kappa_{\rm i}$, and $\kappa_{\rm ex}$. $h$ and $\kappa_{\rm i}$ are determined from measurements of the bare cavity with no atoms present. Low-bandwidth fluctuations in $\kappa_{\rm ex}$ and $\omega_{\rm c}$ from mechanical vibration and temperature locking are modeled as normally distributed random variations with standard deviations of 3 MHz and 1.5 MHz, respectively, that are fixed once for the duration of each simulated trajectory. Similar to the experimental procedure, we impose that the bare-cavity output flux is less than 0.4 cts/$\mu$s at critical coupling and on resonance. This rate would be identically zero for $\Delta_{\rm cp} = 0$ and critical coupling in the absence of these fluctuations. If the noise threshold is not met, then the particular trajectory is thrown out as it would have been in experiments.
The atomic cloud is characterized by its temperature, size, and its height above the microtoroid. Its shape is assumed to be Gaussian in each direction with parameters determined by florescence imaging. For each simulation loop, an initial atomic position ${\vec{r}}_{\rm in}$ is selected from the cloud and the initial velocity ${\vec{v}}_{\rm in}$ is selected from a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of temperature $T$. The trajectory is propagated forward in time under the influence of gravity until it crosses the toroid equatorial plane at $z=0$. Only trajectories which pass within $1$ $\mu$m of the toroid surface at $z=0$ are kept as a candidate for detection, as other atoms couple too weakly for triggering. Once an acceptable set of initial conditions is obtained, the trajectory ${\vec{r}}(t)$ is calculated over a 50 $\mu$s time window around its crossing of $z=0$, this time with the gravity, optical dipole forces, and surface interactions included. As the atom moves through the cavity mode, the atom-cavity coupling $g$, level shifts, decay rates, and forces change with position ${\vec{r}}$, causing deviations of the trajectory from the preliminary free-fall trajectory. If the atom crashes into the surface of the toroid, then the coupling is set to $g=0$ onwards and the trajectory effectively ends (except for random ‘noise’ photon counts arising from the non-zero background transmission).
Using ${\vec{r}}(t)$ and the steady-state expressions for the fields (section \[Sec:theory\]), we find the transmission $T(t)$. The photon count record $C_i(t_j)$ on each photodetector $i$ for time step $t_j$ is generated from a time-dependent Poisson process with mean count per bin of $\overline{C_i}(t_j) = T(t_j) P_{\rm in}\Delta t$, where $\Delta t = t_{j+1}-t_j = 1$ ns and $P_{\rm in}$ is the input flux. Since the typical flux is $P_{\rm in} \sim 10$ MHz and the timescale of quantum correlations is $\sim10$ ns, the photon count process is assumed to be Poissonian on the relevant timescale of a few hundred nanoseconds for atom detection. The count record $C_i(t_j)$ is compared to the desired threshold of $C_{\rm th}$ in a time window $\Delta t_{\rm th}$ [@Alton:2010]. If the trigger condition is met, the initial conditions ${\vec{r}}_{{\rm in, }j }$, ${\vec{v}}_{{\rm in, }j }$, the random cavity parameters $\omega_{\rm c}$ and $\kappa_{\rm ex}$, and the random number seed used to generate ${\vec{W}}^i$ for diffusion processes are stored for later use. The semiclassical trajectory ${\vec{r}}_j(t)$ can be fully reconstructed from these parameters. The time coordinate is shifted so that the trigger event occurs at $t=0$. This process is repeated to acquire $N$ triggered trajectories.
Cavity output functions such as the experimentally measurable transmission $T_{\rm exp}(t,\mathcal{P})$ for each simulation parameter set $\mathcal{P}$ are calculated from the set of trajectories $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}$: $$\label{eq:T}
T_{\rm exp}(t,\mathcal{P}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_j^N T({\vec{r}}_j(t),\mathcal{P})$$ Reflection coefficients $R_{\rm exp}(t,\mathcal{P})$ are calculated similarly. Spectra are calculated by averaging output powers over a time window $t_1 < t < t_2$ for each probe frequency $\omega_{\rm p}$. The times $t_1$ and $t_2$ are chosen to be the same as in our experiments, which is typically $t_1 = 250$ ns and $t_2$ = 750 ns. The set of triggered trajectories $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}$ is valid for a given set of conditions $\mathcal{P}$ and detection criteria $\{C_{\rm th}, \Delta t_{\rm th}\}$ until the trigger at $t=0$. In experiments, the probe frequency $\omega_{\rm p}$ can be changed in power and detuning upon FPGA trigger. Although the same set of trajectories is valid before $t=0$ for each detuning, the trajectory set must be recalculated for $t >0$ for each probe detuning to mimic experimental conditions for spectral measurements. A numerical solution of the master equation in a number state basis is used for calculation of $T(t)$ in ; the linearized model is only used to calculate the trajectory ${\vec{r}}(t)$ and efficiently generate triggers.
Whereas experiments give access only to ensemble averaged output functions, simulations contain the full trajectory paths. Provided that the simulation offers a reasonable approximation of the true ensemble of trajectories, then these results provide a window into the atomic dynamics underlying the cQED measurement of falling atoms which are not readily clear from observations.
Simulation distributions
------------------------
The experimentally measurable cavity transmission $T_{\rm exp}(t)$ is obtained in as an average over the trajectory set $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}$ at each time $t$. Eq. can formally be written as an integration over the probability distribution of coupling constants at time $t$, $p_{t}(g, \theta)$, for the given experimental parameters $\mathcal{P}$: $$\label{eq:Tint}
T_{\rm exp}(t,\mathcal{P}) = \int \, d g \, d \theta \, T(g, \theta, \mathcal{P}) p_{t}(g, \theta)$$ The function $T(g, \theta, \mathcal{P})$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:Tfunc\] for the parameters $\mathcal{P}$ relevant to experiments, specifically with $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = 0, \, 60$ MHz. For this discussion, we assume all frequencies are fixed and neglect surface shifts. In this perspective, $T_{\rm exp}(t)$ is not directly related to the trajectory set $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}$ but rather the probability distribution $p_{t}(g, \theta)$ at time $t$. The time dependence of $p_{t}$ evolves based on the underlying trajectory ensemble.
![Plots of $T(g_{\rm tw}, \theta, \mathcal{P})$ for (a) and (b) calculated numerically from . Atoms with higher $g_{\rm tw}$ generally have higher $T$ and a larger probability for detection. The variation of $T$ with $\theta$ is evident, with a different periodicity for the two cavity detunings. []{data-label="fig:Tfunc"}](FIG-TFig6a_b)
It is instructive to consider the probability distribution $p_{t}(g, \theta)$ in more detail since it is the formal output of the simulations. We consider only the distribution $p_{t=0}(g)$ over the coupling parameter $g$ at the trigger time $t=0$ by integrating out the angular dependence. Through a reasonably simple analytic model (detailed in \[app:toy\]), we calculate $p_{t=0}(g)$ and compare to the results of the semiclassical simulation, which includes dipole and surface forces (Fig. \[fig:dist\]). For a cavity on resonance with the atom transition, $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi =0$, the analytic model agrees well with a simulation when dipole and surface forces are not included. In this case, atom trajectories are nearly straight and vertical near the toroid, and the approximations of \[app:toy\] are sufficient. When the full forces are included in the semiclassical model, the additional forces shift the distribution toward lower $g$. This effect is more significant for $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi=60$ MHz. The corresponding experimental cQED spectra confirm that the semiclassical model with dipole and surface forces is necessary to reproduce spectral features in the real-time experiments (Fig. \[fig:dist\]c).
![Distributions $p_{t=0}(g)$ of coupling constants calculated for (a) $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi =0$ and (b) $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = +60$ MHz. Distributions from the analytic model (red), semiclassical trajectory simulation with no dipole or surface forces (blue), and the simulation with all forces (black) are shown for comparison. (c) Experimental cQED spectra data for cavity detuning $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = 60$ MHz (blue points) from [@Alton:2010] plotted with model spectra calculated from the distributions $p_{t=0}(g)$ in panel (b). The red is the analytic model of \[app:toy\] and black is the semiclassical simulation.[]{data-label="fig:dist"}](FIG-DistFig7a_b)
The cavity transmission $T$ varies as a function of the atomic azimuthal coordinate $\theta = m \phi$, as evident in Fig. \[fig:Tfunc\]. This biases atomic detection towards specific locations around the toroid and leads to a non-uniform angular distribution $p_{t=0}(\theta)$ for atom location at detection. Fig. \[fig:PhiDistribution\] shows distributions of the atomic angular coordinate at the detection trigger $t=0$ for three simulation conditions relevant to the experiments of [@Alton:2010]. Although averaged spectra do not explicitly measure the coordinate $\theta$, these simulation makes clear that trajectories passing through certain regions around the toroid are preferentially detected. The phase of the cavity output field depends on $\theta$, suggesting the possibility for future experiments to measure the distribution of Fig. \[fig:PhiDistribution\].
![Probability distribution $p_{t=0}(\theta)$ of atomic azimuthal angle $\theta = m \phi \, \textrm{mod} \,2\pi$ at transit detection time $t=0$ presented as histograms of simulation runs. Shown are the cases for cavity detunings (a) $\Delta_{\rm ca} = 0$ and (b) $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi= \pm 40$ MHz. Normalization is such that the sum across all $\theta$ is unity.[]{data-label="fig:PhiDistribution"}](FIG-AngleFig8a_b)
Simulated trajectories
----------------------
We now turn to the simulated trajectories $\{{\vec{r}}_j(t)\}$. In contrast to experiments, in simulations we have the capability of turning certain forces selectively on and off. In particular, we can adjust the surface potential $U_{\rm s}$ and the dipole forces, referred to symbolically as $U_{\rm d}$ (despite them not being strictly derivable from a potential). To investigate the effects these optical phenomena have on atomic trajectories, we run simulations for four cases: the full semiclassical model, the model without surface forces ($U_{\rm s} = 0$), the model without dipole forces ($U_{\rm d}=0$), and the model without any radiative forces ($U_{\rm d} = U_{\rm s} = 0$).
Considering conditions relevant to [@Alton:2010], we plot simulations for two sets of experimental parameters $\mathcal{P}_{1,2}$ in Fig. \[fig:Trajectories\]. For $\mathcal{P}_1$, the cavity is detuned to the red, whereas the cavity is blue-detuned in $\mathcal{P}_2$ ($\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = -40$ MHz for $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $+40$ MHz for $\mathcal{P}_2$). In each set of conditions, the probe field is on resonance with the cavity for high signal-to-noise atom detection ($\Delta_{\rm cp} =0$) and the average bare-cavity mode population of $a$ is $\approx 0.05$ photons. The toroid cavity parameters are those of [@Alton:2010], $\{g_{\rm max}, h, \kappa_{\rm in}, \kappa_{\rm ex}\}/2\pi = \{100, 11, 13, 17\}$ MHz. Comparing the full model, we see that trajectories for $\mathcal{P}_1$ primarily crash into the surface, whereas those from $\mathcal{P}_2$ both crash and are repelled from the toroid. This asymmetry is due to the repulsive or attractive dipole force for different probe detunings relative to the atomic transition. The largest effect of turning surface forces *off* is seen in the blue-detuned trajectories, which have a lower crash rate when $U_{\rm s}=0$. With $U_{\rm d}=0$, both $\mathcal{P}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{2}$ trajectories look nominally the same; the detuning $\Delta_{ca}$ only affects cQED spectra, with a minor imperceptible effect arising from CP potentials initially shifting the atomic transition either closer to (red) or further from (blue) the cavity field.
In addition to the qualitative differences in detected atom trajectories summarized here, the effects of $U_{\rm d}$ and $U_{\rm s}$ are evident in the experimental quantities $T_{\rm exp}(t)$ and $R_{\rm exp}(t)$. Since here we focus specifically on trajectory calculations, the reader is referred to [@Alton:2010] for detailed comparisons of spectral and temporal simulations to experimental data.
![Simulated trajectories for model parameters $\mathcal{P}_{1,2}$ ($\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = \rm 40$ MHz) plotted for four models of radiative forces: the full semiclassical model, $U_{\rm s}=0$, $U_{\rm d} =0 $, and $U_{\rm s} = U_{\rm d} = 0$. For the full model, a three-dimensional representation is shown, while trajectories are projected onto the two-dimensional $\rho-z$ plane for all conditions. Magenta trajectories represent *un-triggered* atoms, blue paths are detected atoms for $t<0$ and red paths represent atom trajectories after the trigger for $t>0$.[]{data-label="fig:Trajectories"}](FIG-TrajectoriesFig9)
Trapping atoms in the evanescent field of a microtoroid {#sec:trap}
=======================================================
Our trajectory simulation can be extended to study trapping of atoms in a two-color evanescent far off-resonant trap (eFORT) near a microtoroidal resonator. An evanescent field trap takes advantage of the wavelength dependence of scale lengths for the optical dipole force of two optical fields with frequencies far-detuned from the atomic transition to limit scattering [@Cook:1982; @Ovchinnikov:1991; @Dowling:1996]. The relative powers of the two fields are set so that near the surface, the blue-detuned, repulsive field is stronger than a red-detuned attractive field. As each field falls off with a decay constant of roughly $\lambdabar = 2 \pi/\lambda$, at some distance, the red, attractive field will dominate and the atom will be attracted to the surface forming a potential minimum. Recently, evanescent fields have been harnessed to trap atoms in a two-color eFORT around a tapered optical fiber [@Vetsch:2010], where the fiber enables efficient optical access to deliver both high intensity trapping fields and weaker probe fields to the trapped atoms in a single structure. The tapered fiber can be positioned as desired, bringing the trapped atoms near a device for atomic coupling.
The tapered nanofiber eFORT is a remarkable achievement toward integrating atom traps with solid-state resonators, but the nanofiber scheme does not allow direct integration with a cavity for achieving strong, coherent coupling between light and trapped atoms. Another disadvantage is that trap depth is limited by the large total power required to achieve trapping with evanescent fields. The high quality factors and monolithic structure of WGM resonators allow evanescent field traps free from these problems while maintaining efficient optical access from tapered fiber coupling. Two-color evanescent field traps in WGM resonators have been analyzed in detail for spheres [@Vernooy:1997] and microdisks [@Rosenblit:2006]. In this section, we extend our simulations of atoms in the evanescent field of a microtoroid to an eFORT that can capture single falling Cs atoms triggered upon an atom detection event.
Unlike nanofibers, a microtoroid cannot be placed directly in a magneto-optical trap for a source of cold atoms. As shown in [@Alton:2010], we have the experimental capability to detect a single atom falling by a microtoroid and trigger optical fields while that atom remains coupled to the cavity mode. The semiclassical simulations described here are ideal for investigating the capture of falling atoms in a trap triggered upon experimental atom detection.
We add an additional eFORT potential $U_{\rm t}$ to our semiclassical trajectory model in addition to the dipole forces and surface potential $U_{\rm s}$. For our simulation, $U_{\rm t}$ is formed from a red (blue)-detuned mode near 898 nm (848 nm) with powers $\sim 50$ $\mu$W to give a trap depth of $\sim 1.5$ mK at $d \sim 150$ nm from the surface (Fig. \[fig:trap\]a). The red (blue) fields interact primarily with the $6S_{1/2} \rightarrow 6P_{1/2}$ $(6S_{1/2} \rightarrow 6P_{3/2})$ transition. The trap depth is limited by the total power in vacuum that can propagate in the tapered fibers of [@Alton:2010]. Power handling can be improved with specific attention to taper cleanliness, so with experimental care the trap depth can be increased reasonably from the discussion here, although we simulate under the conditions given to illustrate that this trap is already experimentally accessible.
The difference in vertical scale lengths ($\psi_0$ in ) for modes of different wavelength leads to a trap that is not fully confined if both the red- and blue-detuned trap modes are of the lowest order (as in Fig. \[subsec:modes\]b). As $|\psi|$ increases, the repulsive blue-detuned light weakens faster than the red-detuned field, and atoms can crash into the toroid surface. This problem is alleviated by exciting a higher-order mode for the 898 nm light, as shown in Fig. \[fig:trap\]b. The modal pattern confines atoms near $z=0$ and prevents trap leakage along $\psi$. This problem is not present in the microdisk eFORT of [@Rosenblit:2006] because the optical mode extent is determined by structural confinement and not the optical scale length. Use of a higher-order mode was also used to form an atom-gallery in a microsphere [@Vernooy:1997].
![(a) The trapping potential $U_{\rm t}$ along the $z=0$ axis with the CP potential included. Also shown are the red and blue evanescent potentials of the two trapping modes, $U_{\rm t}$, respectively. (b) The mode function used in $U_{\rm t}$ for the 898 nm mode with $m=106$. (c) Simulated trajectories for trapping simulations with a eFORT $U_{\rm t}$ triggered “on" by atom detection at $t = 0$ with $\Delta_{\rm ca} =0$. Falling atoms with the FORT beams “off" $(t < 0)$ are colored blue, whereas trajectories after the trap is triggered are red. Trajectories are colored pink for $t > 50$ $\mu$s to illustrate the timescale. Roughly $25\%$ of the triggered trajectories become trapped. (d) Same as (c) showing only the trapped trajectories and a clearer view of atom orbits in the evanescent trap.[]{data-label="fig:trap"}](FIG-TrapFig10a_d)
During the detection phase of the simulation, $U_{\rm t}=0$. At $t=0$ conditioned on an atom detection trigger, $U_{\rm t}$ is turned on. The kinetic energy of an atom with typical fall velocity of $v\sim0.2$ m/s is equivalent to 0.3 mK, so a 1.5 mK trap is sufficiently deep to capture an atom if it is triggered near the trap potential minimum. Defining a trapped trajectory to be one such that the atom has $g/2\pi > 5$ MHz at $t = 10$ $\mu$s, approximately $25\%$ of triggered atom trajectories are captured when the trapping potential is turned on. Simulated trapping times exceed 50 $\mu$s, limited not by heating from trapping light but by the radiation pressure from the unbalanced traveling whispering-gallery modes of nearly-resonant optical probe field. This probe field can be turned off so that the atoms remain trapped beyond the simulation time.
In contrast to the standing-wave structure of a typical eFORT or Fabry-Perot cavity trap [@Ye:1999], microtoroidal resonators offer the tantalizing possibility of radially confining an atom in a circular orbit around the toroid [@Vernooy:1997; @Mabuchi:1994]. The $U_{\rm t}=0$ outlined here does not confine the atoms azimuthally, forming circular atom-gallery orbits around the microtoroid [@Mabuchi:1994] (Fig. \[fig:trap\]c,d). In the same manner as [@Vetsch:2010], a localized trap can be achieved by exciting a red-detuned standing wave for three-dimensional trap confinement. This trapping simulation outlines how real-time atom detection can be utilized to trap a falling atom in a microtoroidal eFORT. In practice, microtoroidal traps present some serious practical challenges. Notably, because the trap quality is sensitive to the particular whispering-gallery mode, the excited optical mode must be experimentally controlled. The success of an eFORT for Cs atoms around a tapered nanofiber [@Vetsch:2010] strongly suggests that similar trap performance might be achieved for an eFORT around a high-*Q* WGM cavity, localizing atoms in a region of strong coupling to a microresonator.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented simulations of atomic motion near a dielectric surface in the regime of strong coupling to a cavity with weak atomic excitation. As required by experimental distance scales, this simulation includes surface interactions, which manifest through transition level shifts and center-of-mass Casimir-Polder forces. Analysis of the simulated trajectories gives insight into the atomic motion underlying experimental measurements of ensemble-averaged spectral and temporal measurements for single atoms detected in real-time. We have adapted our simulations to investigate the capturing of atoms in an evanescent field far off-resonant optical trap in a microtoroid. Our simulations suggest that falling atoms can be captured into an eFORT around a microtoroid, offering an experimental route towards trapping a single atom in atom-chip trap in a regime with both strong cQED interactions and significant Casimir-Polder forces simultaneously. In this system, the sensitivity afforded by coherent cQED can be used not only for atom-chip devices, but also as a tool for precision measurements of optical phenomena near surfaces.
We acknowledge support from NSF, DoD NSSEFF program, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, and previous funding from ARO and IARPA. N.P.S. acknowledges support of the Caltech Tolman Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Calculating the Polarizability and Dielectric Response Functions {#app:response}
================================================================
Evaluation of Casimir-Polder interactions of atoms with the surface of the dielectric resonator requires evaluation of the atomic polarizability and of the dielectric function as functions of a complex frequency. Here we outline our analytic model of the complex dielectric function for SiO$_{2}$ and the atomic polarizability of Cesium atoms in the ground and excited states.
The complex dielectric function $\epsilon(\omega) = \epsilon_1 + i \epsilon_2$ is modeled using a Lorentz oscillator model of the real and imaginary parts of the response function to analytically introduce frequency dependence and enforce causality, $$\label{Eq:LorentzOsc}
\epsilon(\omega) = \epsilon_\infty + \sum_j \frac{f_j}{(\omega_j^2 - \omega^2)^2 +\omega^2 \gamma_j^2}\left( (\omega_j^2 - \omega^2) + i\omega \gamma_j\right)$$ Here, $\omega_j$ is the resonance frequency, $\gamma_j$ is the damping coefficient, and $f_j$ is the oscillator strength for each oscillator in the model. $\epsilon_\infty = \epsilon(\omega \rightarrow \infty) = 1$. $\epsilon$ can be expressed in terms of the complex index of refraction $\tilde{n} = n + i\kappa$ as $\epsilon = \tilde{n}^2 = n^2-\kappa^2 + 2 i n \kappa$, where $n$ is the refractive index and $\kappa$ is the extinction coefficient. Experimental data for $\tilde{n}$ for SiO$_{2}$ is available over a wide frequency range [@Philipp:1985], which is used to fit the parameters of for a seven-oscillator model ($j = 1-7$). Using the analytic form of , the dielectric function can readily be evaluated over complex frequencies as shown in Fig. \[Fig-Response\].
The frequency-dependent atomic polarizability $\alpha_s(\omega)$ for Cesium in a state $s$ is calculated as a sum over transitions of the form, $$\label{Eq:alpha}
\alpha_s(\omega) = \sum_n \frac{e^2 f_{ns}}{m_e} \frac{1}{\omega_{ns}^2 - \omega^2},$$ where $e$ is the electron charge, $m_e$ is the electron mass, $\omega_{ns}$ is the transition frequency, and $f_{ns}$ is the signed oscillator strength for the transition of state $n$ to the state $s$ ($f_{ns} > 0$ if state $n$ is above $s$ in energy). A more complete expression for the response function $\alpha(\omega)$ should include damping coefficients given by the transition linewidths. Since our calculations involve integrals over infinite frequency on the imaginary axis and atomic linewidths are generally narrow with respect to transition frequencies, we assume that the off-resonant form given by without damping is sufficient. We also note that this expression does not account for the differences between magnetic sublevels and hyperfine splitting, which again represent small corrections when these expressions are integrated over the imaginary frequency axis. The general form of applies to the polarizabilities for both the $6S_{1/2}$ ground state and the $6P_{3/2}$ excited state, with an additional tensor polarizability for the $6P_{3/2}$ state.
The total atomic polarizability is composed of contributions from valence electron transitions ($\alpha_{\rm v}$) and high-energy electron transitions from the core shells to the continuum ($\alpha_{\rm c}$), such that $\alpha = \alpha_{\rm v} + \alpha_{\rm c}$. The valence polarizability $\alpha_{\rm v}$ constitutes 96% of the total static polarizability [@Derevianko:1999] in Cs, with $\alpha_{\rm c}$ only significant at high frequencies. We take $\alpha_{\rm c}$ to be the same for both the ground and excited states of Cs, whereas $\alpha_{v}$ is obviously sensitive to the different electronic transition manifolds for $6S_{1/2}$ and $6P_{3/2}$ states. Valence electron oscillator strengths and transition frequencies are tabulated in many sources [@Norcross:1973; @Laplanche:1983]. Our estimate of $\alpha_{\rm v}(\omega)$ for the ground state includes all $6S_{1/2}\rightarrow NP_{1/2}$ and $6S_{1/2}\rightarrow NP_{3/2}$ transitions, with $N=6 - 11$. For the excited state, $\alpha_{\rm v}(\omega)$ is calculated using $6P_{3/2} \rightarrow (6-15)S_{1/2}$, $6P_{3/2} \rightarrow (5-11)D_{3/2}$, and $6P_{3/2} \rightarrow (5-11)D_{5/2}$ transitions. Tensor polarizability contributions sum to zero when averaged over all angular momentum sublevels [@Kien:2005]. In agreement with [@Derevianko:1999], our calculation of $\alpha_{\rm v}$ comprises about 95% of the total static polarizability.
For simplicity, all core electron transitions are lumped into a single high-frequency term of the form used in . This term contains two free parameters, $f_{\rm core}$ and $\omega_{\rm core}$, which are found from the following two conditions. Using the calculation of $\alpha_{\rm v}(\omega)$ for the Cs ground state, we enforce that the ground state static polarizability $\alpha(\omega\rightarrow 0)$ matches the known value calculated theoretically [@Amini:2003] $\alpha(0) = 5.942\times10^{-23}$ cm$^3$. We also ensure that the ground state LJ constant for a Cs atom near a metallic surface agrees with the known value [@Derevianko:1999; @Johnson:2004] $C_3 = -\frac{\hbar}{4\pi d^3}\int_0^{\infty} \alpha(i\xi)d\xi = 4.4 \cdot h$ kHz $\mu$m$^3$. These conditions are sufficient to fix the two free parameters in $\alpha_{\rm c}(\omega)$ for this single oscillator core model, although the high-frequency structure of the core polarizability is lost. For the excited state calculation, we use the same $\alpha_{\rm c}(\omega)$.
Analytic model of falling atom detection distributions {#app:toy}
======================================================
Here we develop an analytic model of the distribution $p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta)$ of coupling parameters $g$ and azimuthal coordinate $\theta= m \phi $. Atoms are assumed to fall at constant vertical velocity with no forces, in contrast to the more complete semiclassical trajectories used in this manuscript to generate $p_{t}(g)$. An abbreviated description of this model appears in the Supplementary Information of [@Alton:2010].
The linearized steady-state cavity transmission $T(\Delta_{\rm ap}, g({\vec{r}}))$ is a known function of $\Delta_{\rm ap}$ and ${\vec{r}}$. We only consider the lowest order mode where the cavity mode function is approximately Gaussian in $z$ and exponential in distance from the surface $d$. The approximate temporal behavior of the coupling constant $g$ for a single trajectory is, $$\label{eq:gtrajectory}
g(\rho, z(t)) = g_{\rm c}(\rho) e^{-\left(z(t)/z_0\right)^2} .$$ where $g_{\rm c}(\rho)$ is the maximum value of the $g$ at the closest approach of its trajectory ($z=0$), $z_0$ is a characteristic width assumed to be independent of $\rho$, and $z(t) = - v t$. $g_{\rm c}(\rho)$ decays exponentially from the maximum $g_{\rm max}$ at the toroid surface, $g_{\rm c}(\rho) \sim g_{\rm max} e^{-(\rho-D_{\rm p})/\lambdabar_0}$. The transmission $T$ and hence the detection probability depend on $\theta$; in general, if atoms fall uniformly around the toroid, the most numerous trajectories detected will be at the values of $\theta$ which maximize $T(\theta)$ for the cavity parameters of interest ($\theta = \pi/2$ for $\Delta_{\rm ca}/2\pi = +40$ MHz, for example, as in Fig. \[fig:PhiDistribution\]).
The probability density function for the full ensemble of detected falling atoms $p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta)$ can be estimated as the product of the probability of any atom having a particular $g$ and the probability of a trigger event occurring for an atom with coupling $g$, $$\label{eq:fallprob}
p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta) \sim p_{\rm atom}(g)p_{\rm trigger}(g, \theta).$$ An atom transit is triggered when the total detected photon counts exceeds a threshold number, $C_{\rm th}$, within a detection time window $\Delta t_{\rm th}$. For a probe beam of input flux $P_{\rm in}$, the mean counts in this window are $\overline{C} = T(g, \theta) P_{\rm in} \Delta t_{\rm th}$. This expression assumes that the atom is moving slowly so that the $T(g, \theta)$ at trigger event is the only $T(g, \theta)$ that contributes to the detection probability. The detection probability $p_{{\rm trigger}}(g, \theta)$ is estimated from a Poisson distribution of mean count $\overline{C}$.
From , $p_{\rm atom}(g)$ can be written as a product of the probability $p(g|g_{\rm c})$ of an atom in a trajectory with a given $g_{\rm c}$ to have coupling $g$ and the probability of a trajectory to have that $g_{\rm c}$, $p_{\rm max}(g_{\rm c})$, integrated over all $g_{\rm c}$, $$\label{Eq:Patom}
p_{\rm atom}(g) = \int_{g}^{g_{\rm max}} p(g|g_{\rm c}) p_{\rm max}(g_{\rm c}) \,d g_{\rm c}$$ The integral has limits from $g$ to $g_{\rm max}$ since $g_{\rm c}$ cannot be smaller than $g$.
For atoms falling uniformly over the $\rho-\phi$ plane, $p_{\rm max}(g_{\rm c}) \,d g_{\rm c}$ is proportional to the area of a ring of radius $\rho$ and thickness $d\rho$, $ p_{\rm max}(g_{\rm c}) \,d g_{\rm c} \sim 2 \pi \rho\, d \rho$. Using $g_{\rm c}(\rho) \sim e^{-\left(\rho - D_{\rm p}/2\right)/\lambdabar_0}$, $\frac{d g_{\rm c}}{g_{\rm c}} \sim -\frac{d \rho}{\lambdabar_0}$. Hence, $p_{\textrm{max}}(g_{\rm c}) \sim 1/g_{\rm c}$ for $(\rho-D_{\rm p}/2) \ll D_{\rm p}/2$. To find $p(g|g_{\rm c})$ we note that that the probability is proportional to the time an atom in the trajectory is at a particular $g$. From for a constant velocity $v$, this trajectory is Gaussian and the relative probability must be proportional to $d z$. Finding the differential as a function of $g$ gives $p(g|g_{\rm c}) \propto d z \sim \frac{1}{g \sqrt{\ln(g_{\rm c}/g)}}$.
Putting the results together in gives $$\label{Eq:Patom2}
p_{\rm atom}(g) \sim \int_{g}^{g_{\rm max}} \frac{1}{g g_{\rm c}} \frac{d g_{\rm c}}{\sqrt{\ln(g_{\rm c}/g)}} \sim \frac{\sqrt{\ln \left(\frac{{g_{\rm max}}}{g}\right)}}{g}$$ This result diverges as $g$ goes to zero since there are infinite transits with small $g_{\rm c}$ and infinite time for atoms with small $g$ for any transit regardless of $g_{\rm c}$ for $t\rightarrow \pm \infty$. This divergence is not problematic in calculating since $p_{\textrm{trigger}}(g, \theta)$ cuts off for low $g$ faster than the logarithmic divergence in $p_{\rm atom}(g)$.
The spectrum for given experimental parameters as a function of probe detuning $\Delta_{\rm ap} = \omega_{p} - \omega_{\rm a}^{(0)}$ can be written as: $$\label{Eq:spectrum}
T(\Delta_{\rm ap}) = \int_0^{g_{\rm max}} T(\Delta_{\rm ap}, g, \theta) p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta) \,d g \, d \theta$$ where the normalization of $p_{\rm fall }(g, \theta)$ is chosen such that $$\int_{0}^{g_{\rm max}} p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta) \,d g \, d \theta = 1$$ The overall probability of $g$, $p_{\rm fall}(g)$ independent of $\theta$, is found by integrating over $\theta$. In practice, $p_{\rm fall}(g)$ is quite similar to $p_{\rm fall}(g, \theta)$ evaluated for the $\theta$ which maximizes the transmission. Fig. \[fig:dist\] compares this simple model for $p_{\rm fall}(g)$ with the equivalent distribution from the semiclassical trajectory simulation, $p_{t=0}(g)$.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^1$ Department of Mathematics, Sultan Qaboos University, PO Box 36, Al Khod 123, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman\
$^2$ Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O.Box (3030), Irbid (22110), Jordan
author:
- 'E.V. Krishnan$^{1,*}$, M. Al Ghabshi$^{1}$, M. Alquran$^{2}$'
date: 'Received: December 5, 2018; Revised: October 9, 2019'
title: '$(G''/G)$-Expansion Method and Weierstrass Elliptic Function Method Applied to Coupled Wave Equation'
---
\[myth\][Proposition]{} \[myth\][Lemma]{} \[myth\][Corollary]{}
\[Sample\_NDST: FirstPage\]
[^1]
Introduction
============
Nonlinear evolution equations (NLEEs) govern several physical phenomena which appear in various branches of science and engineering [@R1; @R2; @R3; @R4; @R5]. Exact solutions of NLEEs shed more light on the various aspects of the problem, which, in turn, leads to the applications. Several methods such as the tanh method [@R6; @R7; @R8; @R9; @MAR5; @MAR6], exponential function method [@R10], Jacobi elliptic function (JEF) method [@R11; @MAR1; @MAR2; @extra], mapping methods [@R12; @R13; @R14; @R15; @R16; @R17], Hirota bilinear method [@jaradat1; @jaradat2] and trigonometric-hyperbolic function methods [@trig1; @trig2; @trig3] have been applied in the last few decades and the results have been reported. Also, many physical phenomena have been governed by systems of partial differential equations (PDEs) and there have been significant contributions in this area [@R18; @R19].\
\
In this paper, we use the $(G'/G)$-expansion method [@R20; @R21; @R22; @MAR3; @MAR4] to find some exact solutions for a nonlinear coupled wave equation [@R23]. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we give a mathematical analysis of the $(G'/G)$-expansion method, in Section 3, we find kink solutions and singular wave solutions of the nonlinear coupled wave equation, in Section 4, we use the Weierstrass elliptic function (WEF) method [@R24] to derive SWSs of the system of equations, in Section 5 we write down the conclusion.
The $(G'/G)$-Expansion Method
=============================
Consider the nonlinear partial differential equation (PDE) $$\begin{aligned}
P(u, u_t, u_x, u_{tt}, u_{xt}, u_{xx},...) =0,\end{aligned}$$ where $u(x,t)$ is an unknown function, $P$ is a polynomial in $u =
u(x,t)$ and its various partial derivatives. The traveling wave variable $\xi = x - ct$ reduces the PDE (1) to the ordinary differential equation (ODE) $$\begin{aligned}
P(u, -c u^{\prime}, u^{\prime}, -c^2 u^{\prime\prime}, -c
u^{\prime\prime}, u^{\prime\prime},...) = o,\end{aligned}$$ where $u = u(\xi)$ and $^{\prime}$ denotes differentiation with respect to $\xi$.\
\
We suppose that the solution of equation (2) can be expressed by a polynomial in $\displaystyle \left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)$ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle u(\xi)= \sum_{i=0}^m a_i
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^i, \,\,\,a_m \neq 0,\end{aligned}$$
where $a_i (i = 0,1,2,..)$ are constants.\
\
Here, $G$ satisfies the second order linear ODE $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle G^{\prime\prime}(\xi) + \lambda G^{\prime} (\xi) + \mu
G(\xi) = 0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda$ and $\mu$ being constants. The positive integer $m$ can be determined by a balance between the highest order derivative term and the nonlinear term appearing in equation (2). By substituting equation (3) into equation (2) and using equation (4), we get a polynomial in $\displaystyle G^{\prime}/G$. The coefficients of various powers of $\displaystyle G^{\prime}/G$ give rise to a set of algebraic equations for $a_i \,(i = 0,1,2, ..., m),\,\lambda$ and $\mu$.\
\
The general solution of equation (4) is a linear combination of ${\rm{sinh}}$ and ${\rm{\cosh}}$ or of sine and cosine functions if $\Delta = \lambda^2 - 4 \mu > 0$ or $\Delta = \lambda^2 - 4 \mu <
0$, respectively. In this paper we consider only the first case and so, $$\begin{aligned}
G(\xi) = \displaystyle e^{-\lambda \xi/2}
\left(C_1\,{\rm{sinh}}(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda^2 - 4 \mu}}{2}\,\xi) +
C_2\,{\rm{cosh}}(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda^2 - 4 \mu}}{2}\,\xi)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are arbitrary constants.
A Coupled Wave Equation
=======================
Consider the system of PDEs $$\displaystyle u_{t}+ \alpha v^2 v_{x}+ \beta u^2 u_{x} + \eta u u_{x}+ \gamma u_{xxx}=0,$$ $$\displaystyle v_t+ \sigma(uv)_x+ \epsilon v v_x=0,$$ where, $\alpha, \beta, \eta, \gamma, \sigma$ and $\epsilon$ are constants.\
\
We seek TWSs of equations (6) and (7) in the form $ u = u(\xi),\quad
v = v (\xi) ,\quad \xi = x- c t. $\
\
Then equations (6) and (7) give\
$$\displaystyle - c u^{\prime} + \alpha v^2v^{\prime} + \beta u^2
u^{\prime} + \eta u u^{\prime}+ \gamma u^{\prime\prime\prime} = 0,$$ $$\displaystyle -c v^{\prime} + \sigma (u v)^{\prime}+ \epsilon v
v^{\prime} = 0.$$ Integrate equation (9) with respect to $ \xi $ $$-c v + \sigma (u v) + \dfrac {\epsilon}{2} v ^2= k,$$ where $k$ is the integration constant.\
\
Dividing equation (10) by $v$, we obtain $$- c + \sigma u + \displaystyle \frac{\epsilon}{2} v = \frac{k}{v}.$$\
\
So, for the solutions to be uniformly valid, the integration constant $k$ should be set equal to $0$.\
\
Therefore, equation (11) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
v = \displaystyle \frac{2 (c - \sigma u)}{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$\
\
Substituting equation (12) into equation (8), we obtain $$-c u^{\prime} -\dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma }{\epsilon^ 3}(c^2 -2 c \sigma
u + \sigma ^2 u^2 )u^{\prime}+ \beta u^2 u^{\prime} + \eta u
u^{\prime}+ \gamma u^{\prime\prime\prime} = 0.$$\
\
Integrating equation (13) with respect to $ \xi $ and assuming the boundary conditions $\displaystyle u, u^{\prime}, u^{\prime\prime}
\longrightarrow 0 $ $ {\rm{as}} \,\, \vert \xi \vert
\longrightarrow \infty $, we have $$\gamma u^{\prime\prime} - \bigg \lbrace c +\dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma
c^2 }{\epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace u + \bigg \lbrace \dfrac{\eta}{2} +
\dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma ^ 2 c }{\epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace u^2 +
\bigg \lbrace \dfrac{\beta}{3} - \dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma^3 }{3
\epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace u^3 = 0.$$\
\
We rewrite equation (14) as\
\
$$\gamma u^{\prime\prime} + A u + B u ^2 +Cu^3 =0,$$\
\
where $$\begin{aligned}
A= - \bigg \lbrace c +\dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma c^2 }{\epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace, \,\,\, B=\bigg \lbrace \dfrac{\eta}{2} + \dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma ^ 2 c }{\epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace ,\; C=\bigg \lbrace \dfrac{\beta}{3} - \dfrac{8 \alpha \sigma^3 }{3 \epsilon^ 3} \bigg \rbrace.\end{aligned}$$
With the change of variable $w = u + \delta$, equation (15) can be reduced to
$$\gamma w^{\prime\prime} + c_1 w + c_2 w^3 + c_3 =0,$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \delta = -\frac{B}{3 C},\,\,\,\,c_1 = \frac{3AC -
B^2}{3 C},\,\,\,\,c_2 = C,\,\,\,\,c_3 = \frac{2 B^3 - 9 ABC}{27
C^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming the expansion $\displaystyle w(\xi)= \sum_{i=0}^m a_i
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^i, \,\,\,a_m \neq 0$ in eq. (17) and balancing the nonlinear term and the derivative term, we get $m
+ 2 = 3m$ so that $m = 1$.\
\
So, we assume the solution of equation (17) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
w(\xi) = a_0 + a_1 \displaystyle
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right),\,\,a_1 \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$ So, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle w^{\prime}(\xi) = - a_1
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^2 - \lambda a_1
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right) - \mu a_1,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle w^{\prime\prime}(\xi) = 2 a_1
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^3 + 3 a_1 \lambda
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^2 + (a_1 \lambda^2 + 2 a_1 \mu)
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right) + a_1 \lambda \mu,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle w^3(\xi) = a_1^3 \left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^3 +
3 a_0 a_1^2 \left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^2 + 3 a_0^2 a_1
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right) + a_0^3.\end{aligned}$$ Now, substituting equations (19), (21) and (22) into equation (17) and collecting the coefficients of $\displaystyle
\left(\frac{G^{\prime}}{G}\right)^i, i = 0,1,2,3$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma a_1 \lambda \mu + c_1 a_0 + c_2 a_0^3 + c_3 = 0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma a_1 \lambda^2 + 2 \gamma a_1 \mu + c_1 a_1 + 3 c_2 a_0^2 a_1
= 0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
3 a_1 \lambda \gamma + 3 a_0 a_1^2 c_2 = 0,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
2 \gamma a_1 + c_2 a_1^3 = 0.\end{aligned}$$ From equation (26), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle a_1 = \pm \sqrt{- \frac{2 \gamma}{c_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Equation (25) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle a_0 = \pm \frac{1}{2} \lambda \sqrt{- \frac{2
\gamma}{c_2}}.\end{aligned}$$ When $\mu = 0$ in equation (24), we get $\lambda = \displaystyle \pm
\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}$ and when $\lambda = 0$, we get $
\displaystyle \mu = - \frac{c_1}{2 \gamma}.$ In both cases, $\displaystyle \Delta = \lambda^2 - 4 \mu = \frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}.$\
\
Equation (23) gives a constraint condition on the coefficients in the governing equation.\
\
**Case 1**:$\displaystyle \mu = 0,\,\,\lambda =
\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}.$
$$\begin{aligned}
u_1(x,t) = \displaystyle \pm \sqrt{- \frac{c_1}{c_2}}\left[1 +
\frac{(C_1 - C_2)\left(1 - {\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2
c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c t)\right)}{C_1
{\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c t) +
C_2}\right] + \frac{B}{3 C}.\end{aligned}$$
\
\
**Case 2**:$\displaystyle \mu = 0,\,\,\lambda = -
\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}.$
$$\begin{aligned}
u_2(x,t) = \displaystyle \pm \sqrt{- \frac{c_1}{c_2}}\left[1 +
\frac{(C_1 + C_2)\left(1 - {\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2
c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c t)\right)}{C_2 - C_1
{\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c t)}\right] +
\frac{B}{3 C}.\end{aligned}$$
\
\
**Case 3**:$\displaystyle \lambda = 0,\,\,\mu = -
\frac{c_1}{2 \gamma}.$
$$\begin{aligned}
u_3(x,t) = \displaystyle \pm \sqrt{- \frac{c_1}{c_2}}\left[\frac{C_1
+ C_2 {\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c
t)}{C_1 {\rm{tanh}}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2 c_1}{\gamma}}(x - c t) +
C_2}\right] + \frac{B}{3 C}.\end{aligned}$$
In all three cases, $\gamma$ and $c_1$ should have the same signs and $c_2$ should be of opposite sign and $C_1 \neq \pm C_2$.\
\
Figure 1 and Figure 2 represent the solutions given by equation (29).
{width="3in"}
{width="3in"}
Using equation (12), we can write down the corresponding solutions $v_1(x,t),\,v_2(x,t)$ and $v_3(x,t)$.
Weierstrass Elliptic Function Solutions of the Coupled Wave Equation
====================================================================
The Weierstrass elliptic function (WEF) $\wp(\xi;g_2,g_3)$ with invariants $g_2$ and $g_3$ satisfy\
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle {\wp^{\prime}}^2 = 4 \wp^3 - g_2 \wp - g_3,\end{aligned}$$\
where $g_2$ and $g_3$ are related by the inequality\
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle g_2^3 - 27 g_3^2 > 0.\end{aligned}$$\
The WEF $\wp(\xi)$ is related to the JEFs by the following relations:\
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle {\rm{sn}}(\xi) = \left[\wp(\xi)-e_3\right]^{-1/2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle {\rm{cn}}(\xi) =
\left[\frac{\wp(\xi)-e_1}{\wp(\xi)-e_3}\right]^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle {\rm{dn}}(\xi) =
\left[\frac{\wp(\xi)-e_2}{\wp(\xi)-e_3}\right]^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$\
where $e_1,e_2,e_3$ satisfy\
$$\begin{aligned}
4z^3 - g_2 z - g_3 = 0\end{aligned}$$\
with\
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle e_1 = \frac{1}{3}(2 - m^2),\,\,\,e_2 =
\frac{1}{3}(2m^2 - 1),\,\,\,e_3 = -\frac{1}{3}(1+m^2).\end{aligned}$$\
From equation (38), one can see that the modulus $m$ of the JEF and the $e's$ of the WEF are related by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle m^2 = \frac{e_2 - e_3}{e_1 - e_3}.\end{aligned}$$\
We consider the ODE of order $2k$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \frac{d^{2k}\phi}{d\xi^{2k}} = f(\phi;r+1),\end{aligned}$$\
where $f(\phi;r+1)$ is an $(r+1)$ degree polynomial in $\phi$.\
\
We assume that\
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi = \gamma Q^{2s}(\xi) + \mu\end{aligned}$$\
is a solution of equation (40), where $\gamma$ and $\mu$ are arbitrary constants and $Q^{(2s)}(\xi)$ is the $(2s)^{\rm{th}}$ derivative of the reciprocal Weierstrass elliptic function (RWEF) $\displaystyle Q(\xi) = \frac{1}{\wp(\xi)}, \wp(\xi)$ being the WEF.\
\
It can be shown that the $(2s)^{\rm{th}}$ derivative of the RWEF $Q(\xi)$ is a $(2s+1)$ degree polynomial in $Q(\xi)$ itself.\
\
Therefore, for $\phi$ to be a solution of equation (40), we should have the relation\
$$\begin{aligned}
2k - r = 2rs.\end{aligned}$$\
So, it is necessary that $2k \geq r$ for us to assume a solution in the form of equation (41). But this is in no way a sufficient condition for the existence of the PWS in the form of equation (41).\
\
Now, we shall search for the WEF solutions of equation (17). We introduce a restriction on the coefficients in the form $2B^2 =
9AC$, so that equation (17) reduces to $$\gamma w^{\prime\prime} + c_1 w + c_2 w^3 = 0,$$ where $\displaystyle c_1 = -\frac{1}{2}\,A,\,\,c_2 = C$.\
\
For a solution of equation (43) in the form of equation (41), we should have $r = 2$ and $k = 1$ so that $s = 0.$ So, our solution will be $$\begin{aligned}
u(\xi) = \displaystyle \frac{\tau}{\wp(\xi)} + \zeta.\end{aligned}$$
Substituting equation (44) into equation (43) and equating the coefficients of like powers of $\wp(\xi)$ to zero, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\wp^3(\xi):\,\,\,\,\displaystyle 2 \gamma \tau - \frac{1}{2} A \zeta
+ C \zeta^3 = 0,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\wp^2(\xi):\,\,\,\,\displaystyle - \frac{1}{2} A \tau + 3 C \tau
\zeta^2 = 0,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\wp(\xi):\,\,\,\,\displaystyle - \frac{3}{2} \gamma \tau g_2 + 3 C
\tau^2 \zeta = 0,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\wp^0(\xi):\,\,\,\,\displaystyle - 2 \gamma \tau g_3 + C \tau^3 =
0.\end{aligned}$$
From equations (46) through (48), it can be found that
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \tau = \pm \sqrt{\frac{2 \gamma g_3}{C}},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \zeta = \pm \sqrt{\frac{A}{6C}},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle g_2 = 2 \sqrt{\frac{A g_3}{3 \gamma}}.\end{aligned}$$
From equations (49) through (51), one can conclude that if $g_3 >
0$, $A,\,C$ and $\gamma$ should all be of the same signs, whereas for $g_3 < 0$, $A$ and $C$ should be of the same signs and $\gamma$ should be of opposite sign.\
\
Equation (45) leads us to the value of $g_3$ given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle g_3 = \frac{A^3}{432 \gamma^3}.\end{aligned}$$
The condition $\displaystyle g_2^3 - 27 g_3^2 > 0$ gives the relation
$$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \frac{8}{9} > \frac{3}{4},\end{aligned}$$
which is remarkably true for any value of the coefficients in the governing equation.\
\
The equations (34) through (36) will give rise to the same PWS of equation (43) which can be obtained using equation (44) with the help of equation (38). Thus the PWS of equation (43) in terms of JEFs can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
u(\xi) = \displaystyle \frac{\tau \, {\rm{sn}}^2(\xi)}{1-\frac{1}{3}
(1+m^2){\rm{sn}}^2(\xi)}+ \zeta.\end{aligned}$$
As $m \rightarrow 1$, the SWSs of the coupled wave equation given by equations (6) and (7) with the restriction $2B^2 = 9AC$ are
$$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t) = \displaystyle \frac{B}{3C} + \frac{\tau \,
{\rm{tanh}}^2(x-ct)}{1-\frac{2}{3}{\rm{tanh}}^2(x-ct)}+ \zeta,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
v(x,t) = \displaystyle \frac{2c}{\epsilon} -
\frac{2\sigma}{\epsilon}\left[\frac{B}{3C} + \frac{\tau \,
{\rm{tanh}}^2(x-ct)}{1-\frac{2}{3}{\rm{tanh}}^2(x-ct)}+
\zeta\right],\end{aligned}$$
where $\tau$ and $\zeta$ are given by eqs. (49) and (50).
Conclusions
===========
The $(G'/G)$-expansion method has been applied to a nonlinear coupled wave equation. The kink wave solution and the singular wave solution have been graphically illustrated. It was found that there are some restrictions on the coefficients in the governing equation for the solutions in terms of hyperbolic functions to exist. The WEF method has also been applied to the system of equations to derive SWSs. The condition $\displaystyle g_2^3 - 27 g_3^2 > 0$ was found to be identically satisfied, which is a remarkable result and has never been reported in the literature. We intend to apply these methods for higher order and higher dimensional PDEs of physical interest.
[99]{}
A. Biswas. Solitary wave solution for KdV equation with power law nonlinearity and time-dependent coefficients.[*Nonlinear Dynamics*]{} [**[58]{}**]{} (2009) 345-348.
A. Biswas. Solitary waves for power-law regularized long wave equation and R(m,n) equation. [*Nonlinear Dynamics*]{} [**[59]{}**]{} (2010) 423-426.
R. Sassaman and A. Biswas. Topological and non-topological solitons of the Klein-Gordon equations in $(1+2)$-dimensions. [*Nonlinear Dynamics*]{} [**[61]{}**]{} (2010) 23-28.
A. Biswas, A.H. Kara, A.H. Bokhari and F.D. Zaman. Solitons and conservation laws of Klein-Gordon equation with power law and log law nonlinearities. [*Nonlinear Dynamics*]{} [**[73]{}**]{} (2013) 2191-2196.
M. Mirzazadeh, M. Eslami, E. Zerrad, M.F. Mahmood, A. Biswas and M. Belic. Optical solitons in nonlinear directional couplers by sine-cosine function method and Bernoulli’s equation approach.[*Nonlinear Dynamics*]{} [**[81]{}**]{} (2015) 1933-1949.
W. Malfliet. The tanh method: Exact solutions of nonlinear evolution and wave equations. [*Physica Scripta*]{} [**[54]{}**]{} (1996) 563-568.
M. Alquran and K. Al-Khaled K., Sinc and Solitary Wave Solutions to the Generalized Benjamin-Bona-Mahony-Burgers Equations. [*Physica Scripta*]{} [**[83]{}**]{} (2011) 065010 (6 pp).
M. Alquran and K. Al-Khaled. The tanh and sine-cosine methods for higher order equations of Korteweg-de Vries type. [*Physica Scripta*]{} [**[84]{}**]{} (2011) 025010 (4 pp).
S. Shukri and K. Al-Khaled. The Extended Tanh Method For Solving Systems of Nonlinear Wave Equations. [*Applied Mathematics and Computation*]{} [**[217]{}**]{} (2010) 1997-2006.
M. Alquran, H.M. Jaradat and M. Syam. A modified approach for a reliable study of new nonlinear equation: two-mode Korteweg-de Vries-Burgers equation. *Nonlinear Dynamics* **91**(3) (2018) 1619-1626.
A. Jaradat, M.S.M. Noorani, M. Alquran and H.M. Jaradat. A Variety of New Solitary-Solutions for the Two-mode Modified Korteweg-de Vries Equation. *Nonlinear Dynamics and Systems Theory* **19**(1) (2019) 88-96.
J.H. He and X.H. Wu. Exp-function method for nonlinear wave equations. [*Chaos Solitons and Fractals*]{} [**[30]{}**]{} (2006) 700-708.
J. Liu, L. Yang and K. Yang. Jacobi elliptic function solutions of some nonlinear PDEs. [*Physics Letters A*]{} [**[325]{}**]{} (2004) 268-275.
M. Alquran and A. Jarrah. Jacobi elliptic function solutions for a two-mode KdV equation. *Journal of King Saud University-Science* (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2017.06.010.
M. Alquran, A. Jarrah and E.V. Krishnan. Solitary wave solutions of the phi-four equation and the breaking soliton system by means of Jacobi elliptic sine-cosine expansion method. *Nonlinear Dynamics and Systems Theory* **18**(3) (2018) 233-240.
M. Al Ghabshi, E.V. Krishnan and M. Alquran. Exact solutions of a Klein-Gordon system by $(G'/G)$-expansion method and Weierstrass elliptic function method. *Nonlinear Dynamics and Systems Theory* **19**(3) (2019) 386-395.
Y. Peng. Exact periodic wave solutions to a new Hamiltonian amplitude equation. [*J of the Phys Soc of Japan*]{}, [**[72]{}**]{} (2003) 1356-1359.
Y. Peng. New Exact solutions to a new Hamiltonian amplitude equation. [*J of the Phys Soc of Japan*]{} [**[72]{}**]{} (2003) 1889-1890.
Y. Peng. New Exact solutions to a new Hamiltonian amplitude equation II. [*J of the Phys Soc of Japan*]{} [**[73]{}**]{} (2004) 1156-1158.
E.V. Krishnan and Y. Peng. A new solitary wave solution for the new Hamiltonian amplitude equation. [*Journal of the Physical Society of Japan*]{} [**[74]{}**]{} (2005) 896-897.
J.F. Alzaidy. Extended mapping method and its applications to nonlinear evolution equations. [*Journal of Applied Mathematics*]{} [**[2012(2012)]{}**]{} Article ID 597983, 14 pages.
M. Al Ghabshi, E.V. Krishnan, K. Al-Khaled and M. Alquran. Exact and Approximate Solutions of a System of Partial Differential Equations, [*International Journal of Nonlinear Science*]{}. [**[23]{}**]{} (2017) 11-21.
M. Syam, H.M. Jaradat and M. Alquran. A study on the two-mode coupled modified Korteweg-de Vries using the simplified bilinear and the trigonometric-function methods. *Nonlinear Dynamics* **90**(2)(2017) 1363-1371.
H.M. Jaradat, M. Syam and M. Alquran. A two-mode coupled Korteweg-de Vries: multiple-soliton solutions and other exact solutions. *Nonlinear Dynamics* **90**(1)(2017) 371-377.
M. Alquran. Bright and dark soliton solutions to the Ostrovsky-Benjamin-Bona-Mahony (OS-BBM) equation. *Journal of Mathematical and Computational Science* **2**(1) (2012) 15-22.
M. Alquran, R. Al-Omary and Q. Katatbeh. New explicit solutions for homogeneous KdV equations of third order by trigonometric and hyperbolic function methods. *Applications and Applied Mathematics* **7**(1) (2012) 211-225.
M. Alquran. Solitons and periodic solutions to nonlinear partial differential equations by the sine-cosine method. *Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences* **6**(1) (2012) 85-88.
R. Hirota and J. Satsuma. Soliton solutions of a coupled Korteweg-de Vries equation. [*Physics Letters A*]{} [**[85]{}**]{} (1981) 407-408.
R. Dodd and A.P. Fordy. On the integrability of a system of coupled KdV equations. [*Physics Letters A*]{} [**[89]{}**]{} (1982) 168-170.
H. Gao and R.X. Zhao. New application of the $(G'/G)$-expansion method to high-order nonlinear equations. [*Appl Math Computation*]{} [**[215]{}**]{} (2009) 2781-2786.
F. Chand F. and A.K. Malik. Exact traveling wave solutions of some nonlinear equations using $(G'/G)$-expansion method. [*International Journal of Nonlinear Science*]{} [**[14]{}**]{} (2012) 416-424.
M. Alquran and A. Qawasmeh. Soliton solutions of shallow water wave equations by means of $(G'/G)$-expansion method. [*Journal of Applied Analysis and Computation*]{} [**[4]{}**]{} (2014) 221-229.
O. Yassin and M. Alquran. Constructing New Solutions for Some Types of Two-Mode Nonlinear Equations. *Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences* **12**(2) (2018) 361-367.
M. Alquran and O. Yassin. Dynamism of two-mode’s parameters on the field function for third-order dispersive Fisher: Application for fibre optics. *Optical and Quantum Electronics* **50**(9) (2018) 354.
E.V. Krishnan. Remarks on a system of coupled nonlinear wave equations. [*Journal of Mathematical Physics*]{}, [**[31]{}**]{} (1990) 1155-1156.
D.W. Lawden. Elliptic functions and applications. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1989).
[^1]: $^*$ Corresponding author: [[email protected]]([email protected]) and [[email protected]]([email protected])
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Materials containing non-Kramers magnetic ions can show unusual quantum excitations because of the exact mapping of the two singlet crystal-field ground state to a quantum model of Ising spins in a transverse magnetic field. Here, we model the magnetic excitation spectrum of garnet-structured Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, which has a two-singlet crystal-field ground state. We use a reaction-field approximation to explain published inelastic neutron-scattering data \[Zhou *et al.*, *Phys. Rev. B* **78**, 140406(R) (2008)\] using a three-parameter model containing the magnetic dipolar interaction, the two-singlet crystal-field splitting, and the nuclear hyperfine coupling. Our study clarifies the magnetic Hamiltonian of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, reveals that the nuclear hyperfine interaction drives magnetic ordering in this system, and provides a framework for quantitative analysis of magnetic excitation spectra of materials with singlet crystal-field ground states.'
author:
- 'Joseph A. M. Paddison'
- Paromita Mukherjee
- Xiaojian Bai
- Zhiling Dun
- 'Christopher R. Wiebe'
- Haidong Zhou
- 'Jason S. Gardner'
- Martin Mourigal
- 'Siân E. Dutton'
title: 'Modeling Spin Dynamics in the Singlet Ground State Garnet Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$'
---
Introduction
============
Materials that realize simple models of quantum magnetism are of fundamental interest because they allow current theories to be tested experimentally.[@Keimer_2017] The excitation spectrum of a magnetic material—measurable by inelastic neutron-scattering experiments—directly probes the spin dynamics of the system, and is often sensitive to the properties of the underlying quantum model.[@Marshall_1968] Arguably the two simplest examples of magnetic excitations are spin waves (magnons) and crystal-field excitations. The former describe the collective magnetic excitations of ordered magnetic states in terms of the precession of spins about their average directions. The latter describe single-ion excitations: for a rare-earth metal ion with angular-momentum quantum number $J$, they correspond to transitions between the $2J+1$ levels that are split by the crystalline electric field (CEF).[@Jensen_1991] In many magnetic materials, the energy scale of the relevant CEF transitions is either much larger than the magnetic interactions (“CEF limit"), or much smaller than the magnetic interactions (“spin-wave limit"). In the CEF limit, the system typically shows no collective magnetic ordering and its excitations are CEF.[@Zinkin_1996] In the spin-wave limit, the system typically orders magnetically, and its low-energy excitations are spin waves.[@Fulde_1985]
 Local Ho$^{3+}$ environment, showing the four Ho$^{3+}$ neighbors (large circles) and eight O$^{2-}$ neighbors (small circles) of a central Ho$^{3+}$ ion. The local $\mathbf{z}$ quantization axes are shown as black, blue, and green arrows. Each quantization axis is a $C_2$ axis of point symmetry and a global $\langle 100\rangle$ direction. Nearest-neighbor spins are orthogonal. (b) Low-energy crystalline electric field (CEF) levels of Ho$^{3+}$ ions in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, which comprise two singlets separated by an energy gap $\Delta= 7.4$K. (c) Partial crystal structure of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ showing corner-sharing triangles of Ho$^{3+}$ ions (circles) colored according to the Ho$^{3+}$ spin orientations in the magnetically-ordered state: gold if the spin is parallel to its quantization axis, and purple if it is antiparallel.](HoGG_fig1.png)
Materials in which magnetic interactions and CEF are comparable in energy can show unusual quantum behavior.[@Le_2011; @Choi_2012] The simplest example is a CEF that yields only two singlets at thermally-accessible energies.[@Wang_1968] This situation can occur for non-Kramers ions; i.e., those with integer $J$. The two singlets are separated by an energy $\Delta$, and angular momenta are coupled by a pairwise interaction $\mathcal{K}$. In the CEF limit ($\mathcal{K}=0$), the excitation spectrum measured by neutron scattering consists of a non-dispersive CEF mode at an energy transfer of $\Delta$. If the magnitude of $\mathcal{K}$ is increased, the paramagnetic excitation spectrum acquires dispersion, and begins to soften at an incipient ordering wavevector. A soft-mode transition to a magnetically-ordered state only occurs if the ratio $\mathcal{K}/\Delta$ exceeds a critical value; otherwise, the mode softening remains partial and the system remains in a correlated paramagnetic phase to zero temperature.[@Wang_1968; @Brout_1966]
The interacting two-singlet model with $\mathcal{K}\sim\Delta$ is of fundamental interest because it maps to a canonical model of quantum mechanics—an effective spin-$1/2$ Ising model in a transverse magnetic field.[@Stinchcombe_1973; @Suzuki_2012] This model has been applied to diverse physical phenomena in which quantum tunneling competes with pairwise interactions, such as the soft-mode transitions in order-disorder ferroelectrics.[@Brout_1966] Remarkably, recent theoretical work has shown that the combination of two-singlet spin dynamics with frustrated magnetic interactions can yield a quantum spin-liquid phase on the pyrochlore lattice.[@Savary_2017] It has been proposed that such a state may be realized experimentally in Pr$^{3+}$-based pyrochlore magnets[@Zhou_2008a; @Sibille_2016]—in which structural disorder can generate random CEF splittings (transverse fields)[@Wen_2017; @Martin_2017]—and may also be relevant to the low-temperature behavior of Tb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$.[@Bonville_2011; @Petit_2012; @Gardner_1999; @Gingras_2000] The potential for exotic quantum behavior in interacting two-singlet systems demonstrates the need to identify real materials of this type and to benchmark current theories against high-quality neutron-scattering data.
The cubic rare-earth garnet Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is a candidate material to realize the interacting two-singlet model. In this system, the crystal-field Hamiltonian of the magnetic Ho$^{3+}$ ions has been investigated by multiple experimental techniques, including magnetic susceptibility,[@Cooke_1967] neutron diffraction,[@Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a] inelastic neutron scattering,[@Reid_1991; @Zhou_2008] optical spectroscopy,[@Johnson_1970] and specific heat.[@Onn_1967] In Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, non-Kramers Ho$^{3+}$ ions with $J=8$ occupy a site with low point symmetry ($D_2$), as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). Consequently, all crystal-field levels in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ are singlets.[@Walter_1984] Neutron spectroscopy[@Reid_1991; @Nekvasil_1979] and specific-heat[@Onn_1967] measurements show that the two lowest-energy singlets are separated by $\Delta = 7.4$K, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b). Because the third CEF level is at approximately $50$K,[@Reid_1991] at low temperatures ($T\ll 50$K) only the lowest-energy two singlets are thermally populated and the system approximates a two-singlet CEF ground state. The CEF generates an Ising anisotropy of the magnetic moments, which lie parallel or antiparallel to the local $\mathbf{z}\in\langle 100\rangle$ axes shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b).[@Nekvasil_1979] The approximate magnitude of the magnetic dipolar interaction $4DJ^2 = 4.68$K at the nearest-neighbor distance is only moderately smaller than $\Delta$; hence, the system is intermediate between spin-wave and CEF limits.
Whereas early reports[@Cooke_1967; @Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a; @Reid_1991; @Johnson_1970; @Onn_1967] focused on the single-ion properties of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, recent studies[@Zhou_2008; @Mukherjee_2017] have focused on the potential for collective phenomena induced by geometrical frustration. This possibility occurs because the Ho$^{3+}$ ions in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ (space group $Ia\bar{3}d$) occupy two interpenetrating “hyperkagome" networks of corner-sharing triangles \[Fig. \[fig1\](c)\], which would be frustrated for antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor interactions.[@Yoshioka_2004; @Petrenko_2000; @Yavorskii_2006; @Paddison_2015] Experimentally, Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ orders magnetically at a $T_\mathrm{N}$ between $0.15$K and $0.3$K,[@Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a; @Zhou_2008] which is significantly smaller than the energy scale of dipolar interactions. However, two further effects need to be considered in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. The first is the two-singlet CEF discussed above, which is expected to suppress $T_\mathrm{N}$.[@Wang_1968] The second is the hyperfine interaction between electronic and nuclear spins, which is significant because of the large values of both electronic and nuclear spin quantum numbers for Ho$^{3+}$ ($J= 8$ and $I=7/2$, respectively), and is expected to enhance $T_\mathrm{N}$.[@Hammann_1973; @Andres_1973; @Murao_1971; @Murao_1975] The interplay of spin-spin interactions, hyperfine interactions, and the two-singlet CEF in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ remains an open question.
Here, we present a modeling study of previously-published inelastic neutron-scattering data on Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ (from Zhou *et al.*, Ref. ). Our analysis reveals four key results. First, we explain the experimental data using a magnetic Hamiltonian that contains three terms: the crystal-field splitting $\Delta$, the long-range dipolar coupling $D$, and the hyperfine coupling $A$, where the values of all three parameters are fixed from first principles or from previous experiments. Second, we find that geometrical frustration does not play a significant role in the behavior of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. Third, we find that the nuclear hyperfine interaction actually drives the transition to a magnetically-ordered state. Fourth, we show that a self-consistent modification of mean-field/RPA theory—the reaction-field approximation[@Santos_1980; @Brout_1967]—yields a significantly better description of the experimental data than standard RPA. Our results have implications for the quantitative modeling of topical frustrated materials in which interactions and crystal-field transitions have similar energy scales, such as Pr$^{3+}$-based pyrochlores,[@Zhou_2008a; @Wen_2017; @Martin_2017] osmate pyrochlores,[@Zhao_2016] spin-chain SrHo$_2$O$_4$,[@Young_2013] spinel NiRh$_2$O$_4$,[@Chamorro_2018] and tripod kagome systems.[@Dun_2016; @Dun_2017; @Paddison_2016; @Ding_2018]
Our paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:model\], we introduce the magnetic Hamiltonian we use to model Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ and the reaction-field theory we use to calculate the magnetic excitation spectrum. In Section \[sec:results\], we compare our model calculations with previously-published single-crystal neutron-scattering data,[@Zhou_2008] and discuss the implications for the physics of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusions\] with a discussion of the applications of our study.
Model {#sec:model}
=====
Magnetic Hamiltonian
--------------------
We consider the following magnetic Hamiltonian for Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} = & = & \sum_{i,\mathbf{r}}\left[\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\mathrm{CEF}}(\mathbf{r})+\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\mathrm{HF}}(\mathbf{r})\right]\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}\sum_{\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}^{\prime}}\mathcal{K}_{ij}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r})J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{r})J_{j}^{z}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}),\label{eq:hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\mathrm{CEF}}$ is the crystal-field Hamiltonian for atom $i$ in the unit cell located at lattice vector $\mathbf{r}$, $\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\mathrm{HF}}$ is the nuclear hyperfine Hamiltonian, $\mathcal{K}_{ij}$ is the pairwise interaction between angular momenta $i$ and $j$ at lattice vectors $\mathbf{r}$ and $\mathbf{r}^{\prime}$, respectively, and $J^z_i$ is the operator for the $z$-component of electronic angular momentum, where the local $\mathbf{z}$ axes of quantization are shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The low-energy crystal-field Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{CEF}}$ comprises two singlets that are separated by $\Delta = 7.4$K and have wavefunctions $$\begin{aligned}
|{0}\rangle \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|{8}\rangle+|{-8}\rangle), \nonumber\\
|{1}\rangle \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|{8}\rangle-|{-8}\rangle), \label{eq:singlets}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\pm8\rangle$ is shorthand for $|J=8,J^{z}=\pm8\rangle$.[@Reid_1991; @Nekvasil_1979] Although both singlets are individually nonmagnetic (i.e., $\langle 0 |{J}^z |0\rangle = \langle 1|{J}_z |1\rangle =0$), the nonzero matrix element $m=|\langle 0 |{J}^z |1\rangle|\approx8$ between the two singlets gives rise to a paramagnetic moment. The hyperfine Hamiltonian $$\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\mathrm{HF}}(\mathbf{r})= AJ_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{r})I_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{r}),$$ where $A=0.039$K is the nuclear hyperfine coupling constant for Ho,[@Krusius_1969; @Ramirez_1994] $I^z$ is the $z$-component of nuclear angular momentum, and $I=7/2$ for $^{165}$Ho. The pairwise interaction $\mathcal{K}_{ij}$ may, in principle, include contributions from both exchange interactions and the long-range dipolar interaction. However, because the local Ising axes enforce that any central spin is orthogonal to its nearest neighbors \[Fig. \[fig1\](a)\], the isotropic contribution to the nearest-neighbor exchange is zero. As a first approximation, therefore, we consider only the long-range dipolar interaction $$\mathcal{K}_{ij}^{\mathrm{dip}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r})=D|\mathbf{r}_{\mathrm{nn}}|^{3}\left[\frac{3(\hat{\mathbf{z}}_{i}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij})(\hat{\mathbf{z}}_{j}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij})-\hat{\mathbf{z}}_{i}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{z}}_{j}}{|\mathbf{r}_{ij}|^{3}}\right],\label{eq:dipolar}$$ between angular momenta separated by a vector $\mathbf{r}_{ij}=\mathbf{r}^\prime+\mathbf{R}_{j}-\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}_{i}$, where $\hat{\mathbf{r}}_{ij}=\mathbf{r}_{ij}/|\mathbf{r}_{ij}|$, and $D= \mu_{0}(g_{J}\mu_{\mathrm{B}})^{2}/{4\pi}{k_{\mathrm{B}}|\mathbf{r}_{\mathrm{nn}}|^{3}}=0.0183$K is determined by the nearest-neighbor distance $|\mathbf{r}_{\mathrm{nn}}|=3.76$Å, and the Lande $g$-factor $g_{J}=5/4$ for Ho$^{3+}$.
RPA and reaction-field approximation
------------------------------------
We model the magnetic Hamiltonian \[Eq. \] using the random-phase approximation (RPA) with a reaction-field term intended to account for local magnetic correlations.[@Brout_1967; @Logan_1995] The reaction-field method has previously been derived for the Ising model in a transverse field for systems where there is a single magnetic ion in the primitive unit cell, $N=1$.[@Santos_1980] Here, we extend the approach to calculate the paramagnetic ($T>T_\mathrm{N}$) excitation spectra for systems with $N>1$, as is required for the Ho$^{3+}$ ions in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ ($N=12$). The equations given below are general and can be applied directly to other lattices. Throughout, we work in natural units with $\hbar=k_\mathrm{B}=1$.
We consider the magnetization induced by applying a time-dependent and site-dependent field $h_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t)$ to a paramagnetic system, which leads to an effective field given by $$h_{i,\mathrm{eff}}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t)=h_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t)+\sum_{j}\left[\mathcal{K}_{ij}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda\right] J_{j}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t),\label{eq:effective_field}$$ where $J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t)=\sum_{\mathbf{r}}J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{r},t)\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathbf{Q}\cdot\mathbf{r})$ is the Fourier transform of the angular momentum of atom $i$ in the primitive cell, and $\mathcal{K}_{ij}(\mathbf{Q})$ is the Fourier transform of the magnetic interactions between atoms $i$ and $j$. The long-ranged nature of the magnetic dipolar interaction is handled using Ewald summation techniques.[@Enjalran_2004] The reaction field $\lambda$ is motivated by the fact that a spin is not affected by the field due to its own orientation, and will be determined below. For a system containing $N$ magnetic atoms in its primitive unit cell, the dynamical magnetic susceptibility is calculated by decomposing $J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t)$ into its $N$ normal modes,[@Enjalran_2004] $$J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t) =\sum_{\mu}m_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q},t)U_{i\mu}(\mathbf{Q})\label{eq:magn},$$ where $m_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q},t)$ is the amplitude of the mode $\mu$. An analogous mode decomposition is performed for the applied field $h_i^{z}(\mathbf{Q},t) $. The eigenenergies $\lambda_{\mu}$ and eigenvector components $U_{i\mu}$ are given at each $\mathbf{Q}$ as the solutions of $$\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})U_{i\mu}(\mathbf{Q})=\sum_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ij}(\mathbf{Q})U_{j\mu}(\mathbf{Q}).\label{eq:eigenvalue}$$ From Eqs. (\[eq:effective\_field\])–(\[eq:eigenvalue\]), the susceptibility $\chi_{\mu}=J^z_{\mu}/h^z_{\mu}$ for each mode is given by $$\chi_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=\frac{\chi_{0}(\omega)}{1-\chi_{0}(\omega)[\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda]},\label{eq:rpa}$$ which is identical to the RPA expression[@Brout_1966] except for the appearance of $\lambda$. The noninteracting (single-ion) susceptibility is the sum of an inelastic contribution from nondegenerate states and a quasielastic Curie-law contribution law from degenerate states,[@Fulde_1985] $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{0}&=&\sum_{\omega_{ij}\neq0}\frac{|m_{ij}|^{2}\omega_{ij}(n_{i}-n_{j})}{\omega_{ij}^{2}-\omega^{2}-\mathrm{i}\omega\Gamma}+\delta_{\omega0}\sum_{\omega_{ij}=0}\frac{|m_{ij}|^{2}n_{i}}{T}\\
&=& \chi_{0}^{\mathrm{in}}(\omega)+\delta_{\omega0}\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{el}},
\label{eq:chi_singleion}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{i}=\exp(-\omega_{i}/T)/\sum_{j}\exp(-\omega_{j}/T)$ is a thermal population factor, $\omega_{ij}=\omega_{j}-\omega_{i}$ is an energy difference between states, and $\Gamma$ is a small, positive relaxation rate. We obtain $\chi_{0}(\omega)$ by exact diagonalization of the single-ion Hamiltonian for Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ in the $16\times16$-dimensional space formed by $2I+1$ nuclear-spin states and two electronic-spin states; the $\omega_{ij}$ and transition dipole matrix elements $m_{ij}$ are derived in Appendix A. The hyperfine interaction splits the two electronic singlets into a total of 8 doublets; this doublet degeneracy occurs because the nuclear spins ($I=7/2$) possess Kramers degeneracy. From Eqs. (\[eq:rpa\])–(\[eq:chi\_singleion\]), the inelastic and quasi-elastic contributions to the interacting susceptibility are given by $$\chi^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=\frac{\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{in}}(\omega)}{1-\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{in}}(\omega)\left[\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda\right]}
\label{eq:chi_inel}$$ and $$\chi^{\mathrm{el}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})=\frac{\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{el}}}{1-\left[\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{el}}+\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{in}}(0)\right]\left[\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda\right]},
\label{eq:chi_el}$$ respectively.
Following Ref. , the reaction field $\lambda$ is determined by enforcing the sum rule on the magnitude of the electronic angular momentum, $$\frac{1}{NN_{\mathbf{q}}}\sum_{i,\mathbf{q}}\langle J_{i}^{z}(\mathbf{q},0)J_{i}^{z}(-\mathbf{q},0)\rangle =m^{2},\label{eq:sum_rule}$$ where the sum is over wavevectors $\mathbf{q}$ in the first Brillouin zone and spins $i$ in the primitive cell, and $m=8$ is the electronic angular momentum of the two-singlet ground state in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. We express this sum rule in terms of the dynamical susceptibility by combining Eqs. and with the fluctuation-dissipation theorem to obtain the self-consistency equation [@Santos_1980] $$\begin{gathered}
m^{2} = \frac{1}{NN_{\mathbf{q}}}\sum_{\mu,\mathbf{q}} \big[ T\chi^{\mathrm{el}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{q}) \\
+ \frac{1}{\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}[n(\omega)+1]{\mathrm{Im}[\chi^{\mathrm{in}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{q},\omega)]}\mathrm{d}\omega \big] ,\label{eq:onsager}\end{gathered}$$ where $n(\omega)=[\exp(\omega/T)-1]^{-1}$ is the Bose population factor. Eq. is solved numerically for $\lambda$ at each temperature.
Neutron-scattering intensity: general expression
------------------------------------------------
The magnetic neutron-scattering intensity is given by $I(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=C[g_{J}f(|\mathbf{Q}|)]^2S(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$, where $f(|\mathbf{Q}|)$ is the magnetic form factor,[@Brown_2004] $C=(\gamma_{\mathrm{n}}r_{0}/2)^2=0.07265$barn is a constant, and $S(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ is the magnetic neutron-scattering function given by $$\begin{gathered}
S(\mathbf{Q},\omega) =\frac{1}{2\pi N}\sum_{i,j}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left\langle \mathbf{J}_{i}^{\perp}(-\mathbf{Q},0)\cdot\mathbf{J}_{j}^{\perp}(\mathbf{Q},t)\right\rangle \\
\times\exp\left[\mathrm{i}\mathbf{Q}\cdot(\mathbf{r}_{j}-\mathbf{r}_{i})-\mathrm{i}\omega t\right]\mathrm{d}t,\label{eq:intensity}%\\\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbf{J}^{\perp}_{i}=J^{z}_{i}\mathbf{z}_{i}^{\perp}$, with $\mathbf{z}_{i}^{\perp}=\hat{\mathbf{z}_{i}}-(\hat{\mathbf{z}_{i}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{Q}})\hat{\mathbf{Q}}$ the component of the local Ising axis perpendicular to $\mathbf{Q}$.[@Lovesey_1987] From Eqs. –, we obtain $S(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ in the paramagnetic phase as the sum of inelastic and quasi-elastic contributions, $$S_\mathrm{in}(\mathbf{Q},\omega) =\frac{n(\omega)+1}{\pi N}\sum_{\mu}\left|\mathbf{F}_{\mu}^{\perp}(\mathbf{Q})\right|^{2}\mathrm{Im}[\chi_{\mu}^{\mathrm{in}}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)]\label{eq:s_qe_inel}$$ and $$S_\mathrm{el}(\mathbf{Q},\omega) =\frac{T}{N}\sum_{\mu}\left|\mathbf{F}_{\mu}^{\perp}(\mathbf{Q})\right|^{2}\chi_{\mu}^{\mathrm{el}}(\mathbf{Q})\delta(\omega),\label{eq:s_qe_el}$$ respectively, where the magnetic structure factor[@Enjalran_2004] $$\mathbf{F}_{\mu}^{\perp}(\mathbf{Q})=\sum_{i}\mathbf{z}_{i}^{\perp}U_{i\mu}(\mathbf{Q})\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathbf{Q}\cdot\mathbf{r}_{i}).\label{eq:sf}$$ We note that we consider only the electronic-spin contribution to the neutron-scattering intensity. There will also be a small contribution from the nuclear spins, of relative magnitude $\sim$$3b_{\mathrm{inc}}^{2}/2C(g_{J}J)^{2}=0.6$% of the electronic-spin contribution, where $b_\mathrm{inc}=-1.7$fm is the nuclear spin-incoherent scattering length for $^{165}$Ho.[@Sears_1992] These contributions could in principle be separated using neutron polarization analysis.[@Stewart_2009a]
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
 Inelastic neutron-scattering data and model calculations for Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. Experimental data are reproduced from Ref. . Data measured at 4K, 0.6K, and $\sim$0.05K are shown in (a), (b), and (c), respectively. Model calculations at 4K, 0.6K, and 0.35K are shown in (d), (e), and (f), respectively. The elastic peaks at $(100)$ and $(200)$ are nuclear Bragg peaks.](HoGG_fig2.png)
Magnetic excitation spectra: model *vs.* experiment
---------------------------------------------------
The previously-published experimental data (from Ref. ) are shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a)–(c). These data were measured using the DCS instrument at the NIST Center for Neutron Research[@Copley_2003] at three temperatures, 4K, 0.6K, and $\sim$0.05K. The following features are apparent. At 4K, the magnetic scattering consists of weakly dispersive inelastic modes centered at $\omega \sim \Delta$. On cooling the sample to 0.6K, two changes occur: the inelastic modes become strongly dispersive with partial softening evident at $(110)$ and $(330)$ reciprocal-space positions, and an elastic diffuse contribution to the scattering also develops. The single-crystal sample considered here undergoes a transition to long-range magnetic order at $T_\mathrm{N}\approx 0.3$K.[@Zhou_2008] At the base temperature of $\gtrsim0.05$K, magnetic Bragg peaks are visible at the $(110)$ and $(330)$ positions, and elastic magnetic diffuse scattering also remains around these same positions.
To model these observations, we performed calculations of Eqs. –. All our calculations were convoluted with the instrumental resolution function, which was approximated as a Gaussian with a FWHM of $1.0$K. The experimental data were not normalized on an absolute intensity scale, and so were multiplied by an overall intensity scale factor to match our calculations. Fig. \[fig2\](d)–(f) shows calculations of the magnetic neutron-scattering intensity for the parameter values $\Delta=7.4$K, $D = 0.0183$K, and $A=0.039$K given previously. The level of agreement with the experimental data is remarkable given that no fine-tuning of the model parameters has been performed. We also considered the effect of including a nearest-neighbor exchange interaction $\mathcal{K}^\mathrm{nn}$ between local $z$-components of the magnetic moments, but found that this gave qualitatively worse agreement with the data for $|\mathcal{K}^\mathrm{nn}|> 0.1D$, indicating that the interactions of Ho$_3$Ga$_{5}$O$_{12}$ are dominated by $D$.
The approach to magnetic ordering of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is especially informative. The experimental data show that the inelastic soft mode does not soften completely; rather, its minimum energy transfer is approximately $4$K both above and below $T_\mathrm{N}$. Accordingly, the magnetic ordering does not occur *via* condensation of the soft mode; instead, the elastic diffuse scattering becomes more intense and eventually sharpens into Bragg peaks on cooling the sample. A possible explanation for this behavior is as follows. In the theory discussed in Section \[sec:model\], magnetic ordering occurs at the highest temperature at which the paramagnetic susceptibility diverges. If the inelastic and elastic contributions to the susceptibility (Eqs. and , respectively) are both nonzero, the latter will diverge at the higher temperature, because the term $\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda$ that involves the magnetic interactions is enhanced by a larger factor $\chi_0^{\mathrm{el}}+\chi_{0}^{\mathrm{in}}(0)$. Hyperfine interactions can generate a nonzero elastic contribution to the susceptibility, and hence can drive magnetic ordering in two-singlet materials where the electronic interactions alone would be too weak to do so.[@Andres_1973; @Murao_1971; @Murao_1975] We will show below that this is the case in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$.
Magnetic ground state
---------------------
With a model in hand that explains the experimental data, we now explore its properties. We consider first the low-temperature state below $T_\mathrm{N}$. Experimentally, previous powder neutron-diffraction measurements have shown that Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ orders with magnetic propagation vector $\mathbf{k}=(0,0,0)$.[@Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a] The magnetic structure determined by powder neutron diffraction contains six sublattices such that the net moment of the unit cell is zero, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c). The irreducible representation is $\Gamma_{2+}$ in Miller and Love’s notation, and the magnetic space group is $Ia\bar{3}d^{\prime}$. This same magnetic structure is reported in several other several other rare-earth garnets, including Ho$_3$Mn$_x$Ga$_{5-x}$O$_{12}$,[@Mukherjee_2017], Tb$_3$Ga$_{5}$O$_{12}$,[@Hammann_1973; @Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a] and Er$_3$Ga$_{5}$O$_{12}$.[@Cai_2019]
The predictions of our model correspond well with experiment. First, we obtain the $T_\mathrm{N}$ of our model as the temperature at which the paramagnetic $\chi(\mathbf{q},\omega)$ diverges. Our calculated value of $0.31$K is in good agreement with experimental $T_\mathrm{N}\approx 0.3$K for the single crystal studied here. Second, the eigenvector component $U_{i\mu}(\mathbf{k})$ of the lowest-energy mode $\mu$ determines the projection of spin $i$ along its easy axis. The magnetic structure calculated in this way is identical to the one determined from powder neutron diffraction. Our analysis is consistent with the stabilization of this structure by the combination of long-ranged dipolar interactions and easy-axis anisotropy.[@Felsteiner_1981]
Our model disagrees with the experimental data in one respect: it predicts a homogeneous magnetic order, which implies that the elastic scattering would contain only magnetic Bragg peaks below $T_\mathrm{N}$. In contrast, the data show both elastic diffuse scattering and magnetic Bragg peaks below $T_\mathrm{N}$. The calculation shown in Fig. \[fig2\](f) was performed just *above* $T_\mathrm{N}$, at a temperature of 0.35K, and shows elastic diffuse scattering at the $(110)$ and $(330)$ positions, indicating the development of static short-range correlations that correspond to finite-sized magnetic domains of the incipient order. While the persistence of diffuse features below $T_\mathrm{N}$ is not explained by our theory, we note that the reported values of $T_\mathrm{N}$ for Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ vary between $0.15$ and $0.30$K, depending on sample and/or measurement protocol.[@Hammann_1977; @Hammann_1977a; @Zhou_2008] It is therefore possible that small variations in stoichiometry could reduce $T_\mathrm{N}$ in regions of the crystal, in agreement with theoretical predictions.[@Fulde_1972] Such variations are chemically feasible given that Gd$^{3+}$/Ga$^{3+}$ off-stoichiometry has been reported in isostructural Gd$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$.[@Daudin_1982]
Relative importance of CEF, frustration, and hyperfine
------------------------------------------------------
We now identify the reason for the suppression of $T_\mathrm{N}$ in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$. There are two basic scenarios—either $T_\mathrm{N}$ is primarily suppressed by geometrical frustration, or by crystal-field effects—but the hyperfine coupling complicates the picture. To isolate the effects of the various terms in the Hamiltonian, we investigate two further models: one model that removes the hyperfine coupling, and another that removes both the hyperfine coupling and the two-singlet CEF splitting.
*Model excluding hyperfine coupling* ($A=0$, $\Delta=7.4$K, $D=0.0183$K). In the absence of hyperfine coupling, the paramagnetic susceptibility for a two-singlet system is purely inelastic, and Eq. reduces to[@Brout_1966; @Jensen_1991] $$\chi_{0}(\omega)=\frac{2m^{2}\Delta}{\Delta^{2}-\omega^{2}-\mathrm{i}\omega\Gamma}\tanh\left(\frac{\Delta}{2T}\right).\label{eq:chi0_noHF}$$ The imaginary part of the interacting susceptibility is given by $$\mathrm{Im}[\chi_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)]=\frac{\Delta^{2}\chi_{0}(0)\omega\Gamma}{[\omega_{\mu}^{2}(\mathbf{Q})-\omega^{2}]^{2}+(\omega\Gamma)^{2}},\label{eq:chi_noHF}$$ where the dispersion relation[@Brout_1966; @Santos_1980] $$[\omega_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})]^2 = \Delta^{2}\left\{1-\chi_0(0)[\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda]\right\}.\label{eq:dispersion}$$ Making the assumption that the excitations describe delta-functions in energy, the sum rule \[Eq. \] reduces to $$\frac{\chi_{0}(0)\Delta^{2}}{2NN_{\mathbf{q}}}\sum_{\mu,\mathbf{q}}\frac{\coth[{\omega_{\mu}(\mathbf{q})/2T}]}{\omega_{\mu}(\mathbf{q})}=m^{2}.\label{eq:onsager_rpa}$$ The results of Eqs. – were given in Ref. for $N=1$, and are reproduced here for convenience.
The calculated magnetic excitation spectra for $A=0$ resemble those shown in Fig. \[fig2\](d)–(f), except that the elastic contribution to the magnetic scattering becomes zero, as given by Eq. . However, with $A=0$, it is apparent from Eq. that magnetic ordering can only occur if the interactions are sufficiently strong, so that $R_\mathrm{c} = (2m^2/\Delta)\mathrm{max}[\lambda_{\mu}(\mathbf{Q})-\lambda]\geq1$ at $T=0$. This is not the case for Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$, in which $R_\mathrm{c}=0.71$ at $T=0$. Therefore, long-range magnetic ordering in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is enabled by the hyperfine interaction; if this were absent, Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ would remain a correlated paramagnet to zero temperature. Hyperfine-assisted magnetic ordering is uncommon, and its $T_\mathrm{N}$ is relatively high in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ compared to other known examples[@Nicklow_1985] because the hyperfine coupling is strong and $R_\mathrm{c}$ is not too much smaller than unity.
*Model excluding hyperfine coupling and crystal-field splitting* ($A=0$, $\Delta=0$, $D=0.0183$K): In the absence of both hyperfine coupling and two-singlet splitting, the paramagnetic susceptibility is (quasi-)elastic, and Eq. reduces to a Curie law, $$\chi_{0}(\omega) = \delta_{\omega0} \frac{m^{2}}{T}.\label{eq:chi0_noHF_noSI}$$ The sum rule \[Eq. \] reduces to $$m^{2} = \frac{T}{NN_{\mathbf{q}}}\sum_{\mu,\mathbf{q}} \chi^{\mathrm{el}}_{\mu}(\mathbf{q}).\label{eq:onsager_noHF_noSI}$$
We find that this model undergoes a transition to long-range magnetic order at a temperature of 1.74K, which is comparable to the strength of the dipolar interaction. This result demonstrates that the suppression of magnetic ordering observed in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is not a consequence of geometrical frustration, as was suggested previously.[@Zhou_2008; @Mukherjee_2017] Instead, it is a consequence of single-ion quantum fluctuations induced by the two-singlet crystal-field ground state. The reason why Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is not geometrically frustrated can be understood by considering the dipolar interaction, Eq. . The bond-dependence of this interaction is such that, for each Ho$^{3+}$ ion, Eq. is positive for two of its nearest neighbors and negative for the other two. The energy of the nearest-neighbor dipolar interaction is hence minimized by the ordered magnetic structure shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c), in which each spin has two neighbors parallel to their quantization axes and two neighbors antiparallel to them.
Comparison of reaction-field and RPA results
--------------------------------------------
![\[fig3\]Calculations of the magnetic excitation spectrum of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ at $T=1.0$K using (a) the reaction-field approximation and (b) the RPA.](HoGG_fig3.png)
Finally, we compare results obtained using the reaction-field approximation with the standard RPA. This is achieved by setting the reaction-field parameter $\lambda$ to zero in Eqs. and . Figs. \[fig3\](a) and \[fig3\](b) show calculations of the magnetic excitation spectra using the reaction-field approximation and the standard RPA, respectively. Both calculations are performed at $T=1$K. The RPA-only calculation overestimates the bandwidth and degree of softening of the magnetic excitations. Moreover, the magnetic ordering temperature of $0.66$K obtained from standard RPA is too large by a factor of two. These results demonstrate that the reaction-field approximation represents a significant improvement over the standard RPA, and therefore provides a straightforward alternative to other extensions of mean-field theory.[@Jensen_1994; @Jensen_2011] These favorable results are consistent with previous studies of the reaction-field approximation for various models, including geometrically-frustrated examples.[@Santos_1980; @Logan_1995; @Wysin_2000; @Wysocki_2008; @Hohlwein_2003; @Conlon_2010]
Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:conclusions}
=======================
Our modeling study of inelastic neutron-scattering data[@Zhou_2008] unambiguously determines the magnetic Hamiltonian of Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ in terms of the CEF, dipolar interactions, and nuclear hyperfine coupling. We find that the suppression of long-range magnetic ordering is due not to geometrical frustration, as was suggested previously,[@Zhou_2008; @Mukherjee_2017] but instead to the intrinsic transverse field generated by its two-singlet CEF ground state. The eventual magnetic ordering in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ is driven by the nuclear hyperfine coupling, in qualitative agreement with early theoretical calculations.[@Hammann_1973] Our results raise the intriguing possibility of tuning the value of $\Delta$ by chemical substitutions of Ga$^{3+}$ for Al$^{3+}$, Sc$^{3+}$, or In$^{3+}$.[@Mukherjee_2017b] Moreover, the effect of doping Ho$^{3+}$-based garnets[@Mukherjee_2017a] may allow theories of impurity effects in two-singlet systems[@Fulde_1972] to be tested.
Our results benchmark theoretical predictions of the excitation spectra of interacting two-singlet systems against modern neutron scattering data. This comparison has been a longstanding goal of condensed-matter physics, and has been pursued in several systems, including PrX$_2$Si$_2$ ($\textrm{X}=\textrm{Fe,\,Ru}$),[@Blaise_1995; @Mulders_1997] HoF$_3$,[@Leask_1994; @Jensen_1995] LiTb$_x$Y$_{1-x}$F$_4$,[@Lloyd_1990] as well as variants such as three-singlet[@Kawarazaki_1995] and singlet-triplet[@Birgeneau_1971; @Christianson_2007] systems. Our results significantly advance previous studies by modeling both the energies and the intensities of the dispersive paramagnetic excitations over a wide range of reciprocal space. It is especially interesting to compare our results with inelastic neutron-scattering experiments on the Ising doublet system LiHoF$_4$ in an applied transverse magnetic field.[@Ronnow_2005] As the value of this applied field is increased, mode softening is observed; however, this softening remains partial and is arrested by the onset of long-range magnetic order due to the nuclear hyperfine coupling.[@Ronnow_2005] These observations qualitatively resemble our results, demonstrating that the intrinsic transverse field generated by the CEF in Ho$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$ has an equivalent effect to an externally-applied transverse field in LiHoF$_4$.
From a methodological perspective, we have shown that the reaction-field approach[@Santos_1980]—which combines the RPA[@Brout_1966] with the total-moment sum rule—can accurately model magnetic excitation spectra in systems where CEF levels and magnetic interactions have similar energies. It represents a significant improvement over the standard RPA while retaining its low computational cost and general applicability. Because the reaction-field approach has already been shown to yield accurate results in frustrated systems in the absence of CEF effects,[@Hohlwein_2003; @Conlon_2010] we are optimistic that it will now prove useful for topical frustrated systems in which CEF effects are important, such as Pr$^{3+}$-based pyrochlores,[@Zhou_2008a; @Wen_2017; @Martin_2017] osmate pyrochlores,[@Zhao_2016] spin-chain SrHo$_2$O$_4$,[@Young_2013] spinel NiRh$_2$O$_4$,[@Chamorro_2018] and tripod kagome systems.[@Dun_2016; @Dun_2017; @Paddison_2016; @Ding_2018]
Finally, our study demonstrates the essential role played by hyperfine coupling in systems with singlet CEF ground states.[@Triplett_1973; @Andres_1973] The hyperfine coupling has typically been neglected in current models of spin-liquid candidates, but our results suggest that this assumption may often be invalid in non-Kramers systems.[@Wen_2017; @Duijn_2017; @Zhao_2016; @Ding_2018] In such materials, singlet ground states are guaranteed if the point symmetry is sufficiently low; however, even if this condition is not met and a doublet ground state is expected, singlet ground states may nevertheless arise from structural disorder[@Wen_2017; @Duijn_2017] or from perturbations associated with the measurement probe.[@Foronda_2015] Although the hyperfine coupling is largest for Ho$^{3+}$ ($I=7/2$), as considered here, we anticipate that the effects will also be significant for Pr$^{3+}$ frustrated magnets ($I=5/2$),[@Triplett_1973] providing an important avenue for future research on these interesting materials.[@Zhou_2008a; @Wen_2017; @Martin_2017]
Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}
==========
The single-ion Hamiltonian projected in the space of two singlet states can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} = \dfrac{\Delta}{2}\mathbf{1}\otimes{\sigma}^{x} + A m {I}^{z}\otimes{\sigma}^{z}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\sigma}^{\alpha}$ are $2\times 2$ unit Pauli matrices, ${I}^{\alpha}$ is the angular momentum operator of nuclear spin of dimension $(2I+1)\times(2I+1)$, $m = \left|\left\langle 0 | {J}^{z}| 1\right\rangle\right|$ is the matrix element between the two singlet states, and $A$ is the nuclear hyperfine coupling strength. This Hamiltonian commutes with the ${I}^{z}$ operator, so we can work in the subspace with different eigenvalues $I^{z}$, where the Hamiltonian is reduced to a $2\times2$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H} = h^{x}{\sigma}^{x} + h^{z}{\sigma}^{z},\end{aligned}$$ where $h^{x} = \Delta/2$ is a transverse field and $h^{z} = A m I^{z}$ is a longitudinal field. It is straightforward to diagonalize the Hamiltonian and obtain energies of the ground state and the excited state, $$\begin{aligned}
E_{i}(I^{z}) = -(-1)^{i}\sqrt{(h^{x})^{2}+(h^{z})^{2}}\,,\quad i = 0,1,\end{aligned}$$ and the transition matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
|\left\langle I^{z}, 0 | {\sigma}^{z}| I^{z}, 0\right\rangle| & = |\left\langle I^{z}, 1 | {\sigma}^{z}| I^{z}, 1\right\rangle| \\
& = \frac{(h^{z})^2}{(h^{x})^2+(h^{z})^2}, \\
|\left\langle I^{z}, 0 | {\sigma}^{z}| I^{z}, 1\right\rangle| &= |\left\langle I^{z}, 1 | {\sigma}^{z}| I^{z}, 0\right\rangle| \\
&=\frac{(h^{x})^2}{(h^{x})^2+(h^{z})^2}.\end{aligned}$$ There are no transitions among states with different $I^z$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
J.A.M.P. acknowledges financial support from Churchill College, Cambridge (UK), and an ILL Visiting Scientist position during which part of this work was completed. The authors acknowledge Bruno Tomasello and Tim Ziman for helpful discussions. The work of X.B., Z.L.D. and M.M. at Georgia Tech (single-ion Hamiltonians of non-Kramers magnets) was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division under award number DE-SC-0018660. C.R.W. acknowledges funding from NSERC (Discovery Grant and CRC program).
[10]{}
B. Keimer, J. E. Moore, [*Nat. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{}, 1045 EP (2017).
W. Marshall, R. D. Lowde, [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**31**]{}, 705 (1968).
J. Jensen, A. R. Mackintosh, [*Rare earth magnetism: structures and excitations*]{} (Clarendon Press, 1991).
M. P. Zinkin, M. J. Harris, Z. Tun, R. A. Cowley, B. M. Wanklyn, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**8**]{}, 193 (1996).
P. Fulde, M. Loewenhaupt, [*Adv. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{}, 589 (1985).
M. D. Le, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**24**]{}, 036002 (2011).
S. K. Choi, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 127204 (2012).
Y.-L. Wang, B. R. Cooper, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**172**]{}, 539 (1968).
R. Brout, K. A. M[ü]{}ller, H. Thomas, [*Solid State Commun.*]{} [**4**]{}, 507 (1966).
R. B. Stinchcombe, [*J. Phys. C*]{} [**6**]{}, 2459 (1973).
S. Suzuki, J.-i. Inoue, B. K. Chakrabarti, [*Quantum Ising phases and transitions in transverse Ising models*]{} (Springer, Heidelberg, 2012), second edn.
L. Savary, L. Balents, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**118**]{}, 087203 (2017).
H. D. Zhou, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{}, 227204 (2008).
R. Sibille, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**94**]{}, 024436 (2016).
J.-J. Wen, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**118**]{}, 107206 (2017).
N. Martin, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. X*]{} [**7**]{}, 041028 (2017).
P. Bonville, I. Mirebeau, A. Gukasov, S. Petit, J. Robert, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**84**]{}, 184409 (2011).
S. Petit, P. Bonville, J. Robert, C. Decorse, I. Mirebeau, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**86**]{}, 174403 (2012).
J. S. Gardner, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**82**]{}, 1012 (1999).
M. J. P. Gingras, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**62**]{}, 6496 (2000).
A. H. Cooke, T. L. Thorp, M. R. Wells, [*Proc. R. Soc.*]{} [**92**]{}, 400 (1967).
J. Hammann, M. Ocio, [*Physica B+C*]{} [**86-88**]{}, 1153 (1977).
J. Hammann, M. Ocio, [*J. Phys. France*]{} [**38**]{}, 463 (1977).
B. L. Reid, D. F. McMorrow, P. W. Mitchell, O. Prakash, A. P. Murani, [ *Physica B*]{} [**174**]{}, 51 (1991).
H. D. Zhou, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**78**]{}, 140406 (2008).
L. F. Johnson, J. F. Dillon, J. P. Remeika, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**1**]{}, 1935 (1970).
D. G. Onn, H. Meyer, J. P. Remeika, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**156**]{}, 663 (1967).
U. Walter, [*J. Phys. Chem. Solids*]{} [**45**]{}, 401 (1984).
V. Nekvasil, [*Phys. Stat. Solidi B*]{} [**94**]{}, K41 (1979).
P. Mukherjee, H. F. J. Glass, E. Suard, S. E. Dutton, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [ **96**]{}, 140412 (2017).
T. Yoshioka, A. Koga, N. Kawakami, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**73**]{}, 1805 (2004).
O. A. Petrenko, D. McK. Paul, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**63**]{}, 024409 (2000).
T. Yavors’kii, M. Enjalran, M. J. P. Gingras, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **97**]{}, 267203 (2006).
J. A. M. Paddison, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**350**]{}, 179 (2015).
J. Hammann, P. Manneville, [*J. Phys. France*]{} [**34**]{}, 615 (1973).
K. Andres, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**7**]{}, 4295 (1973).
T. Murao, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**31**]{}, 683 (1971).
T. Murao, [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**39**]{}, 50 (1975).
V. H. Santos, C. Scherer, [*Z. Phys. B*]{} [**40**]{}, 95 (1980).
R. Brout, H. Thomas, [*Physics Physique Fizika*]{} [**3**]{}, 317 (1967).
Z. Y. Zhao, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**93**]{}, 134426 (2016).
O. Young, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**88**]{}, 024411 (2013).
J. R. Chamorro, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Materials*]{} [**2**]{}, 034404 (2018).
Z. L. Dun, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**116**]{}, 157201 (2016).
Z. L. Dun, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**95**]{}, 104439 (2017).
J. A. M. Paddison, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nat. Commun.*]{} [**7**]{}, 13842 (2016).
Z.-F. Ding, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**98**]{}, 174404 (2018).
M. Krusius, A. C. Anderson, B. Holmström, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**177**]{}, 910 (1969).
A. P. Ramirez, J. Jensen, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**6**]{}, L215 (1994).
D. E. Logan, Y. H. Szczech, M. A. Tusch, [*Europhys. Lett. (EPL)*]{} [ **30**]{}, 307 (1995).
M. Enjalran, M. J. P. Gingras, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**70**]{}, 174426 (2004).
P. J. Brown, [*International Tables for Crystallography*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2004), vol. C, chap. Magnetic Form Factors, pp. 454–460.
S. W. Lovesey, [*Theory of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter: Polarization Effects and Magnetic Scattering*]{}, vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).
V. F. Sears, [*Neutron News*]{} [**3**]{}, 26 (1992).
J. R. Stewart, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Appl. Crystallogr.*]{} [**42**]{}, 69 (2009).
J. R. D. Copley, J. C. Cook, [*Chem. Phys.*]{} [**292**]{}, 477 (2003).
Y. [Cai]{}, [*et al.*]{}, [*arXiv:1905.03687*]{} (2019).
J. Felsteiner, S. K. Misra, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**24**]{}, 2627 (1981).
P. Fulde, I. Peschel, [*Adv. Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}, 1 (1972).
B. Daudin, R. Lagnier, B. Salce, [*J. Magn. Magn. Mater.*]{} [**27**]{}, 315 (1982).
R. M. Nicklow, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**57**]{}, 3784 (1985).
J. Jensen, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**49**]{}, 11833 (1994).
J. Jensen, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**83**]{}, 064420 (2011).
G. M. Wysin, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**62**]{}, 3251 (2000).
A. L. Wysocki, J. K. Glasbrenner, K. D. Belashchenko, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [ **78**]{}, 184419 (2008).
D. Hohlwein, J.-U. Hoffmann, R. Schneider, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**68**]{}, 140408 (2003).
P. H. Conlon, J. T. Chalker, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**81**]{}, 224413 (2010).
P. Mukherjee, A. C. S. Hamilton, H. F. J. Glass, S. E. Dutton, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**29**]{}, 405808 (2017).
P. Mukherjee, S. E. Dutton, [*Adv. Funct. Mater.*]{} [**27**]{}, 1701950 (2017).
A. Blaise, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**7**]{}, 8317 (1995).
A. M. Mulders, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**56**]{}, 8752 (1997).
M. J. M. Leask, M. R. Wells, R. C. C. Ward, S. M. Hayden, J. Jensen, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**6**]{}, 505 (1994).
J. Jensen, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Magn. Magn. Mater.*]{} [**140-144**]{}, 1191 (1995).
R. G. Lloyd, P. W. Mitchell, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**2**]{}, 2383 (1990).
S. Kawarazaki, Y. Kobashi, M. Sato, Y. Miyako, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**7**]{}, 4051 (1995).
R. J. Birgeneau, J. Als-Nielsen, E. Bucher, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**27**]{}, 1530 (1971).
A. D. Christianson, [*et al.*]{}, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**101**]{}, 09D505 (2007).
H. M. R[ø]{}nnow, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**308**]{}, 389 (2005).
B. B. Triplett, R. M. White, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**7**]{}, 4938 (1973).
J. van Duijn, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**96**]{}, 094409 (2017).
F. R. Foronda, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**114**]{}, 017602 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The $N$-component London $\mathrm{U}(1)$ superconductor is expressed in terms of integer-valued supercurrents. We show that the inclusion of inter-band Josephson couplings introduces monopoles in the current fields, which convert the phase transitions of the charge-neutral sector to crossovers. The monopoles only couple to the neutral sector, and leave the phase transition of the charged sector intact. The remnant non-critical fluctuations in the neutral sector influence the one remaining phase transition in the charged sector, and may alter this phase transition from a $3DXY$ inverted phase transition into a first-order phase transition depending on what the values of the gauge-charge and the inter-component Josephson coupling are. This preemptive effect becomes more pronounced with increasing number of components $N$, since the number of charge-neutral fluctuating modes that can influence the charged sector increases with $N$. We also calculate the gauge-field correlator, and by extension the Higgs mass, in terms of current-current correlators. We show that the onset of the Higgs-mass of the photon (Meissner-effect) is given in terms of a current-loop blowout associated with going into the superconducting state as the temperature of the system is lowered.'
author:
- Peder Notto Galteland
- Asle Sudbø
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Current-loops, phase transitions, and the Higgs mechanism in Josephson-coupled multi-component superconductors'
---
Introduction
============
Models with multiple $\mathrm{U}(1)$ condensates coupled by a vector potential are relevant to a variety of condensed matter systems. The number of possible interactions between the individual condensates make the models much more complex than single-band systems. Multiple, individually conserved condensates are applicable to systems of low temperature atoms, such as hydrogen under extreme pressures[@Jaffe1981; @Oliva1984; @Moulopoulos1991; @Moulopoulos1999; @Ashcroft2003; @Ashcroft2004] and as effective models of easy-plane quantum anti-ferromagnets[@Senthil2004; @Motrunich2004]. Superconductors with multiple superconducting bands, such as $\text{MgB}_2$[@Bouquet2001; @Liu2001; @Szabo2001] and iron pnictides[@YoichiKamihara2008] may also be described by a model of multiple $\mathrm{U}(1)$ condensates, but in these systems the individual condensates are not conserved. Inter-band Josephson couplings must always be included, as they cannot *a priori* be excluded on symmetry grounds.
Ginzburg-Landau models of $N$-component superconductors in the London limit host a rich variety of interesting phenomena[@Babaev2004; @Smorgrav2005; @Smorgrav2005a; @Kuklov2006]. Each condensate supports topological vortex line defects, which represent disorder in the condensate ordering field. When the condensates are coupled through a gauge field, the vortices carry magnetic flux quanta, and may be bound into composite vortices with $\pm 2\pi$ phase windings in multiple condensates[@Smiseth2005]. It turns out that this gives rise to composite superfluid modes that do not couple to the gauge field, even though their constituent vortices interact via the gauge field. In addition to the superfluid modes, there will be a single charged mode which is coupled by the gauge field. This causes the $N$-component model without Josephson interactions to have $N-1$ superfluid phase transitions and a single superconducting phase transition[@Smiseth2005]. For certain values of the gauge charge these transitions will interfere in a non-trivial way, causing the transitions to merge in a single first-order transition[@Kragset2006; @Herland2010].
The question of the nature of the phase transitions present in Josephson-coupled multiband superconductors is of considerable interest. Symmetry arguments dictate that the inclusion of the Josephson coupling breaks the $\left[\mathrm{U}(1)\right]^n$ symmetry down to $\mathrm{U}(1)$, at any strength. The Josephson term locks the superfluid modes so that the phase transition in the neutral sector is replaced by a crossover[@Smiseth2005], while the phase transition in the gauge-coupled sector is expected to remain. If this transition remains continuous, it is expected to be in the inverted 3D$XY$ universality class[@Smiseth2005]. A recent study has observed a first order transition in this model for weak Josephson coupling[@Sellin2016], suggesting a subtle interplay between the two length scales dictated by the Josephson length and the magnetic field penetration depth. A schematic phase diagram is shown in \[fig:PD\] for the two-component case. This is based on arguments provided in this work, and supports the numerical results obtained in recent numerical studies[@Sellin2016]. Also of note is multiband superconductors with frustrated inter-band couplings, which is $\mathrm{U}(1)\times\mathrm{Z}_2$ symmetric. These systems have been shown to have a single first-order transition in three dimensions from a symmetric state into a state that breaks both $\mathrm{U}(1)$ and $\mathrm{Z}_2$ symmetry for weak values of the gauge field coupling. For stronger values of the charge, the transitions split[@Bojesen2014; @Bojesen2015].
![A schematic phase diagram for the model with $N=2$. The top panel shows the case $\lambda=0$, while the lower panel shows the case with $\lambda>0$. Top panel, $\lambda=0$: Phase I is the fully symmetric normal phase with no superfluidity and no superconductivity. Phase III is the phase with no superconductivity, but non-zero superfluid stiffness in the neutral mode (metallic superfluid). Phase II is the low-temperature fully ordered state with finite Higgs mass in the charged sector and finite superfluid density in the neutral sector, a superconducting superfluid. The solid line separating phase I from phase II is a first-order phase transition line. The dotted line separating phase II from phase III is a critical line in the inverted $3DXY$ universality class. The solid line separating phase I from phase III is a critical line in the $3DXY$ universality class. [Along the line $e=0$, we recover two uncoupled $3DXY$ models, and the phase transition will be two superimposed independent phase transitions in the $3DXY$ universality class.]{} Bottom panel, $\lambda > 0$: Phase I’ is the high-temperature phase with no superconductivity. The entire phase is analytically connected with only a crossover regime separating the high-temperature phase from the lower-temperature phase. There is no spontaneous symmetry breaking in the neutral sector, since the Josephson coupling effectively acts as an explicit symmetry-breaking term in this sector, analogous to a magnetic field coupling linearly to $XY$ spins. Phase II’ is the low-temperature superconducting state. The solid part of the line separating phase I’ from phase II’ is a first-order phase transition line. The dotted part is a critical line in the inverted $3DXY$ universality class. Both for $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda> 0$, the line separating the superconducting states (II and II’) from the non-superconducting state changes character from a first-order phase transition (solid line) to a second-order phase-transition (dotted line) as via a tricritical point. The $3DXY$ critical line separating phase I from phase III for $\lambda =0$, is converted to a crossover line in phase I’ for $\lambda >0$. [ Along the $e=0$ line, the system is described by two neutral sectors coupled by an inter-component Josephson coupling, such that the global $U(1) \times U(1)$ symmetry is reduced to a global $U(1)$-symmetry. Therefore, the phase transition reverts to a single $3DXY$ transition.]{}[]{data-label="fig:PD"}](pd){width="\columnwidth"}
In this paper we present an alternate approach to the multiband superconductor which has certain advantages over standard formulations, allowing further analytical insights to be made. In particular, we are able reconcile the different results for the character of the phase transition in the charged sector found in Refs. and in the presence of interband Josephson-couplings. By applying a character expansion[@Janke1986; @Kleinert1989] to the action, we replace the phases of the order parameter with integer-current fields. These currents are the actual supercurrents of the model. \[sec:model\] presents the details and basic properties of the multiband superconductor in the London limit. In \[sec:bexpJ0\] we present the character expansion, apply it to the model with no Josephson coupling, and compare the resulting representation to the original model. We apply the character expansion to the multiband superconductor with Josephson couplings in \[sec:bexpJ\] and discuss it in the light of the current representation. In \[sec:higgs\] we present the calculation of the Higgs mass in terms of current-correlators. We present our conclusions in \[sec:conc\].
Standard representation of the model {#sec:model}
====================================
We consider a model of $N$ bosonic complex matter fields in three dimensions. The matter fields are given by $\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})=\left|\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\right|\exp i\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})$, interacting through the electromagnetic vector potential, ${\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})$. We also allow inter-band Josephson couplings of the matter fields. In the general case, this is described by a partition function $$\mathcal{Z} = \int\mathcal{D}{\boldsymbol{A}}\left(\prod_\alpha\int\mathcal{D}\psi_\alpha\right) e^{-S},$$ where the action is $$\begin{aligned}
S = \beta\int d^3r\Bigg\{&\frac{1}{2}\sum_\alpha\left(\left|\nabla-ie{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\right|^2\nonumber\\&+V\left(\{\left|\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\right|\}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}{(\nabla\times{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}}))}^2 \nonumber\\ -\sum_{\alpha<\beta}\lambda_{\alpha,
\beta}&\left|\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\right|\left|\psi_\beta({\boldsymbol{r}})\right|\cos\left(\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})-\theta_\beta({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)\Bigg\}.
\label{eq:fullHam}\end{aligned}$$ The potential $V$ contains terms that are powers of $\left|\psi_\alpha\right|$. At this point we employ the phase-only, or London, approximation and choose all bare stiffnesses, $\left|\psi_\alpha\right|$, equal to unity. Hence, $V$ is an unimportant constant. We will also focus on equal couplings between all bands, *i.e.* $\lambda_{\alpha, \beta} = \lambda\;\forall\;\alpha,\beta$. The action is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
S = \beta\int d^3r\Bigg\{&\frac{1}{2}\sum_\alpha{\left(\nabla\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})-e{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)}^2 +\frac{1}{2}{(\nabla\times{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}}))}^2 \nonumber\\
&-\lambda\sum_{\alpha<\beta}\cos\left(\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})-\theta_\beta({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)\Bigg\}\end{aligned}$$
We regularize this action on a cubic lattice of size $L^3$ by defining the fields on a discrete set of coordinates $r_\mu\in (1, \ldots, L)$, that is $\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\rightarrow\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha}$ and ${\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\rightarrow{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}$. On the lattice, the action reads $$\begin{aligned}
S = \beta\sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\Bigg\{&-\sum_{\mu, \alpha}\cos\left(\Delta_\mu\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-eA_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}\right) +\frac{1}{2}{(\Delta\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2 \nonumber\\
&-\lambda\sum_{\alpha<\beta}\cos\left(\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \beta}\right)\Bigg\}.
\label{eq:actionlattice}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we use the cosine function to represent the kinetic term of the continuum Hamiltonian in a way that preserves the periodic nature of the phases. Alternatively, one may arrive at \[eq:actionlattice\] by directly replacing the derivatives in \[eq:fullHam\] with the gauge invariant forward difference, $$(\nabla-ie{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}}))\psi_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})\rightarrow\psi_{{\boldsymbol{r}}+{\hat{{\boldsymbol{\mu}}}}, \alpha}e^{-ie{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}}-\psi_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha},$$ and then taking the London limit as described above. We discuss the two-dimensional case in \[app:2D\].
In the formulation of \[eq:actionlattice\] with $\lambda=0$, the model is known[@Smiseth2005; @Herland2010] to have one phase transition from a normal state to a superconducting state in one composite degree of freedom, and $N-1$ phase transitions from a normal fluid to a superfluid in the remaining degrees of freedom. The reason for this division into one superconducting and $N-1$ superfluid degrees of freedom becomes apparent when one correctly identifies the relevant combinations of the phase fields. The part of the continuum action describing the coupling between the phases and the gauge field is $$S^\prime = \beta\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}\Bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\sum_\alpha{\left(\nabla\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})-e{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)}^2\Bigg\}.$$ This can be rewritten into[@Smiseth2005] $$\begin{aligned}
S^\prime = \beta\int d{\boldsymbol{r}}\Bigg\{&\frac{1}{2N}{\left(\sum_\alpha\nabla\theta_\alpha({\boldsymbol{r}})-Ne{\boldsymbol{A}}({\boldsymbol{r}})\right)}^2\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\alpha<\beta}{\left[\nabla\left(\theta_\alpha-\theta_\beta\right)\right]}^2\Bigg\}.
\label{eq:sumdiffaction}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the phase combination $\sum_\alpha\theta_\alpha$ will couple to the gauge field, and is identified as the single charged mode, while all other combinations $\theta_\alpha-\theta_\beta$ do not couple, and are neutral. Note that for $N=1$ only the charged mode remains. Two important points need to be emphasized. Firstly, the composite variables are not compact in the same sense that the individual phases are. This means that the composite variables do not support topological defects by themselves, only composite topological defects. Secondly, the last term in the action of \[eq:sumdiffaction\] has $N(N-1)/2$ terms. Therefore, one may not interpret the phase differences $\theta_\alpha-\theta_\beta$ as independent degrees of freedom. This is because of the multiple connectedness of the physical space, fluctuations in a single individual phase induce fluctuations in $N-1$ composite neutral modes, as well as in the charged mode.
In the present form, with $\lambda=0$ and $e$ sufficiently large, this model is known to have one phase transition in the inverted $3dXY$-universality class, and $N-1$ transitions in the $3dXY$-universality class at a higher temperature[@Smiseth2005; @Herland2010]. These transitions correspond to proliferations of the composite charged mode and the composite neutral modes, respectively. If the charge is lowered, the charged and neutral transitions will approach each other in temperature. When they merge, the proliferation of neutral vortices will trigger proliferation of the charged mode. Consequently, the $N$ phase transitions collapse into a single first-order transition. This interplay between the charged and neutral sector has been coined a *preemptive* phase transition [@Dahl2008], and has been verified numerically in two-component systems in the absence of inter-component Josephson-coupling in several detailed large-scale Monte Carlo simulations [@Kragset2006; @Dahl2008; @Herland2010].
In the following Section, we reformulate the model in terms of integer-valued current fields, considering first the case with zero Josephson-coupling and then move on to include Josephson coupling. The first case is useful to consider in connecting the results of previous works mentioned above to the current-formulation.
Current representation of the model {#sec:current_rep}
===================================
Zero intercomponent Josephson coupling {#sec:bexpJ0}
--------------------------------------
The basis of the expansion used is a character expansion[@Janke1986; @Kleinert1989]. $$e^{\beta\cos\gamma} = \sum_{b=-\infty}^\infty I_b(\beta)e^{ib\gamma},
\label{eq:besselid}$$ where $I_b(\beta)$ are the modified Bessel functions of integer order. We apply this to the terms $\exp\beta\cos(\Delta_\mu\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-e{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})$ for each value of ${\boldsymbol{r}}$, $\mu$, and $\alpha$. This introduces integer vector fields ${\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}$, representing supercurrents. [ In fact, the integer vector fields will be the actual physical supercurrents of the system[@Kleinert1989].]{} The low-temperature phase is characterized by a state with proliferated current-loops on all length scales, while the high-temperature phase only features small current-loops.
By applying \[eq:besselid\] to the partition function with \[eq:actionlattice\] as the action, and integrating out the phases and the gauge field, details of which may be found in \[app:charexp\], we arrive at the partition function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}, 0}
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \mu}}(\beta)\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}e^{-\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\sum_{\alpha, \beta}{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime,\beta}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)}.
\label{eq:besselJ0}\end{aligned}$$ This is a model of $N$ current fields, with contact intra-component interactions parametrized by the Bessel functions, and long-range intra- and inter-component interactions originating with the gauge-field fluctuations, $D({\boldsymbol{r}}-{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)$. The constraint ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}=0$ forces the currents, ${\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}$ to form closed loops, and implies a non-analytical behavior of each individual component, and an associated phase transition.
In the current language, the interpretation of the phase transitions explained in the previous Section is as follows. Consider first a single component model. In the high temperature state, only the lowest term in the Bessel-function expansion will contribute, and only small loops of supercurrents will be present in the system. As the temperature is *lowered* all orders of the expansion contribute, and the integer currents will proliferate, filling the system with loops of supercurrent. In the low temperature state all $b$-fields have proliferated. As temperature is increased, the proliferated current loops in the charged sector will collapse. Only the neutral superfluid currents fill the system, and the state is therefore a metallic superfluid[@Smorgrav2005a]. As temperature is raised further the superfluid currents collapse as well, and the system is in the normal metallic state.
Non-zero intercomponent Josephson couplings {#sec:bexpJ}
-------------------------------------------
The expansion of \[eq:besselid\] may also be applied to the Josephson term. [ The expansion is only valid when the argument of the cosine is expanded around zero, the present formulation is therefore not valid for any ground state which does not fulfill this requirement. In particular, if the Josephson coupling is negative and sufficiently strong, the phase differences will be locked to nonzero values [@Bojesen2014; @Bojesen2015]. For $N=2$ the phases are locked to $\pi$, while for $N=3$ the ground state of the three phases may form a star-pattern with an accompanying $\mathrm{Z}_2$ symmetry associated with the two possible chiralities of the star[@Bojesen2014; @Bojesen2015]. These cases are not covered by the current-loop formulation derived from the character-expansion \[eq:besselid\]. While the above arguments do not constrain us to only consider all Josephson couplings equal, we may limit our considerations to the case $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}=\lambda>0$ without loss of generality in the present discussion. Having universal $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}$ will not allow for any additional physics than simply having unequal strength of the individual phase lockings, when they are constrained to be all positive.]{}
Applying the expansion introduces an additional $N(N-1)/2$ integer fields $m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}$. After expanding both the kinetic terms and the Josephson terms, the partition function reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} ={}& \int\mathcal{D}{\boldsymbol{A}}\left(\prod_\alpha\int\mathcal{D}\theta_\alpha\right)\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}\sum_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu, \alpha}=-\infty}^\infty I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu, \alpha}}(\beta)e^{ib_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu,
\alpha}(\Delta_\mu\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-eA_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{\mu}}})}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha<\beta}\sum_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}=-\infty}^\infty I_{{\boldsymbol{m}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}(\beta\lambda)e^{im_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}(\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha} - \theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \beta})}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}{(\Delta\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2}\end{aligned}$$ The effect of the Josephson coupling becomes apparent when we integrate out the phase fields. The divergences of the ${\boldsymbol{b}}$-fields will no longer be constrained to zero, but may take any finite integer value, determined by the value of the $m$-fields. The new constraints read $${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha} = \sum_{\beta\neq\alpha}m_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha, \beta}\;\forall\;\alpha, {\boldsymbol{r}},
\label{eq:Jcons}$$ where we have defined $m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}=-m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \beta, \alpha}$. The gauge-term is not coupled directly to the $m$-fields, and we may integrate it out in the same fashion as before. The resulting partition function is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha},
\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha}m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \mu}}(\beta) \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha<\beta}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}(\beta\lambda)\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}e^{-\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\sum_{\alpha, \beta}{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime,\beta}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)}
\label{eq:partbJ}\end{aligned}$$
Monopoles and phase transitions
-------------------------------
The effect of the $m$-fields is to introduce monopoles into the closed loops of ${\boldsymbol{b}}$-currents. A current of a particular component (´´color´´) may now terminate at any site. However, this termination must always be accompanied by a current of another color originating at the same site. Termination of a current of one component, and the appearance of a current of another component at the same site represents an excitation of $\pm 1$ in $m$. An important observation is that if one adds the constraints, we have $$\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha} = 0\;\forall\;{\boldsymbol{r}}.
\label{eq:sumconstraint}$$ This reflects the color changing event stated above, the total current when summing over all colors is conserved at all sites. It also shows that there is a particular combination of currents, the sum of all components, which will be divergence-free. The net effect of the Josephson coupling, pictorially, is to chop up the closed currents of the individual components and glue them together into closed loops that may change color on any site.
We may expand the partition function first in terms of $m$-fields, and then in terms of $\lambda$, by using the Bessel-function representation $$I_\nu(z) = {\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)}^\nu\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\frac{{\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)}^{2k}}{k!(\nu+k)!}$$ This demonstrates that the partition function consists of a single term with zero divergence on all sites, which we know has one or more phase transitions from a superconducting superfluid state into a non-superconducting normal fluid, and many terms where the divergence of ${\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\alpha}$ is finite on any number of sites.
Let us now consider two limits, and assume $e$ is large, so that there is no preemptive effect for $\lambda=0$. For $\lambda=0$, it is evident that only $m=0$ will contribute, and we are left with only divergenceless terms, and hence the behaviour described previously. The other limit is $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$. In this case we must examine the asymptotic form of the Bessel functions, which to leading order in the argument is $$I_m(z) \sim \frac{e^z}{\sqrt{2\pi z}},$$ *i.e.* independent of $m$, and the monopole field will fluctuate strongly, causing the zero-divergence constraint on each component to be removed. The only remaining constraint on the current fields pertains to the composite current $\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_\alpha$, which is divergence-free. The interpretation of this is that the phase transitions in the $N-1$ superfluid modes are converted to crossovers by the Josephson coupling, while the single superconducting mode still undergoes a genuine phase transition. The neutral crossover will be far removed from the charged phase transition in this limit, and the remaining fluctuations in the neutral sector will be almost completely suppressed. There is no possibility of any interference between the sectors, and therefore no preemptive phase transition. The phase transition in the charged sector will therefore be in the universality class of the inverted $3DXY$ phase transition.
For intermediate and small values of $\lambda$, the effect of the Josephson coupling on the interplay between the charged and neutral sectors is quite subtle in the present formulation, and will be discussed in the following section.
Charged and neutral currents
----------------------------
We start with the action where the phase sum and phase differences have been separated, \[eq:sumdiffaction\], with a Josephson coupling included. To simplify the notation, we introduce composite fields $\Theta\equiv\sum_\alpha\theta_\alpha$ and $\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\theta_\alpha-\theta_\beta$. The lattice action then reads $$\begin{aligned}
S = \beta\sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\Bigg\{&-\sum_\mu\cos\left(\Delta_\mu\Theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}-NeA_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}\right)\nonumber\\
&-\sum_{\mu, \alpha<\beta}\cos\left(\Delta_\mu\vartheta_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha\beta}\right)-\lambda\sum_{\alpha<\beta}\cos\left(\vartheta_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha\beta}\right)\nonumber\\&+\frac{1}{2}{\left({\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\right)}^2\Bigg\}.
\label{eq:actioncompositelattice}\end{aligned}$$ One may arrive at this form by defining the composite fields in \[eq:sumdiffaction\], then use the Villain approximation on the original action of \[eq:actionlattice\], rewrite the resulting action into one with the composite fields, then reverse the Villain approximation.
In \[eq:actioncompositelattice\], there is one charged mode and $N(N-1)/2$ neutral modes, while the original theory has $N$ degrees of freedom. There is therefore an excess of $(N-1)(N-2)/2$ degrees of freedom. (Note that there are no redundant modes for $N=1$ and $N=2$). Therefore, not all of the phase differences are independent when $N>2$. Consider the case $N=3$, where one may form the phase differences $\theta_1-\theta_2$, $\theta_2-\theta_3$ and $\theta_1-\theta_3$, but $\theta_1-\theta_3 = (\theta_1-\theta_2)+(\theta_2-\theta_3)$. It suffices to include the phase differences $\vartheta_{12}$ and $\vartheta_{23}$.
This may be generalized to arbitrary $N$. Identify all $\theta_{\alpha\beta}$ where $$\{(\alpha,\beta)|\alpha\in(1,\ldots,N-1)\land\beta=\alpha+1\}.
\label{eq:realdof}$$ Then, all $\theta_{\alpha\beta}$ where $$\{(\alpha,\beta)|\alpha\in(1,\ldots, N-2)\land\beta\in(\alpha+2, \ldots,
N)\}
\label{eq:redundantdof}$$ may be constructed by adding up the intermediate phase differences, that is $\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}=\vartheta_{\alpha, \alpha+1} + \vartheta_{\alpha+1, \alpha+2} + \cdots
\vartheta_{\beta-1, \beta}$. With this in mind, we may write out the partition function in terms of the charged and neutral modes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} =
&\int\mathcal{D}\Theta\left(\prod_{\alpha<\beta}\int\mathcal{D}\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\nonumber\\
&\times\left(\prod_{\alpha=1}^{N-1}\prod_{\beta=\alpha+2}^N\delta\left(\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}-\sum_{\eta=\alpha}^{\beta-1}\vartheta_{\eta,\eta+1}\right)\right)e^{S}
\label{eq:partredundant}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is the action of \[eq:actioncompositelattice\].
As an illustration, we perform the character expansion on the model where the charged and neutral sectors have been separated, for the special cases $N=2$ and $N=3$.
For $N=2$ there are no redundant variables, and we have the two composite variables $\Theta\equiv\theta_1+\theta_2$ and $\vartheta\equiv\theta_1-\theta_2$. Using the identity \[eq:besselid\], and integrating out the phases and gauge field, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}},0}
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}},m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}}\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}I_{B_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}}(\beta)I_{\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}}(\beta)\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}}(\beta\lambda)\nonumber\\
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}\exp&\left\{-\frac{({Ne)}^2}{2\beta}{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)\right\}.
\label{Z_2}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\boldsymbol{B}}$ is the charged current field associated with $\Theta$, while $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$ is the neutral current field associated with $\vartheta$.
In this formulation, it is immediately clear that the model features two integer vector-field degrees of freedom, one which has long-range interactions mediated by the gauge field, and one with contact interactions. The neutral current field has its constraint removed by the $m$-field, while the charged field is still constrained to be divergenceless. Hence, the model will feature a single phase transition in the charged sector driven by the collapse of closed loops of charged currents, while the transition of the neutral sector is converted to a crossover by the complete removal of constraints on $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$.
Let us consider this in a bit more detail. In \[Z\_2\], we may perform the summation over the fields $m \in \mathbb{Z}$. Since we have that ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\in \mathbb{Z}$ as well, the summation over the $m$’s will guarantee that the constraint is satisfied for some value of $m$, such that the summation over $m$ effectively removes the constraints on ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} $. Hence, we have $\sum_{\{m\}}
\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}},m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}} \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}}(\beta\lambda) = \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} I_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}
}(\beta\lambda)$, with no constraints on ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}$. We may thus perform the now unconstrained summation of the field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}$, namely $$\sum_{\{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}\}}
\left( \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu} I_{\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}}(\beta) \right)
\left(\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} I_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} }(\beta\lambda) \right)
= F(\beta,\lambda),
\label{eq:neutralanalytic}$$ where $F$ is an analytic function of its arguments. This may be seen by mapping the left hand side of \[eq:neutralanalytic\] to a Villain model, using the approximation[@Janke1986] $$\frac{I_b(x)}{I_0(x)}\approx \frac{1}{\left|b\right|!}e^{\log(\beta/2)\left|b\right|}.$$ This may be rewritten as a gaussian provided $\beta$ is sufficiently small so that contributions $\left|b\right|>1$ are small, $$\frac{I_b(x)}{I_0(x)}\approx e^{\frac{-b^2}{2\beta^\prime}},$$ where $\beta^\prime$ is a renormalized coupling constant, and we find $$F(\beta,\lambda)=
\sum_{\{ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}\}}
\left( \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}\exp{\frac{-\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}^2}{2\beta^\prime}}\right)
\left(\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} \exp{\frac{-\left({\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\right)^2}{2\lambda\beta^\prime}}\right),
\label{eq:neutralanalyticgauss}.$$ Since there are no constraints $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$, this demonstrates that \[eq:neutralanalytic\] essentially is a discrete Gaussian theory, and the neutral sector therefore does not suffer any phase transition. This point may be further corroborated by going back to the formulation of Eq. \[eq:actioncompositelattice\]. The neutral sector of the action is seen to be identical to that of an $XY$ spin-model in an external magnetic field, with field strength $\lambda$. Any $\lambda \neq 0$ converts the phase transition, from a low-temperature ferromagnetic state to a high-temperature paramagnetic state, into to a crossover from an ordered to a disordered system. Note also that in the limit $\lambda=0$, the Bessel function will revert to $I_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}}(0)=\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}, 0}$, and the non-analytical constraint is re-introduced.
[We emphasize that although the above argument utilized a Villain-approximation to the Bessel-functions, the conclusion that the phase-transition is wiped out in the neutral sector by introducing monopoles (Josephson-coupling) does not depend on this approximation. At any rate, a Villain-approximation to the XY-model does not change the symmetry of the problem or the character of phase transitions. What is crucial is the introduction of monopoles and the ensuing removal of constraints on the neutral currents.]{}
The total partition function for the entire system is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} & = & F(\beta, \lambda)
\sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{B}} \}} \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}},0} \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}I_{B_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}}(\beta) \nonumber \\
& & \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}\exp \left\{-\frac{({Ne)}^2}{2\beta}{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)\right\}.
\label{Z_3}\end{aligned}$$ The phase-transition in the neutral sector is converted to a crossover, and there are no longer any *critical* fluctuations associated with disordering the neutral sector, unlike the case $\lambda=0$. This occurs as soon as $\lambda$ is finite, however small. However, even without a phase transition and associated critical fluctuations, there will still be a crossover with associated fluctuations in its vicinity. Hence, the preemptive first-order phase transition in the charged sector, which occurs for $\lambda=0$, may still take place provided $\lambda$ sufficiently small.
The argument is as follows. In the preemptive scenario for $\lambda=0$, fluctuations in the neutral and charged sectors increase as $T$ is increased from below in the fully ordered state. The charged sector influences the fluctuations in the neutral sector and vice versa, such that the putative continuous transitions in these sectors are preempted by a common first order phase transition [@Smiseth2005; @Herland2010]. The important point to realize is that neither of the sectors actually reach criticality, since there are no critical fluctuations at the preemptive first-order phase transition.
We may have the same scenario occurring with finite but small $\lambda$. A necessary requirement is that the gauge-charge $e$ is not too large, such that gauge-field fluctuations are not so large as to separate the phase-transitions in the charged and the neutral sector too much [@Smiseth2005; @Herland2010]. The key point is that the inclusion of Josephson-couplings converts the phase transition in the neutral sector to a crossover in exactly the same way that the ferromagnetic-paramagnetic phase transition in the $3DXY$ model is converted to a crossover by the inclusion of a magnetic field coupling linearly to the $XY$-spins, cf. Eq \[eq:actioncompositelattice\]. This leaves only a phase-transition in the charged sector, but it does not completely suppress fluctuations in the neutral sector. It merely cuts the fluctuations off on a length-scale given by the Josephson-length $1/\lambda$, thereby preventing them from becoming critical. As temperature is increased, the neutral sector approaches its crossover region, with increasingly large fluctuations. At the same time, the charged sector approaches its putative inverted-$3dXY$ fixed point. Provided that the crossover region of the neutral sector and the fixed point of the charged sector are sufficiently close, the fluctuations in both sectors may still strongly influence each other, and a first-order preemptive phase transition may still occur in the charged sector. This is consistent with recent numerical work[@Sellin2016], which observed a first order phase transition in multi-band superconductors with weak Josephson-coupling in Monte-Carlo simulations using the original $\mathrm{U}(1)$ phases.
For $N=3$ we must consider carefully the redundant variable, $\vartheta_{13} =
\vartheta_{12}+\vartheta_{23}$. The partition function, prior to integration of the phases and the gauge field reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} ={}&
\int\mathcal{D}\Theta\left(\prod_{\alpha<\beta}\int\mathcal{D}\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}\right)\delta(\vartheta_{13}-\vartheta_{12}-\vartheta_{23})\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}\sum_{B_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu}=-\infty}^\infty I_{B_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu}}(\beta)e^{iB_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\mu}(\Delta_\mu\Theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}-NeA_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{\mu}}})}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{\substack{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu\\\alpha<\beta}}\sum_{\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu,
\alpha\beta}=-\infty}^\infty I_{\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu, \alpha\beta}}(\beta)e^{i\mathcal{B}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha\beta}\Delta_\mu\vartheta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha\beta}}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha<\beta}\sum_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha\beta}=-\infty}^\infty I_{{\boldsymbol{m}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}(\beta\lambda)e^{im_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}{(\Delta\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Again, ${\boldsymbol{B}}$ is the charged current associated with $\Theta$, while $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{\alpha\beta}$ are the neutral currents associated with $\vartheta_{\alpha\beta}$. The $\delta$-function is included to account for the redundancy of the composite phase representation.
We now proceed with the integration of phases and gauge field, taking care to integrate out the redundant phase first. The partition function may then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{B}}, \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}},0}\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}I_{B_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu}}(\beta)\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 12}+{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 13},m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 12}+m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 13}}\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 23}+{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 13},m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 23}+m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, 13}}\nonumber\\
&\prod_{\substack{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu\\\alpha<\beta}}I_{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha\beta}}(\beta)
\prod_{\substack{{\boldsymbol{r}}\\\alpha<\beta}}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha\beta}}(\beta\lambda)\nonumber\\
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}\exp&\left\{-\frac{({Ne)}^2}{2\beta}{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)\right\}.
\label{eq:partbJsep}\end{aligned}$$ This is a model of a single gauge coupled supercurrent ${\boldsymbol{B}}$ which are constrained to form closed loops, and three superfluid currents $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{12}$, $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{23}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{13}$ which are not constrained to form closed loops. The three superfluid currents are not independent, as is seen from the two constraints on them. As in the case $N=2$, the summation over the $m$-fields may be performed, eliminating the constraints on the fields $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha\beta}$, after which the *unconstrained* summation over these fields may be performed. As for $N=2$, this yields multiplicative analytic factors in the partition function, and the phase transitions in the neutral sectors will be converted to crossovers. Given that the crossovers in the neutral sectors and the charged fixed point have sufficient overlap, the system may still feature a single preemptive first-order phase transition arising from the interplay between the charged and neutral modes. Furthermore, the inclusion of the additional degree of freedom enhances the combined fluctuations of the neutral mode at a given Josephson coupling, $\lambda$, and therefore strengthens the preemptive first-order transition. This is consistent with the results of recent numerical work[@Sellin2016].
Preemptive effect and current-loop interactions
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we discuss further the preemptive scenario discussed above, interpreting it in terms of renormalizations of current-current interactions. This provides a dual picture to the physical picture of the first-order phase transition presented in Ref. .
The preemptive phase transition may be understood in the current-loop picture by considering the effect of the monopoles on the neutral counter-flowing current sector (facilitated by the presence of monopoles, i.e. Josephson coupling), and how this in turn influences the interaction between the charged co-flowing currents which interact via the fluctuating gauge-field.
Consider first the current-loop excitations allowed by \[eq:partbJ\] for the case $N=2$. The lowest order configurations in the individual fields are closed loops of a single color. On top of these one may add monopoles, such that one has closed loops that change color twice before completing a closed loop. The presence of the Josephson coupling also allows for small dumbbells of counter-flowing currents with a monopole at one end and an anti-monopole at the other end. The gauge field will bind loops of co-flowing currents together, creating small loops of both colors flowing in the same direction. At high temperatures, the co-flowing currents only form small closed loops, and the system is non-superconducting. Barring any influence from the neutral sector, they will proliferate in an inverted $3DXY$-transition [@PhysRevLett.47.1556] at some critical temperature. If the charge, or the Josephson coupling, is sufficiently strong, there will be no significant fluctuations in the neutral sector that may influence this. The co-flowing current loops simply proliferate in a background of *only* tightly bound counter-flowing currents, with which they do not interact at all. The only way they can interact is if a counter-flowing composite current locally dissociates into individual currents on length scales below the Josephson length, which needs to be large enough. This will not happen if either the Josephson coupling is sufficiently strong, or if the charge is sufficiently large so that the charged transition is separated sufficiently from the neutral crossover.
\[fig:unscreened,fig:screened\] show simple representations of current configurations as the transition occurs in the two scenarios. For simplicity the illustration is given in two spatial dimensions. In \[fig:unscreened\], we show the case of having a sufficiently strong Josephson coupling. A generic snapshot of a single loop of charged current is shown, represented by two co-flowing red and green lines, surrounding a gas of tightly bound pieces of counter-flowing neutral currents. As there are no individual red or green lines, there will be no interactions between the loop of composite charged current and the small pieces of composite neutral current, and hence no renormalization of the interactions in the charged sector. The loops of charged current will therefore proliferate in an inverted $3DXY$-transition [@PhysRevLett.47.1556] as the temperature is lowered. In \[fig:screened\], the situation is different. Here, the Josephson coupling is sufficiently low, or alternatively the Josephson length is sufficiently large, so that the individual pieces of current may undergo local dissociations of the tighly bound counter-flowing configurations. These individual pieces of currents, represented by only red or green lines, will interact with the loop of charged current, and may therefore influence the proliferation of composite charged current loops.
The current loops are dual objects to vortex loops. It is known that there is a precise correspondence between the sign of vortex interactions and the character of the phase transition in superconductors. Namely, attractive interactions between vortices leads to a first-order phase transition, while repulsive vortex interactions lead to second order phase transitions [@Mo2002; @Sellin2016]. Therefore, an alternative natural way of interpreting the preemptive first-order phase-transition in the dual picture, is that neutral counter-flowing currents on the co-flowing charged currents screen or overscreen the interactions between the latter, effectively changing the sign of the interactions between charged current-segments.
[ With reference to \[fig:screened\], we elaborate briefly on how the configurations depicted there may cause attractive interactions between composite charged current-segments. Note that the screening is accounted for entirely by removing all tightly bound counter-flowing currents, leaving only the closed color-changing loops. The relevant screening fluctuations are therefore complicated collective phase-fluctuations amounting to inserting closed color-changing loops in the problem. Loops which interact attractively with the composite charged current-segments will have a larger Boltzmann-weight in the dual action than those that attract repulsively, and they will therefore dominate the configurations where many closed current-changing (originating with tightly bound counter-flowing currents) are present. This attraction may cause an effective attraction between the charged composite current segments, via the attraction to the closed current-changing loops. An identical physical picture holds when working with the dual objects to the currents, namely vortices.]{}
To summarize, the basic mechanism causing a first-order phase transition is the influence of partial decomposition of composite neutral currents on the interaction between charged composite currents, equivalently the influence of partial decomposition of composite neutral vortices on the interaction between composite charged vortices. These pictures are particular dual manifestations of the general concept of a preemptive first order phase transition. In such a transition, a putative second order phase transition associated with proliferation of topological defects in a given order parameter, is converted to a first order phase transition preemptively by strong fluctuations (not necessarily critical) in some other field.
![Example of a current-loop configuration in the case of strong inter-band Josephson coupling, when there is no screening of the charged-current interaction. Red and green lines represent currents of the individual fields ${\boldsymbol{b}}_i$ flowing in the direction indicated by the arrows. Charged and neutral currents are therefore represented by overlapping red and green lines flowing either in the same or the opposite direction, respectively. The configuration shown represents a snapshot close to the charged transition, where a closed loop of charged current encircles pieces of a tightly bound composite neutral current. As there is no interaction between pieces of charged and neutral current, the inverted-$3DXY$ transition of the charged sector is not influenced by the tightly bound composite neutral currents.[]{data-label="fig:unscreened"}](unscreenedconfiguration){width="\columnwidth"}
![Example of a current-loop configuration in the case of weak, but non-zero, inter-band Josephson coupling. Red and green lines represent currents of the individual fields ${\boldsymbol{b}}_i$ flowing in the direction indicated by the arrows. Charged and neutral currents are therefore represented by overlapping red and green lines flowing either in the same or the opposite direction, respectively. The present configuration show the same loop of charged current ecircling pieces of neutral current, as shown in \[fig:unscreened\]. However, in the case of weak inter-band Josephson coupling, the individual currents will fluctuate away from the neutral-current configuration slightly close to the neutral crossover. [ The screening of the interaction between the segments of the outer charged composite current is accounted for by removing all tightly bound counterflowing currents in the interior, leaving only closed loops that change color an even number of times as the loops are traversed. These closed loops screen the charged-current interaction and may effectively change the sign of the interaction between the segments of charged currents, as explained in the text. ]{}This in turn may cause the transition of the charged sector to turn first order. []{data-label="fig:screened"}](screenedconfiguration){width="\columnwidth"}
Current correlations and the Higgs mechanism {#sec:higgs}
============================================
The defining characteristic of the inverted 3D$XY$-transition in the charged sector is a spontaneous $U(1)$ gauge-symmetry breaking associated with the gauge field ${\boldsymbol{A}}$ becoming massive as the system crosses the transition point of the metallic state into the superconducting state. In this section, we investigate how the onset of the mass $m_{{\boldsymbol{A}}}$ of the photon (the Higgs mass), which is equivalent to the Meissner effect of the superconductor, comes about as result of a non-analytic change in the infrared properties of the current-correlations of the system. $m_{{\boldsymbol{A}}}$ is found from the limiting form of the gauge-field correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu A_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^ \nu\rangle \sim
\frac{1}{q^2+m_{{\boldsymbol{A}}}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ To calculate $\langle A_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu A_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^ \nu\rangle $, we consider the action of the charged sector given on the form \[eq:Sq\] before integrating out the gauge field, and insert source terms source ${\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
S_J = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\Bigg[&\frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{-}}q}+\frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{-}}q, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\beta}{2}\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\left({\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}+{\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right)\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ which in turn may be written on form $$\begin{aligned}
S_J = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\Bigg[&\Big({\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} + \frac{1}{2}\left({\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} + ie\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}\right)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\Big)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\nonumber\\
&\times\Big({\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}} + \frac{1}{2}\left({\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}+ie\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}},
\alpha}\right)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+ -\frac{1}{4}\Big({\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}+ie\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}\Big)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\nonumber\\
&\times\Big({\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}+ie\sum_\beta{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \beta}\Big)\Bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Here, $D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = \beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2/2$ as before. After shifting and integrating the gauge field, we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_J = -\sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\Bigg[&\frac{1}{2\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}\Big(J_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu
P_T^{\mu\nu}J_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu-e^2\sum_{\alpha\beta} b_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}^\mu b_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu \nonumber\\
&+ie\sum_\alpha\left(J_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu b_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}^\mu + J_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu b_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}^\mu\right)\Big)\Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where repeated indices are summed over, and $P_T^{\mu\nu}$ is the transverse projection operator $$P_T^{\mu\nu} = \delta^{\mu\nu} - \frac{Q^\mu_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}Q^\nu_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}}{\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}$$
The gauge-field correlator is then given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle A_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu A_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^ \nu\rangle ={}&
\frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}_0}\frac{\delta^2\mathcal{Z}_J}{\delta
J_{-{\boldsymbol{q}},\mu}\delta J_{{\boldsymbol{q}},\nu}}\Bigg|_{{\boldsymbol{J}}=0}\nonumber\\
={}& \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}_0}\sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}, m\}}\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha},
\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \mu}}(\beta) \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha<\beta}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}(\beta\lambda)\nonumber\\
&\times\left(-\frac{\delta^2S_J}{\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu}
-\frac{\delta S_J}{\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu}\frac{\delta S_J}{\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu}
\right)e^{-S_J}\Bigg|_{{\boldsymbol{J}} = 0}
\label{eq:Aqderiv}\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\mathcal{Z}_0$ is the partition function with the sources set to zero. The functional derivatives of the action is given by $$-\frac{\delta S_J}{\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu} = \frac{1}{\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}
(J_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu P_T^{\mu\nu} + ie\sum_\alpha b_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}^\nu)$$ and $$-\frac{\delta^2S_J}{\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu\delta{\boldsymbol{J}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\nu} = \frac{1}{\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}P_T^{\mu\nu}.$$ Inserting this into \[eq:Aqderiv\] and setting the currents to zero, we have $$\langle A_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^\mu A_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}^ \nu\rangle = \frac{P_T^{\mu\nu}}{\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}-\frac{e^2}{\beta^2\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^4}\langle\sum_{\alpha\beta}b_{{\boldsymbol{q}},
\alpha}^\mu b_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \beta}^\nu\rangle$$ Setting $\nu=\mu$ and summing over $\mu$ yields the relevant correlator $$\langle {\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot {\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle = \frac{1}{\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}\left(2-\frac{e^2}{\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}\langle{\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle\right),
\label{eq:Acorrapp}$$ where we have defined $\langle {\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle=\langle\sum_{\alpha\beta}{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}},
\alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \beta}\rangle$
The effective gauge field mass is given by the zero momentum limit of the inverse propagator, $$\begin{aligned}
m_{{\boldsymbol{A}}}^2
& = & \lim_{{\boldsymbol{q}}\rightarrow 0}\frac{2}{\beta\langle{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}{\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ As is seen from \[eq:Acorrapp\], the relevant combination of current-field correlators is the superconducting current, while charge-neutral currents do not appear in the expression. The current-correlator may be interpreted as the helicity modulus, which at a charged fixed point has a non-analytic behavior of the term proportional to $q^2$. We expect the leading behavior to be[@Hove2000] $$\lim_{{\boldsymbol{q}}\rightarrow 0}\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\langle {\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle\sim\left\{
\begin{array}{@{}ll@{}}
(1- C_2(T))q^2,& T>T_C. \\
q^2 - C_3(T)q^{2+\eta_{{\boldsymbol{A}}}},& T=T_C. \\
q^2 - C_4(T)q^4,& T<T_C. \\
\end{array}\right.$$ The result given above is dual to an expression for the gauge-mass in terms of correlation function of topological defects of the superconducting order, i.e. vortices[@Hove2000; @Smiseth2004; @Smiseth2005], since vortices are dual objects to the currents ${\boldsymbol{b}}$. In $3D$, it is known that the dual of a superfluid is a superconductor, and vice versa[@Kleinert1989; @Hove2000; @Smiseth2004; @Smiseth2005]. Therefore, the above result for the current-correlator of a superconductor features the same behavior as the vortex-vortex correlator at a *neutral* fixed point, since a neutral fixed point in the original theory is a charged fixed point in the dual theory. Here, $C_2$ is the helicity modulus of the system, $C_3$ is a critical amplitude, and $C_4$ is essentially the inverse mass of the gauge-field. The physical interpretation of $\lim_{{\boldsymbol{q}}\rightarrow 0}\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\langle {\boldsymbol{B}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{B}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\rangle $ is that when this quantity is zero, there are no long-range correlations of current-loops in the system, i.e. there are no supercurrents threading the entire system which is therefore normal metallic. Conversely, when $T < T_c$ this correlator is non-zero. There are supercurrents threading the entire system, which is therefore superconducting. When $T>T_C$, the gauge mass will be zero in the long wavelength limit. When $T<T_C$, however, the factors of $q^2$ will cancel, and the gauge correlator obtains a finite expectation value, and hence a mass. The Higgs-mechanism (Meissner effect) in an $N$-component superconductor is therefore a result of a blowout of closed loops of charged currents as the temperature is lowered through the phase transition. Conversely, the transition to the normal state is driven by a collapse of closed current loops, which is dual to a blowout of closed vortex loops. In either way of looking at the problem, the Higgs-mechanism is fluctuation driven.
Note that the above result is valid for any number of components $N \geq 1$, and any value of the Josephson coupling $\lambda \geq 0$.
The preemptive scenario described in the previous section impacts the temperature-dependence of the Higgs-mass at the transition from the superconducting to the normal metallic state. The mass vanishes continuously in an inverted $3DXY$ phase transition if the value of the gauge-charge is large enough for the preemptive scenario to be ruled out for any $\lambda$, including $\lambda=0$. For small enough gauge-charge, such that fluctuations in the neutral sector strongly affect fluctuations in the charged sector, and vice versa, the preemptive effect comes into play. In that case, the Higgs-mass vanishes discontinuously at the phase transition.
Conclusion {#sec:conc}
==========
We have formulated an $N$-component London superconductor with intercomponent Josephson couplings as a model of $N$ integer-current fields ${\boldsymbol{b}}_\alpha$ and $N(N-1)/2$ monopole fields, $m_{\alpha,\beta}$. These monopoles allow supercurrents of a particular condensate component to be converted to a supercurrent of a different component, i.e. currents may change “color” at any site. For zero Josephson coupling, $\lambda$, only configurations where all the monopole fields are zero contribute, and the model reverts to an $N$-component gauge-coupled 3dXY-model. This model is known to have either i) $N-1$ transitions in the $XY$-universality class and a single phase transition in the inverted XY-universality class, or ii) a single preemptive first-order phase transition for intermediate values of the charge. For any $\lambda > 0$, the $N-1$ phase transitions in the neutral sector are converted to crossovers. In the limit $\lambda\rightarrow\infty$, all orders of monopole excitations will contribute. This effectively removes the constraints ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_\alpha=0$ on each individual component. There is only one particular composite mode, $\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_\alpha$ which is still divergenceless, and which thus features a phase transition. This transition is known to be in the inverted 3dXY-universality class for $\lambda=0$. For small, but finite $\lambda$, fluctuations in the neutral sector are still substantial although the phase transitions are all converted to crossovers. These charge-neutral non-critical fluctuations nonetheless substantially influence the putative critical fluctuations in the charged sector, particularly at temperatures close to the $\lambda=0$ $3DXY$ critical point. This converts the inverted $3DXY$ critical point into a first-order phase-transition via a preemptive effect. The degree to which the charge-neutral fluctuations influence the fluctuations in the charged sector for small $\lambda$, increases with the number of composite charge-neutral fluctuating modes. In the parameter regime $(e,\lambda)$ where one may have a preemptive effect, the first-order character of the superconductor-normal metal phase transition will therefore be more pronounced with increasing $N$.
As a byproduct of our analysis, we have recast the onset of the photon Higgs-mass in the superconductor (Meissner effect) in terms of a blowout of current loops associated with the onset of superconductivity. This analysis goes beyond mean-field theory and takes all critical fluctuations of the theory into account. The description giving the onset of the Higgs-mass of the photon in terms of a current-loop blowout going into the superconducting state as temperature is lowered, is dual to the description of the vanishing of the Higgs-mass of the photon in terms of vortex-loop blowout going into the normal metallic state as the temperature is increased.
P. N. G. was supported by NTNU and the Research Council of Norway. A. S. was supported by the Research Council of Norway, through Grants 205591/V20 and 216700/F20, as well as European Science Foundation COST Action MPI1201. We tank E. Babaev and J. Garaud for useful discussions.
The character expansion {#app:charexp}
=======================
We apply the expansion $$e^{\beta\cos\gamma} = \sum_{b=-\infty}^\infty I_b(\beta)e^{ib\gamma},$$ to the cosine terms of \[eq:actionlattice\], with $\lambda=0$. This gives the action $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} ={}&\int\mathcal{D}{\boldsymbol{A}}\left(\prod_\alpha\int\mathcal{D}\theta_\alpha\right)\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}\sum_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}=-\infty}^\infty I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}}(\beta)
e^{ib_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}(\Delta_\mu\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-eA_{{\boldsymbol{r}},\mu})}\nonumber\\
\times&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}e^{-\frac{\beta}{2}{(\Delta\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2}\end{aligned}$$ By performing a partial integration of each phase component, $\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}$, we move the lattice derivative from the phase to the integer field ${\boldsymbol{b}}$ in the first term. Then we factorize the terms dependent on the phases on each lattice site, which may then be integrated separately. $$\mathcal{Z}_\theta = \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\int_0^{2\pi}\text{d}\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha} e^{-i\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}(\sum_\mu\Delta_\mu
b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha})}.$$ This constrains the ${\boldsymbol{b}}$-fields to have zero divergence, $${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha} = 0\;\forall\;{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha.$$ The partition function then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \int\mathcal{D}({\boldsymbol{A}})\sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}\}}\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}, 0}\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\mu, \alpha}}(\beta)\nonumber\\
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}e^{-\left[ie\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}+\frac{\beta}{2}{({\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2\right]}\end{aligned}$$ This represents $N$ integer-current fields which must form closed loops individually, coupled by a single gauge field, ${\boldsymbol{A}}$.
The next step is to integrate out the gauge degrees of freedom. To this end we Fourier transform the action $$S = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\left[ie\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}+\frac{\beta}{2}{({\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}})}^2\right]$$ into $$\begin{aligned}
S = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\Bigg[&\frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{-}}q}+\frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{-}}q, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\beta}{2}({\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}})({\boldsymbol{Q}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}\times{\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}})\Bigg].
\label{eq:Sq}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have symmetrized the ${\boldsymbol{b}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}$-term, and ${\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}$ is the Fourier representation of the lattice differential operator, ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}$. We can further simplify the expression by choosing the gauge ${\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}} = 0$, which translates to ${\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = 0$ in Fourier space. This reduces the last term to $\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2{\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}}/2$, where $\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2 =
\sum_\mu{(2\sin q_\mu/2)}^2$. Now we complete the squares in ${\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}$, to facilitate the Gaussian integration $$\begin{aligned}
S = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\Bigg[&\Big({\boldsymbol{A}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} + \frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\Big)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\nonumber\\
&\times\Big({\boldsymbol{A}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}} + \frac{ie}{2}\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\Big)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{e^2}{4}\Big(\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}, \alpha}\Big)D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}^{-1}\Big(\sum_\beta{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \beta}\Big)\Bigg],\end{aligned}$$ where $D_{{\boldsymbol{q}}} = \beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2/2$. Now we can shift and integrate out the gauge field, $A_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}$, which leaves us with $$S = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\frac{e^2}{2\beta\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2}\Big(\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}},
\alpha}\Big)\cdot\Big(\sum_\beta{\boldsymbol{b}}_{-{\boldsymbol{q}}, \beta}\Big),
\label{eq:Cintq}$$ or in real space $$S = \sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\Big(\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha}\Big)\cdot\Big(\sum_\beta{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime, \beta}\Big)D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime).
\label{eq:Cintr}$$ Here, $D({\boldsymbol{r}}-{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)$ is the Fourier transform of $1/\left|{\boldsymbol{Q}}_{{\boldsymbol{q}}}\right|^2$. Inserting this into the action, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}, 0}
\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \mu}}(\beta)\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime}e^{-\frac{e^2}{2\beta}\sum_{\alpha, \beta}{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime,\beta}D({\boldsymbol{r}} - {\boldsymbol{r}}^\prime)},\end{aligned}$$ which is \[eq:besselJ0\]
Two-dimensional multiband superconductors {#app:2D}
=========================================
In a thin-film superconductor, the effective magnetic penetration depth is inversely proportional to the film thickness. Hence, in a two-dimensional system, the magnetic penetration depth becomes infinite, and the effective charge of the charge carriers become zero. This effectively freezes out the gauge-field fluctuations of the interior of the film, in turn eliminating the long-range gauge-field mediated vortex-vortex interactions. In this case the relevant lattice action will be
$$\begin{aligned}
S = -&\beta\sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\sum_{\mu, \alpha}\cos\left(\Delta_\mu\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}},
\alpha}\right)\nonumber\\
-&\beta\lambda\sum_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}\sum_{\alpha<\beta}\cos\left(\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}-\theta_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \beta}\right).
\label{eq:2dactionlattice}\end{aligned}$$
That is, it is effectively a neutral condensate.
We may apply the character expansion of \[eq:besselid\] to \[eq:2dactionlattice\], which results in the partition function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Z} = \sum_{\{{\boldsymbol{b}}, m\}}&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha}\delta_{{\boldsymbol{\Delta}}\cdot{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha},
\sum_{\beta\neq\alpha}m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}\nonumber\\
&\prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \mu, \alpha}I_{b_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \mu}}(\beta) \prod_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha<\beta}I_{m_{{\boldsymbol{r}}, \alpha, \beta}}(\beta\lambda).
\label{eq:partbJ2d}\end{aligned}$$ This is of course very similar to \[eq:partbJ\], with the differences being as follows. The integer-current field, ${\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}$ is now a two-component vector, as is naturally the position vector, ${\boldsymbol{r}}$, and the gauge-field mediated interaction has disappeared.
We may apply the same reasoning to \[eq:partbJ2d\] as we did in the main text. There will be a single mode, $\sum_\alpha{\boldsymbol{b}}_{{\boldsymbol{r}}}$ which is divergenceless, and $N(N-1)/2$ modes with finite divergence. The only difference now in the two-dimensional case is the lack of gauge-field mediated interactions in the divergenceless mode. Hence, the single remaining phase transition is expected to be a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition from a two-dimensional superfluid to a normal fluid. This prediction could be verified in Monte-Carlo simulations, as the partition function of \[eq:partbJ2d\] is particularly well suited for worm-type algorithms.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a disk around DM Tau, previous observation of $^{13}$CO ($J=2-1$ and $1-0$ transitions) derived the $^{13}$CO gas temperature of $\sim 13-20$K, which is lower than the sublimation temperature of CO (20 K). We argue that the existence of such cold CO can be explained by a vertical mixing of disk material. As the gas is transported from a warm layer to a cold layer, CO is depleted onto dust grains with a timescale of $\sim 10^3$ yr. Because of the steep temperature gradient in the vertical direction, an observable amount of CO is still in the gas phase when the fluid parcel reaches the layer of $\sim 13$ K. Apparent temperature of CO decreases as the maximum grain size increases from $\mu$m-size to mm-size.'
author:
- Yuri Aikawa
title: Cold CO Gas in Protoplanetary Disks
---
Introduction
============
Theoretical models previously showed that the protoplanetary disks can be divided to three layers in the vertical direction from a chemical point of view [@aik99; @wl00; @aik02; @bavb06]. Surface layer of the disk is a PDR (photon-dominated region) because of the interstellar UV, stellar UV, and stellar X-rays. As we go deeper into the disk, the radiation becomes weaker, and the density gets high enough to allow high abundances of organic molecules. In the midplane, on the other hand, heavy-element species are mostly depleted onto grains because of very high density and very low temperature. The three-layer model naturally explains the characteristics of the disk chemistry observed in radio wavelengths: low average abundances of gaseous organic species and relatively high abundances of radical species (ex. CN/HCN ratio) in comparison with the molecular clouds[@dut97; @qi03; @thi04]. Molecular emission lines arise mostly from the intermediate molecular layer, because it is chemically rich and spans a density range that covers critical densities of many (sub-)millimeter rotational transitions.
@dar03 observed two rotational transitions ($J=2-1$ and $1-0$) of various CO isotopes, from which they derived $^{12}$CO temperature to be 30 K and $^{13}$CO temperature $13-20$ K. Since the $^{13}$CO lines trace the deeper layer of the disk than the $^{12}$CO lines, it was the first observational evidence that the gas temperature increases with height from the midplane at radii of $r > 50$ AU, which are traced by the current radio telescopes. In addition, the $^{13}$CO temperature challenges the theoretical model; since the sublimation temperature of CO is $\sim 20$ K, a layer with $T \sim 13-20$ K is considered to be the freeze-out layer.
Recently, @aik06 briefly argued that existence of such cold CO can be explained by vertical mixing due to turbulence. In the vertical direction gas can migrate over $\sim 10$ AU in the vertical direction, and thus can travel from the $T=20$ K layer to the $T=13$ K layer within $10^4$ yr, which is comparable to a freeze-out timescale in the DM Tau disk. In this paper, we examine their arguments in more detail using various disk models. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In §2, we derive a typical migration length of material within the freeze-out timescale of CO. In §3, a distance between the $T=13$ K and 20 K layers is measured in various disk models, and is compared with the migration length. We compare our results with the recent numerical calculation of turbulent disk chemistry in §4. Summary is contained in §5.
Basic Equations
===============
Following @wil06, we consider a vertical mixing in the disk. The net transport flux of species $i$ by the turbulent diffusion is $$\phi(i)=-K n({\rm H}_2)\frac{dx(i)}{dz},$$ where $x(i)$ is the abundance of species $i$ relative to the number density of hydrogen molecule $n(i)/n({\rm H}_2)$. We assume that the diffusion coefficient $K$ is equal to the viscosity coefficient: $K\equiv <v_{\rm t}l>=\alpha c_{\rm s} h $ where $v_{\rm t}$ is the turbulent velocity, $l$ is the mixing length, $\alpha$ is the alpha-viscosity parameter [@ss73], $c_{\rm s}$ is the sound velocity, and $h$ is the scale height of the disk. The chemical continuity equation is
$$\frac{\partial n(i)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \phi(i)}{\partial z}=
P_{\rm i}-L_{\rm i}$$
where $P_{\rm i}$ and $L_{\rm i}$ are the chemical production and loss terms for species $i$.
We now consider the steady-state abundance distribution of CO near the boundary between the warm molecular layer and freeze-out layer. Since CO is the most abundant and stable species among the carbon-bearing species in the warm molecular layer, the main production and loss terms are desorption from and adsorption onto grains, respectively. As the matter is transported from the warm molecular layer to the freeze-out layer, the desorption term becomes negligible. Hence the vertical distribution of CO is determined by the diffusion from the warm molecular layer and the adsorption onto grains, i.e. $$\frac{d\phi({\rm CO})}{dz}=-\pi a^2 S \sqrt{\frac{8 k T}{\pi m({\rm CO})}}n_{\rm g} n({\rm CO})$$ where $a$ is the grain radius, $S$ is the sticking probability, $k$ is the Boltzman constant, $m$(CO) is the mass of CO molecule, and $n_{\rm g}$ is the grain number density. In order to derive an analytic solution, we neglect the density gradient ($dn({\rm H}_2)/dz$), which is justified because the abundance gradient is steeper than the density gradient. Then the basic equation is reduced to $$K\frac{d^2 x({\rm CO})}{dz^2}=\pi a^2 S \sqrt{\frac{8kT}{\pi m({\rm CO})}} n_{\rm g} x({\rm CO}).$$
The analytic solution for this equation is $$x=x_0 \exp \left(-\frac{z_0-z}{\lambda}\right)$$ where $x_0$ is the canonical CO abundance ($10^{-4}$) in the warm molecular layer and $z_0$ is the height of $T=20$ K layer, i.e. the boundary between the warm molecular layer and freeze-out layer. The decay length $\lambda$ is given by $$\lambda =\left( \frac{\pi a^2 S}{\alpha c_{\rm s} h}\sqrt{\frac{8kT}{\pi m({\rm CO})}}n_{\rm g}\right)^{-1/2}.$$ In other words, material can migrate from the boundary $z=z_0$ to $z=z_0-\lambda$ within the freeze-out timescale of CO.
Results
=======
In this section, we evaluate $\lambda$ in various disk models. Considering the vertical temperature gradient, we discuss if the turbulence can transport observable amount of CO to the $T<20$ K layer.
Migration length of CO and vertical temperature gradient
--------------------------------------------------------
The decay length $\lambda$ is determined by the ratio between the rate coefficient of adsorption and diffusion coefficient. The former depends on temperature, sticking probability, and total grain surface area. Temperature is set to be 17 K, since we are interested only in a region between 13 K and 20 K, and since the dependence of $\lambda$ on temperature is not strong. Sticking probability $S$ is set to be 0.5. As for dust grains, we assume dust/gas mass ratio of 1% and grain radius of $10^{-5}$ cm. The number density of grain $n_{\rm g}$ is then $1.6\times10^{-12} n_{\rm H}$, where $n_{\rm H}$ is the number density of hydrogen nuclei. If the grain size distribution follows the MRN model [@mrn77], the total surface area ($\int \pi a^2 n_{\rm g}(a) da$) of dust grains should be about three times larger than assumed in our model. However, observations suggest that the dust grains in disks are larger than the interstellar dust[@dal01; @rod06]. Dependence of our results on grain size in disks will be discussed in the next subsection.
The diffusion coefficient depends on $\alpha$ and scale height. We assume $\alpha=0.01$. Analyzing the CO emission lines in DM Tau disk, @gd98 found the intrinsic local velocity dispersion is essentially thermal, with a turbulent component of 0.05 km s$^{-1}$ $< v_{\rm t} < 0.11$ km s$^{-1}$, while @dar03 estimate $v_{\rm t}\sim 0.16$ km s$^{-1}$. Thus by setting $\alpha=0.01$, we assume the mixing length $l$ of several $10^{-2} h$. The scale height of the disk is given by $$h=\sqrt{\frac{2 k T r^3}{G M_*\mu m_{\rm H}}},$$ where $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight, $m_{\rm H}$ is the hydrogen mass, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $M_*$ is the mass of the central star. We assume $\mu=2.34$ and $M_*=0.5 M_{\odot}$. Then $\lambda$ is given as a function of hydrogen number density $n_{\rm H}$ and disk radius $r$: $$\lambda=\left(1.6 \times 10^{-12}~ \frac{2\pi a^2 S}{\alpha c_{\rm s}}\sqrt\frac{GM_*\mu m_{\rm H}}
{\pi m({\rm CO}) r^3} n_{\rm H} \right)^{-1/2}.$$
Here we evaluate $\lambda$ in two disk models from literature: DM Tau disk model, which is constructed to fit the SED assuming the grain size of 0.1 $\mu$m [@cec05], and a model by @dal99, who assumed interstellar-type dust is well mixed with gas. Models give $n_{\rm H}$ and $T$ as a function of $r$ and $z$. At each radius we calculate $\lambda$ using $n_{\rm H}$ in the layer of $T=13-20$ K. In Figure 1, asterisks, open boxes, and crosses depict $\lambda$ with the density $n_{\rm H}$ at $T=20$ K layer, $T=13$ K layer, and with the average density of $T=13-20$ K layer at each radius, respectively. The black marks are the DM Tau disk model and the gray marks are the @dal99 model. For example, $n_{\rm H}$ is $\sim 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$ at the boundary between the molecular layer and the freeze-out layer at $r\sim 400$ AU in both models. Then the decay length $\lambda$ is $\sim 10$ AU. Also shown in Figure 1 (closed circles) is the distance between the layers of $T=20$ K and 13 K, $dz_{\rm 20-13}$, at each radius in the two disk models. It can be seen that at radius of $> 400$ AU, $dz_{\rm 20-13}$ is about 4 times larger than $\lambda$. In other words, when the disk material transported vertically from the 20 K layer to the 13 K layer, gaseous CO is $e^{-4}$ times the canonical value.
It should be noted that the column density of CO gas with $T<20$ K is given by $\lambda n_0({\rm CO})$, where $n_0({\rm CO})$ is the number density of CO molecule at the 20 K layer ($z=z_0$). At the radius of 400 AU, for example, $\lambda$ is about 10 AU, and $n_0$(CO) is $\sim 10^3$ cm$^{-3}$. Then the column density of $^{12}$CO with $T<20$ K is $\sim 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$, which corresponds to the opacity of $\tau\sim 1$ for the $J=1-0$ emission line of $^{13}$CO, assuming the isotope abundance ratio of $n(^{12}$CO)/$n(^{13}$CO)$=60$. Therefore, the amount of cold $^{13}$CO produced by the turbulent mixing is high enough to account for the observation by @dar03.
Finally, it is obvious from the equation (6) that in the disks with larger (smaller) $\alpha$, $\lambda$ is larger (smaller), and thus the cold CO is more (less)abundant.
Effect of grain growth
----------------------
So far, we have assumed that dust grains in disks are similar to the interstellar grains. However, observations suggest grains in disks are larger than the interstellar grains. Dust lane width of edge-on disks is smaller than that of model disks with interstellar grains. The SED is better reproduced by the disk models with the maximum grain radius in millimeter range [@dal01]. In this subsection, we compare the decay length $\lambda$ and the vertical temperature gradient in the disk models of @aik06. They investigated the effect of grain growth on disk structure ($n_{\rm H}$ and $T$); the number density of grains with radius $a$ is assumed to be proportional to $a^{-3.5}$, and the maximum size $a_{\rm max}$ is varied with the dust/gas mass ratio fixed.
Figure 2 compares $\lambda$ and $dz_{20-13}$ in the models with (a) $a_{\rm max}=10\mu$m and (b) 1 mm. Compared with the case of uniform grain size ($0.1 \mu$m), the total surface area of grains is smaller by a factor of (a) 0.3 and (b) 0.03. Because of the smaller total surface area of grains, the adsorption time scale and thus $\lambda$ are larger in the model with $a_{\rm max}=1$ mm (see eq. 6). On the other hand, $dz_{20-13}$ is smaller in $a_{\rm max}= 1$ mm model than in $a_{\rm max}=10\mu$m model at $r > 100$ AU. Temperature in the disk atmosphere is lower, and hence the vertical width of the disk is smaller in the model with larger $a_{\rm max}$, because of the reduced number of small grains which mainly contribute to the absorption of stellar light. At $r=100$ AU, the temperature in the midplane layer increases with grain growth, and $dz_{\rm 20-13}$ is slightly larger in the $a_{\rm max}=1$ mm model. We can conclude that at $r>100$ AU the amount of cold CO gas increases as the $a_{\rm max}$ increases from $10 \mu$m to 1 mm.
Discussion
==========
Recently @sem06 investigated the molecular evolution in a turbulent disk by coupling the chemical reaction network and turbulent diffusion. They showed that the two-dimensional diffusion increases the amount of cold CO, but the amount is too small to account for the observation by @dar03. Why is the cold CO much less abundant in their model than estimated in the present work?
We suspect that the deficiency of cold CO is caused by the too efficient grain-surface reactions. Even in the $T\sim 20$ K region in their static model, CO abundance is much smaller than the canonical value. Inclusion of the vertical diffusion [*reduces*]{} the cold CO, because more CO is converted to H$_2$CO by grain-surface reactions (see their §3). Since the sublimation temperature of H$_2$CO is higher than that of CO, the hydrogenation depletes CO at $T\sim 20$ K. The rate of hydrogenation, however, seems to be overestimated in their model, as discussed below.
In the layer of $T\sim 20$ K at $r>100$ AU, we estimate the number density of H atoms (not included in H$_2$) in the gas phase to be $n({\rm H})\lesssim 10$ cm$^{-3}$, referring to the model of @aik06 with $a_{\rm max}=10 \mu$m. The number of H atoms accreting onto a grain with radius $a$ is $$\sqrt{\frac{8kT}{\pi m({\rm H})}}n({\rm H}) \pi a^2 = 2\times 10^{-4} \left(\frac{T}{20 {\rm K}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{a}{0.1\mu {\rm m}}\right)^2 {\rm s}^{-1}.$$ The desorption rate, on the other hand, is $$\sqrt{\frac{2 n_{\rm s} E_{\rm D}}{\pi^2 m({\rm H})}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\rm D}}{kT}\right),$$ where $n_{\rm s}$ is the number density of adsorption sites on a grain ($\sim 1.5\times 10^{15}$ cm$^{-2}$), and $E_{\rm D}$ is the adsorption energy [@her93]. If $E_{\rm D}$ is 350 K [@hh93], the desorption rate is $7.4\times 10^4$ s$^{-1}$ at 20 K. Hence a number of H atoms on a dust grain is much smaller than unity even for grains with $a=10 \mu$m. With such a low H atom abundance on a grain, the hydrogenation rate is limited by the accretion rate rather than determined by a migration rate on a grain [@cas98]. According to the model description of @sem06, they seems to have estimated the hydrogenation rate using the migration rate, which can be an overestimate.
Reality can be more complex than the above argument. For example, grains are not spherical but would be porous, which will enhance the possibility of reaction before desorption [@pb06]. On the other hand, laboratory experiment suggests that CO is hydrogenated only in the surface layer of the ice mantle [@wsk03]. Most of the currently-available astrochemistry models may overestimate the hydrogenation rates, since they do not discriminate the surface species from species inside ice mantle. Modeling the grain-surface reactions is still a challenging subject in the astrochemical studies.
However, it is an observational fact that cold ($\sim 13$ K) CO gas exists in the disk. If the CO depletion is caused by hydrogenation in the model by @sem06, it tells us even the abundance of simple gaseous species can be dependent on how we model the grain-surface reactions – an important caution for future models.
Summary
=======
We have shown that in protoplanetary disks the turbulent diffusion can produce observable amount of CO that is colder than the sublimation temperature. As disk material is transported to the layer with $T<20$ K, freeze out proceeds with timescale of $\sim 10^3 (n_{\rm H}/10^7 {\rm cm}^{-3})$. Since the gas migrates over a distance of $\sim 10$ AU within this timescale, CO gas of column density $\sim 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$ exists in the cold ($T<20$ K) layers, which explains the observation by @dar03. As the dust grains in the disk become larger by coagulation, the freeze-out time scale increases, and the vertical temperature gradient at $T\sim 20$ K gets steeper. Hence, the apparent CO temperature decreases as the maximum grain size increases from $\mu$m-size to mm-size.
I thank referees for their comments which were helpful in improving the manuscript. I am grateful to C. Ceccarelli, C. Dominik, P. D’Alessio and H. Nomura for providing their disk models. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (16036205, 17039008) and “The 21st Century COE Program of Origin and Evolution of Planetary Systems" of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT).
Aikawa, Y. & Herbst. E. 1999, A&A, 351, 233 Aikawa, Y. & Nomura, H. 2006, ApJ, 642, 1152 Aikawa, Y., van Zadelhoff, G. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Herbst, E. 2002, A&A, 386, 622 Bergin, E. A., Aikawa, Y., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Blake, G. A. 2006, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), in press Caselli, P., Hasegawa, T. I., & Herbst, E. 1998, ApJ, 495, 309 Ceccarelli, C., Dominik, C., Caux, E., Lefloch, B., & Caselli, P. 2005, ApJ, 631, L81 D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L., Lizano, S., & Cantó, J. 1999, ApJ, 527, 893 D’Alessio, P., Nuria, C., & Hartmann, L. 2001, ApJ, 553, 321 Dartois, E., Dutrey, A., & Guilloteau, S. 2003, A&A, 399, 773 Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., Gu$\acute{\rm e}$lin, M. 1997, A&A, 317, L55 Guilloteau, S. & Dutrey, A. 1998, A&A 339, 467 Hasegawa, T. I., & Herbst, E. 1993a, MNRAS, 261, 83 Herbst, E. 1993, in Dust and Chemistry in Astronomy, eds. Millar, T. J., & Williams, D. A. (Institute of Physics Publishing), p. 183 Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., & Nprdsieck, K. H. 1977, ApJ, 217, 425 Perets, H. B. & Biham, O. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 801 Qi, C., Kessler, J. E., Koerner, D. W., Sargent, A. I., & Blake, G. A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 986 Rodmann, J., Henning, Th., Chandler, C.J., Mundy, L., & Wilner, D.J. 2006, A&A, 446, 211 Semenov, D., Wiebe, D., & Henning, Th. 2006, ApJL, in press Shakura, N.I. & Sunyaev, R.A. 1973, A&A 24, 337 Thi, W. F., van Zadelhoff, G. J., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 425, 955 Watanabe, N., Shiraki, T. & Kouchi, A. 2003, ApJL, 588, L121 Willacy, K., & Langer, W. D. 2000, ApJ, 544, 903 Willacy, K., Langer, W., Allen, M., & Bryden, G. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1202
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The scattering function and radius of gyration of an ideal polymer network are calculated depending on the strength of the bonds that form the crosslinks. Our calculations are based on an [*exact*]{} theorem for the characteristic function of a polydisperse phantom network that allows for treating the crosslinks between pairs of randomly selected monomers as quenched variables without resorting to replica methods. From this new approach it is found that the scattering function of an ideal network obeys a master curve which depends on one single parameter $x=
(ak)^2 N/M$, where $ak$ is the product of the persistence length times the scattering wavevector, $N$ the total number of monomers and $M$ the crosslinks in the system. By varying the crosslinking potential from infinity (hard $\delta$-constraints) to zero (free chain), we have also studied the crossover of the radius of gyration from the collapsed regime where $R_{\mbox{\tiny
g}}\simeq {\cal O}(1)$ to the extended regime $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}\simeq {\cal O}(\sqrt{N})$. In the crossover regime the network size $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}$ is found to be proportional to $(N/M)^{1/4}$. The latter result can be understood in terms of a simple Flory argument.
address: 'Max-Planck-Institut für Polymerforschung, Postfach 3148, 55021 Mainz, Germany'
author:
- 'Michael P. Solf, Thomas A. Vilgis[^1][^2]'
title: Size and Scaling in Ideal Polymer Networks
---
=10000
Introduction
============
Sufficiently crosslinked macromolecules form solid-like rubber networks whose spectacular elastic properties are commonly believed to be of entropic origin. As a consequence polymeric networks are often successfully modeled as a set of independent random walks with the only restriction that the end points deform affinely under external stress. In a real network, however, permanent junctions between the macromolecules are randomly formed upon fabrication leading to a high degree of polydispersity. To meet with this complicated physical situation more sophisticated theoretical models are required.
Recently various analytical studies [@deamed; @golgol; @vilsol; @pany; @hiba; @waed; @edvil] have aimed at a statistical description of polymer networks taking randomness of the crosslinking positions into account. The mathematical challenge that arises in any of these approaches is that the permanent junction-points between macromolecules are frozen and cannot be treated within the framework of Gibbsian statistical mechanics. This has first been realized by Edwards [@deamed] and his replica formalism has by now become the standard approach in the field of polymer networks. Unfortunately the replica method forces strong approximations to remain analytically tractable. A recent work by Panyukov and Rabin [@pany] seems to overcome several difficulties and derives promising results for the elasticity.
In this study we use a different route of thought. It has recently been shown [@solvil] that for randomly crosslinked Gaussian structures substantial progress can be made by invoking quite different mathematical tools than replica field theory. The purpose of the paper is to report on further progress in this direction. Our working model is an ideal polymer chain of $N$ monomers with $M$ randomly selected pairs of monomers constrained to be in close neighborhood. The distance constraints are modelled by harmonic potentials. By varying the strength of the crosslinking potential we can continuously switch from a network situation with hard $\delta$-constraints to the case of a free chain.
Although the above model is highly idealized, the system is most interesting in its own right, since it is considered a first step towards a systematic theory of polymer networks and gels. Moreover, the statistics of a huge macromolecule crosslinked to itself (randomly or not) has attracted a lot of attention recently because of its possible implications to protein structure reconstruction from NMR data [@gutin; @bry; @kant]. Despite of the recent interest to the best of our knowledge these are the first exact results for ideal networks that have been reported.
The ideal network
=================
We adopt the minimal model of a huge Gaussian chain that is $M$ times crosslinked to itself. In the Hamiltonian only terms that model chain connectedness and contributions due to crosslinking are retained. Complicating factors such as entanglements, excluded volume are deliberately neglected from the start. An appropriate Hamiltonian to begin with is $$\label{1}
\beta {\cal H}_0=\frac d{2a^2}\sum_{i=1}^N({\bf R}_i-{\bf
R}_{i-1})^2+\frac {d}{2\varepsilon ^2}\sum_{e=1}^M({\bf
R}_{i_e}-{\bf R}_{j_e})^2~.$$ We have assumed $N+1$ monomers whose locations in space are given by $d$-dimensional vectors ${\bf R}_i$ ($i=0,1,...,N$). Distance constraints exist between pairs of monomers labeled by $i_e$ and $j_e$. For further use we introduce the inverse strength of the crosslinking potential $$\label{2}
z=\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{a}\right )^2$$ as the mean squared distance between monomers that form the crosslinks measured in units of the persistence length $a$ of the chain (figure 1). Limiting cases are given by $z=0$ (hard ${\delta}$-constraints) and $z\rightarrow
\infty$ (free chain). The whole crosslinking topology is specified by a set of $2M$ integers C=$\{i_e,j_e\}_{e=1}^M$. It has been shown [@solvil] that the model in (\[1\]) is equivalent to the Deam-Edwards model [@deamed] without excluded-volume interaction if averages are understood in the following sense $$\label{3}
\Big\langle ....\Big\rangle_0= \lim_{z \rightarrow 0}\frac{
{\displaystyle\int} \prod_{i=0}^N d{\bf R}_i\,e^{-\beta
{\cal H}_0}....}{{\displaystyle \int} \prod_{i=0}^Nd{\bf
R}_i\,e^{-\beta {\cal H}_0}}~.$$ It is interesting to note that the entire range $0 \geq z < \infty$ can be treated with the same formalism. In [@solvil] we have explicitly shown that all limits are mathematically well defined. Thus the here presented method is indeed able to cover the range of all crosslink strengths, i.e., from very soft to the quenched case.
To model $M$ [*uncorrelated*]{} crosslinks the distribution of frozen variables C is assumed to be uniform $$\label{4}
\prod_{e=1}^M \bigg\{ \frac{2}{N^2}
\sum_{0\leq i_e<j_e\leq N}
\bigg \}$$ Other distributions are in principle possible but not considered in this investigation. As usual for systems with permanent constraints care must be taken in evaluating averages of physical quantities. The strategy here is not to start with the quenched average over the frozen variables by employing for instance the replica trick, but to keep explicitly all crosslink coordinates C during the calculation. Only at the very end the physical observable of interest is evaluated for a particular realization of C which is generated by the distribution in (\[4\]). Clearly both approaches will give the same results if only self-averaging quantities are considered.
The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) together with the uniform distribution of crosslinks (4) defines our working model for the ideal network.
Characteristic function
=======================
In this section a brief review of the central mathematical theorem for the characteristic function of a Gaussian structure with internal $\delta$-constraints is given, together with its extension to arbitrary crosslinking potential $z$. The characteristic function for the problem is introduced as $$\label{5}
{\cal Z}_{0}({\bf E};\mbox{C})=\Big\langle e^{i{\bf E}\cdot
{\bf r}}
\Big\rangle_0$$ from which all expectation values can be obtained via differentiation. Simplifying notation has been adopted, where ${\bf r}_j\equiv{\bf R}_j-{\bf R}_{j-1}$ $(j=1,...,N)$ denote bond vectors along the backbone of the chain, and ${\bf E}=({\bf E}_1,..., {\bf E}_N)$, ${\bf
r}=({\bf r}_1,...,{\bf r}_N)$ are $N$-dimensional super-vectors with $d$-dimensional vector components. Thus ${\cal Z}_{0}({\bf E};\mbox{C})$ is also the partition function of an ideal network in the presence of external fields ${\bf E}_j$. Note that ${\cal Z}_{0}({\bf
E};\mbox{C})$ depends explicitly on all external fields contained in the vector ${\bf E}$, as well as on all crosslink positions C.
Without going into mathematical details, it is now possible to proof the following analytically [*exact*]{} projection theorem [@solvil] $$\label{6}
{\cal Z}_{0}({\bf E};\mbox{C})=\exp \left (
-\frac{a^2}{2d}\,{\bf E}_\perp^2\right ) ~,$$ where ${\bf E}_\perp$ is the length of the external field vector ${\bf E}$ projected perpendicular to the vector space spanned by “crosslink vectors” $$\label{7}
{\bf p}_e=(0,\dots ,0,\underbrace{1,1,\dots ,1,1}_{\mbox{
$i_e+1$ to $j_e$}},0,\dots ,0)~.$$ The above statement can be pictured in the following intuitive manner (figure 2). For each crosslink specified by the pair of integers $1\leq i_e <j_e\leq N$, form the corresponding $N$-dimensional vector ${\bf p}_{e}$, Eq. (\[7\]), where the 1’s are assumed to run from the $(i_e+1)$th to the $j_e$th position. The rest of the $N$ components are filled with 0’s. The whole set of $M$ vectors ${\bf p}_1,...,{\bf p}_M$ defines a characteristic vector space for the problem, say $U$. There is an unique decomposition of any field vector ${\bf E}$ parallel and perpendicular to $U$ (figure 2), viz., ${\bf E}={\bf
E}_\parallel +{\bf E}_\perp $. The operator that projects ${\bf E}$ on $U$ can be constructed from ${\bf p}_e$ for any realization of crosslinks C. It is given by ${\cal
P}{\cal P}^+$, where ${\cal P}$ is the $N\times M$ rectangular matrix associated with the crosslink vectors ${\bf p}_e$ ($e=1,...,M$), $$\label{8}
{\cal P}\equiv ({\bf p}_1,...,{\bf p}_M)~,$$ while ${\cal P}^+$ is a generalized inverse of ${\cal P}$ [@linal].
The projection theorem (\[6\]) is only valid for hard crosslinking constraints $z=0$. A generalization to arbitrary crosslinking potential $z$ is, however, possible using the methods of Ref. [@solvil]. Only the final result for the characteristic function is quoted which reads $$\label{9}
{\cal Z}_{0}(z,{\bf E};\mbox{C})= \exp \left[
-\frac{a^2}{2d}
\left({\bf E}^2-
\sum_{e=1}^M \frac{({\bf x}_e {\bf E})^2}
{1+(z/w_e^2)} \right )\right]~,$$ Here ${\bf x}_e$ denotes any orthonormal basis associated with ${\bf p}_e$ ($e=1,...,M$), and $w_e$ are corresponding singular values [@linal]. For tetrafunctional crosslinks it was shown that $w_{e}$ is always positive. >From (\[9\]) it is straightforward to obtain expressions for the radius of gyration and structure factor.
By the scattering function (form factor) we mean density fluctuations [@doied] normalized to one $$\begin{aligned}
\label{10}
S_0({\bf k},z;\mbox{C})&=& \left\langle |\rho_{\bf k}|^2
\right\rangle_{0}\\ &\equiv &\frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{i,j=0}^N
\Big\langle\exp \Big(i{\bf k}({\bf R}_i -{\bf R}_j)\Big
)\Big\rangle_0~,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf k}$ is the scattering wavevector, and the average is over the measure in (\[3\]) without having taken the $z\rightarrow 0$ limit. In the following no distinction between $N$ and $N+1$ will be made since $N$ is assumed to be large. From Eq. (\[9\]) an exact expression for $S_{0}$ can be obtained by introducing the external field vector ${\bf E}=k\,{\bf c}_{ij}$, where $$\label{11}
{\bf c}_{ij}=(0,\dots ,0,\underbrace{1,1,\dots ,1,1}_{\mbox{
$i+1$ to $j$}},0,\dots ,0)~,$$ and $k=|{\bf k}|$. From (\[9\]) and (\[10\]) it is found $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12}
&&S_0({\bf k},z;\mbox{C})= \frac{1}{N}\\&+& \frac{2}{N^2}
\sum_{i<j}^N \exp \left[ -\frac{a^2k^2}{2d}
\left (j-i- \sum_{e=1}^M \frac{({\bf x}_e {\bf c}_{ij})^2}
{1+(z/w_e^2)} \right)\right]~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Similarly for the radius of gyration [@doied] $$\label{13}
\left (\frac{R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}(z;\mbox{C})}{a}\right)^2
=\frac{N}{6}- \frac{1}{N^2}
\sum_{i<j}^N \sum_{e=1}^M \frac{({\bf x}_e {\bf c}_{ij})^2}
{1+(z/w_e^2)} ~.$$
It is worthwhile to note that the applicability of these results is not limited to random networks since all crosslinking coordinates are still implicit in the formulas through ${\bf x}_{e}$ and $w_{e}$. By selecting different ensembles for C=$\{i_e,j_e\}_{e=1}^M$ (random or not) any generalized Gaussian structure with internal crosslinking constrained can be treated by the same method. Further generalizations of the working model (\[1\]) to structures built from more than one chain are feasible as long as the objects under investigation are simply connected. Otherwise the phantom character of the chains and the neglect of entanglements leads to delocalization of those clusters of the network which are not connected via crosslinks. A similar percolation problem arises at the vulcanization transition [@zipp] which, however, is not an objective of this study.
Discussion of results
=====================
In applying Eqs. (\[12\]) and (\[13\]) to random networks, one has to deal with a sufficient number of monomers $N$ and crosslinks $M$. Moreover, the positions of crosslinks C=$\{i_e,j_e\}_{e=1}^M$ have to be chosen at random. The simplest scenario is to pick $2M$ integers $i_e,j_e$ $(e=1,...,M)$ from the uniform distribution, Eq. (\[4\]), defined on the interval $[ 0,N]$. For a given realization C we compute an orthonormal basis ${\bf x}_{e}$ and singular values $w_{e}$ of ${\bf p}_{e}$ $(e=1,...,M)$. Any standard technique like singular value decomposition [@numrec] will suffice, for the orthonormalization process presents only a minor numerical task. We find that for number of monomers $N > 10000$ and crosslinks $M > 200$ fluctuations between different realizations of C differ by less than 1 percent. This also presents an estimate for the numerical uncertainty of the calculation.
Scaling behavior of scattering function
---------------------------------------
Within the framework of the Deam-Edwards model ($z=0$) it was demonstrated [@solvil] that the scattering function $S_{0}$ of an ideal network is an universal function of wavevector ${\bf k}$ and mean crosslink density $M/N$ as long as $N$ and $M$ are sufficiently large to ensure self-averaging. A scaling form for $S_0$ is motivated by the following argument. For a linear polymer without crosslinks the scattering intensity $S_{0}(x)$ depends only on the product $x=k^2 R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}^2$, where $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}^2= a^2N/6$ is the radius of gyration of the chain and $S_0(x)=2(e^{-x}-1+x)/x^2$ the Debye function [@doied]. In close analogy it was shown that for hard constraints ($z=0$) the radius of gyration of an ideal network is given by $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}^2\simeq
0.26\,a^2N/M$ which suggests a scaling behavior, similar to that of linear chains without crosslinks. This scaling hypothesis for ideal networks was confirmed by our calculation based on the expressions in Eqs. (\[12\]) and (\[13\]).
The numerically [*exact*]{} result for the scattering function is presented in figure 3. In the Kratky plot of figure 3, $xS_0(x)$ has been evaluated as a function of $\sqrt{x}\equiv kR_{\mbox{\tiny g}}$ for $z=0$. Independent of details of crosslinking topology C, all networks investigated fall on the same master curve (solid line). Statistical fluctuations between different networks were too small in the self-averaging regime to be seen on the scales used in figure 3. No indication of a power-law decay for intermediate wavevectors $k$ or other simplifying feature was detected, besides the pronounced maximum in the Kratky plot at $\sqrt{x}\simeq 2$ which reflects the strong correlations of the monomers due to crosslinking. For comparison, the case of a linear polymer with $z\rightarrow
\infty$ (Debye function, dashed line) was also computed from (\[12\]).
The results of $S_{0}$ for different values of crosslinking potential $z$ are illustrated in figure 4 for a network with $N=10000$ and $M=200$. By increasing the strength of the constraint from left to right, large deviations of $S_{0}$ from ideal chain behavior (Debye function, left curve) arise on smaller and smaller length scales. For $z=0$ the network character persists down to even the shortest length scale $k\approx 1$ as a consequence of the high degree of crosslinking in the system ($M/N=0.02$). For sufficiently large wavevectors all curves decay as $k^{-2}$ as expected when the scanning wavelength becomes small compared to the mesh size of the network. Again, the master curve for $S_{0}$ can be obtained by plotting the $x$-axis in units of $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}$.
The collapse transition
-----------------------
In figure 5 we have calculated the radius of gyration of a network of $N$ monomers and $M$ crosslinks as a function of $\sqrt{z}=\varepsilon /a$ by use of Eq. (\[13\]). From this investigation we can clearly distinguish three different scaling regimes $$\left(\frac{R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}}{a}\right )^2 \simeq
\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
0.26\,N/M~, & \mbox{if~} \varepsilon <<
\varepsilon_1\\
0.34\,(\varepsilon /a)\left(N/M\right
)^{1/2}~, &
\mbox{if~} \varepsilon_1 << \varepsilon << \varepsilon_2 \\
N/6~, & \mbox{if~} \varepsilon >> \varepsilon_2~,\\
\end{array} \right .$$ with crossovers at $\varepsilon_1\simeq a \sqrt{N/M}$ and $\varepsilon_2\simeq a \sqrt{MN}$. The plateau values in figure 5 correspond to the two extremes $R_{\mbox{\tiny
g}}^2/a^2=0.26\, N/M$ ($z\rightarrow 0$) to the left and $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}^2/a^2 =N/6$ ($z\rightarrow \infty$) to the right.
In particular our investigation showed that the cases $z=0$ (hard constraints) and $z=1$ (constraints of the order of the persistence length $a$) only differ by a numerical prefactor which varies from 0.26 for $z=0$ to about 0.27 for $z=1$. From this we conclude that an ideal network subject to [*uncorrelated*]{} crosslinking constraints is collapsed in a sense that its size is proportional to the square root of $N/M$. Therefore $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}/a\simeq
{\cal O}(1)$ since $M/N$ is the mean crosslink density in the network and of order unity in the thermodynamic limit $N,M\rightarrow\infty$. This finding seems to be at variance with current speculations regarding the collapse transition of macromolecules [@bry], where it was argued that a critical number of crosslinks $M\geq
M_c\simeq N/\log N$ will force the system to collapse. Our result for $z=0$ is in agreement with recent Monte Carlo simulations by Kantor and Kardar [@kant] who found for the mean squared end-to-end distance $R^2/a^2\simeq
1.5\,N/M$. This suggests the same one to six ratio for $(R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}/R)^2$ in ideal networks as for linear polymers without crosslinking constraints and excluded-volume interaction [@doied]. We believe that the discrepancy between our exact results and these suggested in [@bry] are due to the approximations used there.
Conversely, a free chain ($z\rightarrow \infty$) is an extended object with $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}/a\simeq{\cal
O}(\sqrt{N})$. Between the collapsed and the extended regime we find a smooth crossover with $(R_{\mbox{\tiny
g}}/a)^2$ being proportional to $(\varepsilon
/a)\sqrt{N/M}$. Remarkably this is the same scaling as for randomly branched polymers without excluded volume interaction. In the following we discuss the different conformational states of the system in terms of simple scaling arguments.
Flory estimates
---------------
For completeness we first note that the free chain regime is trivial since $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}^2/a^2 =N/6$ is an exact solution of (13) for $z\rightarrow\infty$. To understand the scaling behavior of $R_{\mbox{\tiny g}}$ in the other two regimes the free energy of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is discussed within Flory theory. The connectivity term in (1) models the standard entropic elasticity of a Gaussian chain, i.e., $R^2/(Na^2)+N a^2/R^2$, where $R$ is a measure of the size of the system. The first term accounts for stretching, whereas the second term describes the response due to compression [@deGennes].
An estimate of the crosslink term in (1) requires more attention. First we consider soft crosslinks when $\varepsilon >> a$. In this regime the second term of the Hamiltonian is estimated by $M (R/\varepsilon )^2$, because the mean squared distance between a pair of constrained monomers is of order $\varepsilon^2$. The relevant part of the total Flory free energy then is $${\cal F}_{0} \sim \frac{Na^2}{R^2}+\frac{M R^2}
{\varepsilon^2}~.$$ Minimization of the free energy with respect to $R$ yields the scaling relation $R/a \sim (\varepsilon/a)^{1/2}
(N/M)^{1/4}$ in agreement with (14). The appearence of the branched polymer exponent $1/4$ can be assigned to the change of connectivity of the chain when $\varepsilon \simeq {\cal O}(\sqrt{NM})$.
The case of hard crosslinks $\varepsilon \simeq {\cal
O}(a)$ is more difficult to obtain. We picture the system as a coarse-grained random walk over the $M$ crosslinks with an effective step length proportional to $N/M$, i.e., the mean number of monomers between crosslinks. From this mean-field argument the crosslink term is estimated to be of the order $M [R^2/(a^2 N/M)]$. The latter expression has the effect that it tries to shrink the chain upon cost of confinement entropy. A suitable Flory free energy is given by $$\label{flory}
{\cal F}_{0} \sim \frac{N a^2}{R^2} + \frac{M^2 R^2}{Na^2}~.$$ >From there $(R/a) \sim (N/M)^{1/2}$ as was shown exactly for the network regime.
M.P.S. gratefully acknowledges financial support by the DFG, Sonderforschungsbereich 262.
S. F. Edwards in [*Polymer Networks*]{}, eds. A. J. Chompff and S. Newman (Plenum Press, New York, 1971); R. T. Deam and S. F. Edwards, Proc. Trans. R. Soc. London A [**280**]{} (1976) 317; R. C. Ball and S. F. Edwards, Macromolecules [**13**]{} (1980) 748.
P. Goldbart and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{} (1987) 2676; Phys. Rev. A [**39**]{} (1989) 1402; [*ibid*]{} 1412.
T. A. Vilgis and M. P. Solf, J. Phys. I France [**5**]{} (1995) 1241.
S. V. Panyukow and Y. Rabin, Phys. Rep. [**269**]{} (1996) no. 1 & 2.
P. G. Higgs and R. C. Ball, J. Phys. France [**49**]{} (1988) 1785.
M. Warner and S. F. Edwards, J. Phys. A [**11**]{} (1978) 1649.
S. F. Edwards and T. A. Vilgis, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**51**]{} (1988) 243.
M. P. Solf and T. A. Vilgis, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**28**]{} (1995) 6655.
A. M. Gutin and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Chem. Phys. [**100**]{} (1993) 5290.
J. D. Bryngelson and D. Thirumalai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{} (1996) 542.
Y. Kantor and M. Kardar, preprint.
P. Lancaster and M. Tismenetsky, [*The Theory of Matrices*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1985, 2nd Ed.).
M. Doi and S. F. Edwards, [*The Theory of Polymer Dynamics*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986).
P. Goldbart and A. Zippelius, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} (1993) 2256.
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes*]{} (University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
P. G. de Gennes, [*Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics*]{} (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1979).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: to whom all correspondence should be send
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present the development of the collimated bipolar jets from the symbiotic prototype ZAnd that appeared and disappeared during its 2006 outburst. We monitored the outburst with the optical high-resolution spectroscopy and multicolor $UBVR_{\rm C}$ photometry. In 2006 July ZAnd reached its historical maximum at $U\sim 8.0$. After $\sim$1mag decline in mid-August, it kept its brightness at a high level of $U \sim 9$ up to 2007 January. During this period, rapid photometric variations with $\Delta m \sim 0.06$mag on the timescale of hours developed. Simultaneously, high-velocity satellite components appeared on both sides of the [H$\alpha$]{} and [H$\beta$]{} emission line profiles. Their presence was transient, being detected to the end of 2006. They were launched asymmetrically with the red/blue velocity ratio of 1.2–1.3. From about mid-August onward they became symmetric at $\sim \pm\,1200$[kms$^{-1}$]{}, reducing the velocity to $\sim \pm\,1100$[kms$^{-1}$]{} at their disappearance. Spectral properties of these satellite emissions indicated the ejection of bipolar jets collimated within an average opening angle of 6$\degr.1$. If the jets were expelled at the escape velocity then the mass of the accreting white dwarf is $M_{\rm WD} \sim 0.64$[$M_{\sun}$]{}. We estimated the average outflow rate via jets to $\dot M_{\rm jet}\sim 2\times 10^{-6}
(R_{\rm jet}/1\,{\rm AU})^{1/2}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{}, during their August–September maximum, which corresponds to the emitting mass in jets, $M_{\rm jet}^{\rm em} \sim 6\times 10^{-10}
(R_{\rm jet}/1\,{\rm AU})^{3/2}$[$M_{\sun}$]{}. During their lifetime, the jets released the total mass of $M_{\rm jet}^{\rm total} \approx 7.4\times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}$]{}. Evolution in the rapid photometric variability and asymmetric ejection of jets around the optical maximum can be explained by a disruption of the inner parts of the disk caused by radiation-induced warping of the disk.
author:
- 'A. Skopal, T. Pribulla and J. Budaj'
- 'A. A. Vittone and L. Errico'
- 'M. Wolf'
- 'M. Otsuka'
- 'M. Chrastina and Z. Mikulášek'
title: TRANSIENT JETS IN THE SYMBIOTIC PROTOTYPE Z ANDROMEDAE
---
Introduction
============
Collimated jets from astrophysical objects represent very exciting events. They have been detected from various kinds of objects. A common element in all jet-producing systems is the central accreting star, which implies that their accretion disks play an important role in the formation of this type of mass outflow [e.g. @livio97; @livio04 and references therein].
Symbiotic stars are long-period interacting binaries (orbital periods are in the range of years), in which a white dwarf (WD) accretes material from the wind of a cool giant. This process generates a very hot and luminous source of radiation ($T_{\rm h} \approx 10^5$K, $L_{\rm h} \approx 10^2 - 10^4$[$L_{\sun}$]{}) and accumulates a certain amount of material onto the WD’s surface that enlarges its effective radius to about 0.1[$R_{\sun}$]{} during their quiescent phases. During active phases a large, geometrically and optically thick circumstellar disk with radius of a few [$R_{\sun}$]{} develops around the accretor [@sk05 Figs. 26 and 27]. Therefore, the symbiotic stars are good candidates for producing high-velocity outflows in the form of collimated jets, mainly during outbursts. However, signatures of collimated outflows were indicated for only 10 from roughly 200 known symbiotics [@b+04]: seven by resolving their spatial structure with the radio and X-ray imaging [e.g. @tay+86; @crok+01; @g+s04] and three by the optical spectroscopy [e.g. @t+00; @schmid+01]. Nevertheless, jets in symbiotic binaries are investigated very intensively from X-ray to radio wavelengths to understand better the physical process driving the collimated high-velocity mass outflow from accreting white dwarfs [e.g. @sok+04; @sc05; @kar+07; @kell+07; @ss07].
ZAnd is considered a prototype symbiotic star. Its recent activity started from 2000 autumn and reached the optical maxima in 2000 December, 2004 September and 2006 July (Fig. 1). During the previous well observed large eruptions (1985, 2000), signatures of high-velocity outflows were detected through the broadening of emission lines, P-Cygni type of profiles and the extended wings of hydrogen lines [e.g. @fc+95; @t+03; @t+08; @sok+06; @sk+06; @sk06], but never in the form of collimated bipolar jets. The only signature for a nonsymmetric outflow from ZAnd was indicated by the 5GHz radio map from 2001 September, which showed a transient jet-like extension [@b+04]. However, no counterpart in the optical spectrum could be recognized [@b+l07]. Recently, during the maximum of the 2006 outburst, [@sk+pr06] discovered spectral signatures of bipolar jets from ZAnd. Their evidence in the optical spectra was confirmed by [@b+l07] and [@t+07]. In this contribution we investigate evolution of the jet features from their first appearance in 2006 July to their disappearance at the end of 2006, determine their physical parameters, and discuss the disk–jet connection during the outburst.
[ccccc]{} Date & Julian Date & Region & $T_{\rm exp}$ & Obs.\
(dd/mm/yyyy) & JD 24... & (nm) & (min) &\
15/12/2005 & 53720.127 & 406 - 776 & 3$\times$10 & HET\
04/06/2006 & 53890.528 & 462 - 472 & 30 & Asiago\
& 53890.551 & 482 - 492 & 30 & Asiago\
& 53890.575 & 652 - 666 & 30 & Asiago\
25/07/2006 & 53942.809 & 642 - 671 & 5 & DDO\
01/08/2006 & 53949.837 & 462 - 492 & 15 & DDO\
30/08/2006 & 53978.688 & 462 - 492 & 20 & DDO\
& 53978.706 & 642 - 671 & 10 & DDO\
10/09/2006 & 53989.602 & 462 - 472 & 30 & Asiago\
& 53989.626 & 482 - 492 & 30 & Asiago\
& 53989.650 & 652 - 666 & 30 & Asiago\
18/10/2006 & 54027.387 & 641 - 692 & 33 & Ondřejov\
09/11/2006 & 54049.418 & 641 - 692 & 50 & Ondřejov\
23/11/2006 & 54063.428 & 641 - 692 & 50 & Ondřejov\
27/12/2006 & 54096.905 & 575 - 690 & 20 & OAO\
& 54096.919 & 575 - 690 & 20 & OAO\
30/01/2007 & 54131.250 & 652 - 666 & 5 & Asiago\
& 54131.263 & 652 - 666 & 30 & Asiago\
& 54131.286 & 672 - 686 & 30 & Asiago\
11/04/2007 & 54202.402 & 642 - 671 & 5.5 & DDO\
22/06/2007 & 54274.697 & 642 - 671 & 6.0 & DDO\
31/07/2007 & 54313.790 & 642 - 671 & 3.0 & DDO\
27/08/2007 & 54340.485 & 652 - 686 & 30 & Asiago\
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Our observations of ZAnd during its 2006 outburst were carried out at different observatories.
\(i) At the McDonald Observatory by the 9.2-m Hobby–Eberly telescope [@ramsey+98 HET in Table 1] just prior to the rise of the major 2006 outburst. Observations were performed using the echelle high dispersion spectrograph [@tull98] with the 316g5936 cross-disperser, 3$\arcsec$ fiber, and 2 CCDs (4096$\times$4100) with 2$\times$1 binning. Data were reduced using the standard [IRAF]{} procedures, which involved bias, bad pixels, flatfield, scattered light, continuum, and cosmic rays corrections. Wavelength calibration was done using Th-Ar lamp and has an error of about 0.1[kms$^{-1}$]{}. Observations were recorded in 71 orders which cover the spectral regions 4060–5880, 6010–7760Å with the resolution of about R = 60000 and S/N$\sim$200 in the continuum. For the purpose of this paper we use only regions containing [H$\alpha$]{}, [H$\beta$]{}, [He[II]{}]{}4686, [He[I]{}]{}4713 and the Raman-scattered [O[VI]{}]{}6825 line.
\(ii) At the David Dunlap Observatory, University of Toronto (DDO) the high-resolution spectroscopy was performed by the single dispersion slit spectrograph equipped with a Jobin Yovon Horiba CCD detector (2048$\times$512 pixels of 13.5$\mu$m size; thinned back illuminated chip) mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the 1.88-m telescope. The resolution power was 12000 and 8000 around the [H$\alpha$]{} and [He[II]{}]{}4686$ - $[H$\beta$]{} region, respectively. Basic treatment of the spectra was done using the [IRAF]{}-package software. During each night two very different exposures were applied to obtain a well defined [H$\alpha$]{} profile and the continuum. Telluric sharp absorptions in the [H$\alpha$]{} region were eliminated with the aid of simultaneously observed standard star 50Boo.
\(iii) At the Asiago Astrophysical Observatory (Asiago). Here the high-dispersion spectroscopy was secured by the [REOSC]{} echelle spectrograph equipped with a [AIMO E2VCCD47-10]{} back illuminated CCD detector (1100$\times$1100 pixels of 13$\mu$m size) mounted at the Cassegrain focus of the 1.82-m telescope at Mt. Ekar. The resolution power with the 200$\mu$m width slit was approximately 25000 and 17000 at the [H$\alpha$]{} and [He[II]{}]{}4686 - [H$\beta$]{} region, respectively. The spectroscopic data were processed with the [MIDAS]{} software package and a software developed at the Astronomical Observatory of Capodimonte in Napoli. (iv) At the Ondřejov Observatory (Ondřejov) the high-resolution spectroscopy was performed by using the coude single-dispersion slit spectrograph of 2-m reflector and the [BROR]{} CCD camera with the SITe-005 800$\times$2030pixels chip. The resolution power at the H$\alpha$ region was 10000. Standard initial reduction of CCD spectra (bias subtraction, flat-fielding and wavelength calibration) was carried out using modified [MIDAS]{} and [IRAF]{} packages. Final processing of the data was done with the aid of the [SPEFO]{}-package software developed at the Ondřejov Observatory [@horn; @skoda].
\(v) At the Okayama Astrophysical Observatory (OAO) the high-dispersion spectra were secured with the high-dispersion echelle spectrograph [@i99] at the f/29 coudé focus of the 1.88-m telescope. The dimension of the CCD ([EEV]{} 42-80) was 2048$\times$4096 pixels of 13.5${\rm \mu m}^2$. The red cross-disperser was used. The spectral resolving power was 54000 around the [H$\alpha$]{} region. The reduction and analysis was performed with the [IRAF]{}-package software. Two similar exposures were co-added to obtain a better signal-to-noise ratio (S/N).
\(vi) At the Skalnaté Pleso and Stará Lesná (pavilion G2) Observatories, classical photoelectric $UBVR_{\rm C}$ measurements were carried out by single-channel photometers mounted in the Cassegrain foci of 0.6-m reflectors [see @sk+04 in detail]. The star BD+474192 (SAO53150, $V$ = 8.99, $B-V$ = 0.41, $U-B$ = 0.14, $V-R_{\rm C}$ = 0.10; C1 in Fig. 3) was used as the standard star for both photoelectric and CCD observations. Fast CCD photometry was performed at Stará Lesná Observatory using the 0.5-m telescope (pavilion G1). The [SBIG ST10 MXE]{} CCD camera with the chip 2184$\times$1472 pixels and the $UBV(RI)_C$ Johnson-Cousins filter set were mounted at the Newtonian focus. The size of the pixel is 6.8$\mu$m and the scale 0.56$\arcsec$/pixel, corresponding to the field of view (FOV) of a CCD frame of about 24$\times$16 arcmin. (vii) At the MonteBoo Observatory of the Masaryk University in Brno (Czech Republic), additional high-time-resolution optical photometry was obtained during two nights, 2006 September 6 and 2006 September 11. The observational data were carried out using [SBIG ST-8]{} dual chip CCD camera and Kron-Cousins $BV(RI)_C$ filter set attached at the Newtonian focus of the 602/2780 telescope. The CCD chip has 1534$\times$1020 pixels with the size of 9$\mu$m and the scale 2.04$\arcsec$/pixel (FOV$\sim$17.1$\times$11.4arcmin). All CCD frames were dark-subtracted, flat-fielded and corrected for cosmic rays. Heliocentric correction was applied for all data points. CCD photometric data were processed with the [MIDAS]{} software package and a software [C-MUNIPACK]{}[^1], developed at the Masaryk University in Brno. Other details of the CCD photometric reduction were described by [@pv05].
To verify the reality of ZAnd rapid variations during selected nights we measured additional comparison stars: C2 (GSC 03645-01592, $V$ = 11.17, $B-V$ = 0.53), C3 (GSC2.2 N012002338, $B\sim 12.3$mag) and C4 (SAO53133, $V$ = 9.17, $B-V$ = 1.36, $U-B$ = 1.11). The best results were achieved using the standard C1, because it is very similar to ZAnd during outbursts in both the brightness and the spectral type (see Figs. 2 and 3). The errors of the ZAnd – C1 differences were mostly less than 0.01mag.
The journal of spectroscopic observations is given in Table 1. A correction for heliocentric velocity was applied to all spectra. Arbitrary flux units were converted to absolute fluxes with the aid of the simultaneous $UBVR_{\rm C}$ photometry corrected for emission lines. The method was described by [@sk+06]. Uncertainties of such a continuum calibration are of a few percent for the star’s brightness around 9mag in the $VR$ passbands [see @sk07 in detail]. Observations were dereddened with $E_{\rm B-V}$ = 0.30 and resulting parameters were scaled to a distance of 1.5kpc [e.g. @mk96].
Analysis and results
====================
Photometric evolution around the maximum
----------------------------------------
The top-right panel of Fig. 1 shows the $UBV$ LCs of ZAnd covering its recent 2006 active phase. Prior to and after the peak July’s magnitudes, the color index $U-V\sim 0$ (Figs. 1 and 2). In July, during the maximum, the index had became temporarily much bluer ($U-V\sim -0.55$), which could be caused by a transient increase of the nebular emission. To understand better this behavior we modeled the $UBVR_CR_J$ flux points (Fig. 2)[^2] using the method of disentangling the composite continuum as described by [@sk05]. Our solutions correspond to a low temperature stellar source radiating at $T_{\rm h} \sim 10\,000 - 15\,000$K that dominates the optical spectrum. This suggests a significant contribution from a warm shell. At the maximum (the model 1 in Fig. 2), the SED requires a larger nebular contribution ($F_{\rm stellar}/F_{\rm nebular}$ = 2.3 in $B$, emission measure $EM = 9.4 \times 10^{60}$[cm$^{-3}$]{} at $T_{\rm e} = 40\,000$K), than prior to and after it ($F_{\rm stellar}/F_{\rm nebular}
\ga 23$ in $B$, $EM \sim 1.3-8.8 \times 10^{59}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}). The range of temperatures and scaling factors in the models of the stellar source corresponds to its effective radius $R_{\rm h}^{\rm eff} = 12 \pm 4$[$R_{\sun}$]{}. We note that the absence of ultraviolet data did not allow us to determine the model parameters precisely. Uncertainties in $T_{\rm h}$ and $T_{\rm e}$ are as high as 30 and 50%, respectively.
The effect of the transient increase of the nebular emission at the maximum could be interpreted as a result of a mass ejection from the active object into the particle bounded nebula, because new emitters will convert the excess of ionizing photons there into the nebular radiation. The effect of brightening of symbiotic binary due to an increase in the mass-loss rate was originally suggested by [@nv87]. In addition, we searched for a short-term photometric variability on the timescales of minutes to hours (Fig. 3). Just prior to and after the active stage we observed an irregular variation within $\Delta B \la 0.02$mag [top panels of Fig. 3; previously measured also by @grom+06; @s+b99], whereas around/after the maximum its amplitude increased by a factor of $\sim$3, to $\Delta B \sim \Delta V \sim 0.06$mag (bottom panels of Fig. 3; the first detection to date). Their source can be identified with the aid of the corresponding SED. The false $(1-1.5)\times 10^4$K photosphere, which is associated with the disk, dominated the optical domain, while contributions from the giant and the nebula were negligible (Fig. 2). Therefore, the $\sim$0.06mag variations had to be produced by the disk. Also the large size of the disk ($R_{\rm D} > R_{\rm h}^{\rm eff} \approx 10$[$R_{\sun}$]{}) supports this interpretation – the timescale of the rapid photometric fluctuations is consistent with the dynamical time at the outer edge of the hot stellar source.
Spectroscopic evolution
-----------------------
Figures 1, 4 and 5 show evolution of the [H$\alpha$]{}, [H$\beta$]{}, [He[II]{}]{}4686, [He[I]{}]{}4713Å, and the Raman-scattered [O[VI]{}]{} 1032 profiles throughout the whole 2006-07 outburst.
At the beginning of the 2006 active phase, prior to the initial rise (spectrum from 15/12/2005) as well as prior to the maximum (03/06/2006), the hydrogen and helium line profiles showed a simple emission core. At these days, emission wings of [H$\alpha$]{} extended to $\sim \pm 1\,500$ and $\sim \pm 800$[kms$^{-1}$]{}, respectively, while those of [H$\beta$]{} persisted within $\sim \pm 500$[kms$^{-1}$]{} on both spectra. The emission core of the [He[II]{}]{}4686 line was placed symmetrically with respect to its reference wavelength (Fig. 1). Its strong flux in the 15/12/2005 spectrum, F([He[II]{}]{}4686) = 2.3$\times 10^{-11}$[$\rm\,erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}$]{}, corresponded to the effective temperature of the ionizing source, $T_{\rm h}^{i.s.} \sim 140\,000$K [F([H$\beta$]{}) = 5.5 and F([He[I]{}]{}4471) = 0.16$\times 10^{-11}$[$\rm\,erg\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}$]{}; @iijima81]. In spite of a high temperature from nebular emission lines the Raman-scattered [O[VI]{}]{} 1032 line disappeared entirely (Fig. 5).
Our first spectrum from the maximum (25/07/2006) revealed a complex of strong absorptions in the [H$\alpha$]{} profile. One was extended to $\sim -1\,000$[kms$^{-1}$]{} and others cut the emission core at $\sim -220$[kms$^{-1}$]{} and $\sim -100$[kms$^{-1}$]{} (Fig. 4). In addition, a pronounced S$^{+}$ satellite component was present and located at +1385[kms$^{-1}$]{}. One week later (01/08/2006) strong absorptions at $\sim -400$[kms$^{-1}$]{} and $\sim -200$[kms$^{-1}$]{} appeared in the [H$\beta$]{} and [He[I]{}]{}4713Å lines (Figs. 1 and 4). Two satellite components to the [H$\beta$]{} emission core were clearly recognizable and placed asymmetrically at $\sim -1\,100$[kms$^{-1}$]{} and $\sim +1\,400$[kms$^{-1}$]{}. From August 30th we observed typical broad emission wings with the extension of about $\pm\,2\,000$ and $\pm\,1\,500$[kms$^{-1}$]{} in the [H$\alpha$]{} and [H$\beta$]{} profile, respectively. They were accompanied by pronounced bipolarly located satellite emissions. From October to December their fluxes were becoming fainter and at the end of 2007 January only some remnants in a form of faint spikes could be recognized (Fig. 4). We attribute these satellite components to bipolar jets. During the presence of jets, F([He[II]{}]{}4686) fluxes decreased significantly (F([He[II]{}]{}4686)/F([H$\beta$]{})$ \sim $0.05) and their profiles were shifted blueward (Fig. 1) as during the 2000-01 maximum [@sk+06]. The Raman line was not detectable [see also @b+l07]. It became to be visible on our 27/12/2006 spectrum as a faint redward-shifted emission around 6838Å (Fig. 5).
Our spectra taken after the maximum, from 11/04/2007 to 27/08/2007, showed only a simple emission core of [H$\alpha$]{} and [H$\beta$]{} lines with decreasing extension of their emission wings (Fig. 4). [He[II]{}]{}4686 line became stronger, being located again around its reference wavelength as prior to the outburst (Fig. 1). The Raman emission band strengthened significantly and was comparable in the profile with that from quiescent phase (Fig. 5).
A disk-like structure of the hot object and its evolution
---------------------------------------------------------
Observed SEDs from the optical maximum require a very low temperature of the hot object, $T_{\rm h} \sim 1-1.5\times
10^4$K (Sect. 3.1). In contrast, a significantly higher temperature of the ionizing source, $T_{\rm h}^{i.s.} \sim 140\,000$ and 90000K, was derived from the hydrogen and helium emission lines prior to the outbursts (Sect 3.2) and during its maximum [@b+l07], respectively. Thus the hot active object was characterized by the two-temperature type of spectrum with $T_{\rm h} \ll T_{\rm h}^{i.s.}$ as during the 2000 maximum. This situation can be explained by a disk-like structure of the hot object viewed under a high inclination angle. Then the disk occults the hot ionizing source in the line of sight, while the nebula above/below the disk can easily be ionized [see Sect. 4.1. of @sk+06 in detail].
Another effect resulting from the disk-structured hot object is the blueward shift of the [He[II]{}]{}4686Å profile that develops during the outbursts, while out of active phases it is placed symmetrically with respect to the reference wavelength [Fig. 1 here and Fig. 2 in @sk+06]. The size of the He$^{++}$ zone was probably very small at the maximum (note the very low flux of the [He[II]{}]{}4686 line during the maximum, Sect. 3.2) and thus the disk blocked a fraction of its redward shifted emission in the direction of the observer for the orbital inclination of about 75$\arcdeg$. The disappearance of the Raman line during active phases at high $T_{\rm h}^{i.s.}$ [Sect. 3.2 and Fig. 5 here; @sk+06; @b+l07] can also be a result of the disk-like structure of the hot object. The scattering process acts on the neutral atoms of hydrogen in the wind from the giant. So, if the ionizing source is indeed capable of producing the O$^{+5}$ ions (note that the ionization potential $\chi$(O$^{+5}) \sim 114$eV requires $T_{\rm h}^{i.s.} \sim 114\,000$K [@mn94]), but no Raman line is observed, implies that the O$^{+5}$ zone is probably too small [cf. Appendix B in @sk+06], so that the disk blocks its radiation in directions to the densest parts of the neutral wind at the orbital plane. However, the arise of a faint [*redward*]{}-shifted Raman line on our spectra from 27/12/2006 and 30/01/2007 (Fig. 5) can be interpreted as due to the Raman scattering in the outer parts of the neutral giant’s wind that move [*from*]{} the original [O[VI]{}]{} photons. This signals a gradual dilution of the disk. Following development of a strong Raman emission with a typical [*blue*]{}-shifted shoulder in the profile (see Fig. 5) reflects total dilution of the optically thick material at the orbital plane, because the original [O[VI]{}]{} photons then can be scattered in the densest part of the neutral wind from the giant along the binary axis that moves [*against*]{} them [see also @schmid+99 for a general interpretation of the Raman line profile in symbiotic stars]. The simultaneous disappearance of the disk and jets (cf. Figs. 4 and 5) is consistent with the necessity of the disk for the presence of jets [e.g. @livio97]. The disk-jet connection is discussed below in Sect. 4.
Finally, the disk-like structure of the hot [*active*]{} object in ZAnd was indicated for the first time by the model SEDs from the 1985 outburst, which revealed directly the presence of the two-temperature UV spectrum [Sect. 5.3.4. of @sk05].
Measured parameters of the satellite components
-----------------------------------------------
To isolate the jet components from the whole line profile, we formally fitted the emission line core and its extended foot component with two Gaussian functions. Then the residual jet emissions were compared with additional Gaussians. From their fitted parameters (the central wavelength, maximum, $I$, and the width $\sigma$) we derived the jet’s radial velocity $RV_{\rm S}$, flux $F_{\rm S} = \sqrt{2 \pi}\,I\,\sigma$ and the width $FWHM_{\rm S} = 2\sqrt{2\ln(2)}\,\sigma$ (Table 2). Corresponding fits are shown in Fig. 4. This approach and the resolution of our spectra allowed us to estimate uncertainties in the $RV_{\rm S}$ values to 10$-$23[kms$^{-1}$]{} in [H$\alpha$]{}, $FWHM_{\rm S}$ widths were possible to adjust to observations within 0.2$-$0.3Å and fluxes within 10$-$20% of the observed values. The smaller uncertainty corresponds to the stronger jet feature and vice versa.
Our observations and those published by [@b+l07] and [@t+07] show an interesting behavior in $RV_{\rm S}$. From the jets launching in 2006 July to the beginning of 2006 August, the satellite components were located asymmetrically, being shifted by about +150[kms$^{-1}$]{} from the symmetric position (the top panel of Fig. 6). Their average velocity was 1280[kms$^{-1}$]{}. Then, in the time of a few days, the jets became symmetric in their velocities. They had persisted at $|RV_{\rm S}| \sim 1\,200$[kms$^{-1}$]{} to about mid of September when reduced suddenly their $|RV_{\rm S}|$ to $\sim$1100[kms$^{-1}$]{} till the end of their detection. The middle panel of Fig. 6 plots the velocity ratio of the faster jet to its slower counterpart that reflects directly the evolution in the jets position. At the initial stage of the jets presence, this ratio was 1.2–1.3, whereas during the following period the velocity ratio was $\approx 1$. The bottom panel of Fig. 6 shows the flux ratio of the red jet component to the blue one, $F_{S^{+}} / F_{S^{-}}$, for the [H$\alpha$]{} line as a function of the orbital phase. We interpret the decrease of this ratio, indicated around the inferior conjunction of the giant, as an occultation effect (Sect. 3.8.1).
Relatively small width of the satellite components ($FWHM_{\rm S}
\sim 250$[kms$^{-1}$]{}, Table 2) with respect to, for example, the broad wings of the [H$\alpha$]{} line ($FWZI$(H$\alpha)\sim$ 4000[kms$^{-1}$]{}, e.g. Fig. 4) implies that (i) the jets are highly collimated, and (ii) the emitting particles can be characterized with one constant velocity within the visible part of the jet. In the following two subsections we discuss some consequences of these jet properties.
### Collimated wind or jets?
The winds of luminous hot stars are accelerated by the radiation field, produced by the underlying photosphere [e.g. @lc99]. They are called line driven winds, because they are driven by absorption in spectral lines. In this process the photons transfer their energy into the kinetic energy of the wind, and, due to the Doppler shifts in the radial direction, the process acts throughout the [*entire*]{} wind, accelerating gradually its particles from the zero to the terminal velocity, $v_{\infty}$. As a result, we observe broad emission lines in the spectra of these stars. For symbiotic binaries, [@sk06] suggested that the broad wings of the [H$\alpha$]{} profiles ($v_{\infty}\ga 2\,000$[kms$^{-1}$]{}) are formed in the stellar wind from their hot components.
The relatively narrow width of the jet features suggests that they are driven by a different mechanisms. If the jets were driven like the wind, their observed profile would be a few thousands [kms$^{-1}$]{} broad, because of the large velocity dispersion in the radial direction ($0 - v_{\infty}$), and thus would hardly be detectable due to their low emission. Qualitatively, the narrow jet profiles imply that the jet engine works like a gun accelerating material through a [*short*]{} path (relatively to the jet length) to a high velocity, at which the shot-out-material continues to further distances. Also the connection between the disk and the jets, we discuss in Sect. 4, suggests that the jet launching mechanism is very different from that accelerating the wind. Generally, the jet engine transforms the kinetic energy of the inner parts of the disk to the kinetic energy of the flow in the vertical direction. In this respect, [@sr03] and [@sl04] suggested a scenario how jets could be blown from accretion disks.
### Geometry of the jet emitting region
The narrow $FWHM_{\rm S}$ allow us to assume a constant velocity of the emitting particles within the visible part of the jet. Then, if the broadening of the satellite components is caused by thermal motions, the corresponding Doppler width ($\sim 250$[kms$^{-1}$]{}, i.e. $\sim 5.5$Å in [H$\alpha$]{}) would require unrealistically high temperature of a few millions of Kelvins. In addition, the profiles of satellite lines have sharp edges, do not have typical wings, and their peaks are often flat (Fig. 1, e.g. 10/09/2006). If the jet consisted of a parallel beam of particles, i.e. having the geometry of a narrow column, we could not observe any real broadening. Therefore, we ascribe the observed line width to the dispersion in the line-of-sight velocity components of the jet particles. This can be satisfied if the jet emitting medium has the geometry of a narrow conus with the peak at the central object and characterized with a small opening angle $\theta_0$.
[ccccccccccccccc]{} Date & Line & & & & $F_{\rm cont}$ & & $EM_{\rm jet}$ & & $\dot M_{\rm W}$\
dd/mm/yy & & $S^{-}$ & $S^{+}$ & $S^{-}$ & $S^{+}$ & $S^{-}$ & $S^{+}$ & & $S^{-}$ & $S^{+}$ & & $S^{-}$ & $S^{+}$ &\
15/12/05&[H$\alpha$]{}&&1.0&– &– &– & – & – &1.3\
03/06/06&[H$\alpha$]{}&&1.6&– &– &– & – & – &0.57\
25/07/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1120 & +1385 & – & 8.2 & – & 355&2.3&– &7.3&1.2 & – &1.7 & –\
01/08/06&[H$\beta$]{}& -1100 & +1408 & 1.1 & 1.9 & 253 & 289&3.6&6.6&5.9&1.2 &0.76&1.1 & –\
30/08/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1250 & +1214 & 5.3 & 5.5 & 227 & 255&1.9&5.2&6.0&1.6 &0.91&1.0 &2.5\
&[H$\beta$]{}& -1267 & +1212 & 2.2 & 2.3 & 204 & 225&2.8&4.6&5.3&1.8 &0.86&0.97& –\
10/09/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1152 & +1208 & 5.1 & 4.8 & 301 & 280&1.7&7.5&6.6&1.5 &1.2 &1.1 &1.5\
&[H$\beta$]{}& -1164 & +1216 & 3.1 & 2.7 & 275 & 275&2.6&6.7&6.5&2.3 &1.4 &1.3 & –\
18/10/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1156 & +1165 & 4.0 & 2.9 & 237 & 226&1.6&5.9&5.5&1.0 &0.83&0.66&2.7\
09/11/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1100 & +1100 & 2.1 & 1.7 & 237 & 215&1.5&6.1&5.6&0.56&0.59&0.49&2.4\
23/11/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1120 & +1100 & 2.0 & 1.9 & 237 & 215&1.3&6.0&5.6&0.57&0.58&0.52&2.7\
27/12/06&[H$\alpha$]{}& -1110 & +1110 &0.87 &0.60 & 247 & 237&1.2&6.3&6.1&0.22&0.38&0.33&2.5\
30/01/07&[H$\alpha$]{}&&1.1 &– &– &– & – & – &1.0\
11/04/07&[H$\alpha$]{}&&0.83&– &– &– & – & – &2.5\
22/06/07&[H$\alpha$]{}&&0.80&– &– &– & – & – &1.5\
31/07/07&[H$\alpha$]{}&&0.84&– &– &– & – & – &1.3\
27/08/07&[H$\alpha$]{}&&0.82&– &– &– & – & – &0.78\
Opening angle of the jets
-------------------------
The conus geometry of the jet and the constant velocity of its particles (Sect. 3.4.2.) allow us to express the observed width of the satellite component as a function of its opening angle $\theta_0$ and the orbital inclination $i$. Assuming that the jets were launched with the velocity, $v_{\rm jet}$, perpendicularly to the disk plane that coincides with the orbital one, the maximum dispersion of the line-of-sight jet velocity component corresponds to $2\times HWZI_{\rm S} = v_{\rm jet}\cos(i-\theta_{0}/2) -
v_{\rm jet}\cos(i+\theta_{0}/2)
= 2\sin(i)\sin(\theta_{0}/2)$, where the half width at the zero intensity of the jet ($HWZI_{\rm S}$) is in [kms$^{-1}$]{}. Then for the measured central jet’s velocity, $RV_{\rm S} = v_{\rm jet}\cos(i)$, the opening angle can be approximated as $$\theta_0 = 2\,\sin^{-1}
\Big[\frac{HWZI_{\rm S}}{RV_{\rm S}\tan(i)}\Big].$$ A similar relation was also used by [@shahbaz]. Corresponding parameters from Table 2, orbital inclination $i = 76\degr$ [@sk03] and adopting $HWZI_{\rm S} = FWHM_{\rm S}$, yield its average value as $$\theta_0 = 6.\degr1 \pm 0.45\times \Delta i,$$ where the uncertainty represents a total differential of function (1) for uncertainties in $FWHM_{\rm S}$, $RV_{\rm S}$ (Sect. 3.4) and that in the orbital inclination, $\Delta i$.
The jet speed and the mass of the accretor
------------------------------------------
It is generally considered that the jet velocity in all the jet-producing objects is of the order of the escape velocity from their central stars, which indicates that the jet-type outflows originate from the vicinity of the accretors [e.g. @livio97 and references therein]. Recently, [@sr03] and [@sl04] performed analytical estimates on how the plasma close to the central object, specifically in the boundary layer of the disk, could be accelerated to velocities larger than the local escape velocity. Our observations seem to be consistent with this scenario. The high velocities of jets, $v_{\rm jet} \sim 5\,000$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}, observed at large distances from the central star (Sec. 3.8.1), imply $v_{\rm jet}/v_{\rm escape} > 1$ for all possible distances of the jet ejection. However, from observations it is difficult to determine accurately the distance from the accreting body, at which jets are launched. [@sl04] also could not rule out the possibility that jets can be launched somewhat away from the accretor, up to $\sim 3\times$ the boundary layer radius. They noted that this case would require a strong perturbation in the disk. Therefore, for a rough estimate only, we will assume that the jets were launched from the WD surface at $v_{\rm jet} \sim v_{\rm escape}$. Then the average value of $v_{\rm jet} = RV_{\rm S}/\cos(i) = 4\,960 \pm 90$[kms$^{-1}$]{} ($RV_{\rm S} = 1\,200 \pm 22$[kms$^{-1}$]{}, Table 2, $i = 76\degr$) and a typical WD radius of $R_{\rm WD}$ = 0.01[$R_{\sun}$]{} correspond to the mass of the accretor in ZAnd, $M_{\rm WD} \sim 0.64\,M_{\sun}$. We note that this value satisfies perfectly the relation between mass and radius of WDs [e.g. @st83]. [@s+s97] derived $M_{\rm WD} = 0.65 \pm 0.28$[$M_{\sun}$]{} from the spectroscopic orbit for $i = 47\degr$. Our value of $M_{\rm WD}$ derived for $i = 76\degr$ requires just a larger total system mass of $\sim 3.2$[$M_{\sun}$]{} to satisfy the mass function of 0.024[$M_{\sun}$]{} [@fek+00]. However, in the real case, the same value of $M_{\rm WD}$ can be obtained for different combinations of the $v_{\rm jet}/v_{\rm escape}\, (> 1)$ ratio and the distance of the jet ejection. Finally, we note that the large effective radius of the active star during the optical maximum derived from the SED ($R_{\rm h}^{\rm eff} \sim 12$[$R_{\sun}$]{}$\gg\, R_{\rm WD}$, Sect. 3.1) does not contradict to launching the jets from the vicinity of the WD surface, because of the disk-like structure of the hot active object seen under a high inclination angle (Sect. 3.3).
Radiation of jets
-----------------
In this section we derive some constraints supporting that the jet emission is due to the photoionization of hydrogen and that the medium is optically thin in the direction of the observer.
\(i) According to Fig. 3 of [@b+l07] and the $F_{\rm S}$ fluxes from Table 2, the average Balmer decrement $F_{\rm S}$(H$\alpha)/F_{\rm S}$(H$\beta) \sim 2.4$, which is close to the theoretical value of 2.75, given by the recombination process at the electron temperature of 20000K [e.g. @gurzadyan]. Equivalent widths presented by Burmeister & Leedjärv were converted to fluxes with the aid of our continuum calibration in Table 2. The somewhat lower values of the observed decrement than the theoretical one could be caused by a partial opacity of the nebular jet medium in the Balmer lines. Generally, the opacity in the [H$\alpha$]{} line is larger than in the [H$\beta$]{}. The effect, however, should not be significant. Also the high orbital inclination and the small value of $\theta_0$ correspond to a relatively small intersection, $l$, of the jet conus with the line of sight, and thus to a low value of the optical depth ($\tau\,\propto {\rm opacity} \times l$), which supports rather optically thin regime in the direction of the observer. For a comparison, the jets produced by the symbiotic star MWC560 are optically thick, because they are seen nearly pole-on, i.e. their $l$ and thus $\tau$ are very large, which gives rise the blueshifted jet [*absorption*]{} components in the spectrum [@schmid+01].
\(ii) If the jet emission is due to the recombination of free electrons with protons, then it can be created only within the ionized fraction of the ejected material. In Appendix A we calculate the extension of the jet nebula as the distance from the central hot star, at which ionizing photons are completely consumed by jet particles along paths outward from the ionizing star. According to Eq. (A2) the jet radius is limited by its Strömgren sphere at the distance $r_{\rm S}$ from the ionizing source, i.e. $$R_{\rm jet} \equiv r_{\rm S} = \left(\frac{3 L_{\rm ph}}
{4\pi \alpha_{\rm B}(H,T_{\rm e})}\,
\bar{n}_{\rm jet}^{-2} \right)^{1/3},$$ where the parameters, $L_{\rm ph},~\alpha_{\rm B}(H,T_{\rm e}),~
\bar{n}_{\rm jet}$ are explained in Appendix A. In Section 3.8 and Figure 7) we demonstrate that the jets radius, determined independently from their observed luminosity and the opening angle (Eq. (7)), agrees well with the radius of the Strömgren sphere, given by the luminosity and the temperature of the ionizing source. This result confirms that the satellite components are really created by recombinations within the jets, ionized by the central star.
Evolution in the fluxes of jets is consistent with such an ionization structure. Between the beginning of 2006 August and the end of September, their fluxes settled (with some fluctuations) around a maximum [@b+l07; @t+07 this paper]. No increasing trend, as could be expected from an increase of the emission measure of jets (see Eq. (5)) due to their expansion, was observed during this period. This implies that the emitting mass in jets was approximately constant, and thus suggests that the satellite components represent only the illuminated part of jets ionized by the hot central object, which is bounded by the Strömgren sphere. Figure 9 (see Appendix B) shows that the [*number*]{} of hydrogen ionizing photons is approximately constant for temperatures between about 50000 and 130000K at a fixed luminosity of a black-body source. Therefore, the hot star produced roughly constant flux of ionizing photons, and thus also relevant fluxes of jets, in spite that its temperature increased from 75000K to 115000K during the above mentioned period [@b+l07]. Observed fluctuations were probably caused by those in the luminosity of the ionizing object.
Mass loss through the jets
--------------------------
The recombination process of the radiation by the jet plasma, the resulting fluxes, and the geometrical and kinematics parameters of the jets put some constraints to determine the mass loss rate through jets. Assuming that the jets were expelled into the solid angle $\Delta\Omega = 2\pi [1 - \cos(\theta_0/2)]$ of the jet nozzle (Sect. 3.4.2.), then the corresponding mass-loss rate, $\dot M_{\rm jet}$, and the mean particle concentration, $\bar{n}_{\rm jet}$, in the jets volume, are connected via the mass continuity equation as $$\dot M_{\rm jet} = \Delta\Omega\,R^2_{\rm jet}\,\mu m_{\rm H}\,
\bar{n}_{\rm jet}v_{\rm jet},$$ where $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight and $m_{\rm H}$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom. Total luminosity produced by jets through the recombination transition of the [H$\alpha$]{} line, $L_{\rm jet}(\rm H\alpha$), is related to the line emissivity, $\varepsilon_{\alpha} n_{\rm e}n_{\rm p}$ (ergcm$^{-3}$s$^{-1}$), by $$L_{\rm jet}({\rm H\alpha}) =
\varepsilon_{\alpha}\int_{V_{\rm jet}}\! n_{\rm e}n_{\rm p}\,{\rm d}V\,
\equiv\,\varepsilon_{\alpha}\,\bar{n}^2_{\rm jet}\,V_{\rm jet}\,=\,
\varepsilon_{\alpha} EM_{\rm jet},$$ where $\varepsilon_{\alpha}$ is the volume emission coefficient in [H$\alpha$]{}, $n_{\rm e}$ and $n_{\rm p}$ are concentrations of electrons and protons and $V_{\rm jet}$ and $EM_{\rm jet}$ are the volume and emission measure of the jets, respectively. For the optically thin medium of jets, the luminosity can be determined from the observed fluxes as $L_{\rm jet} = 4\pi d^2 \times F_{\rm S}$. Further, Eq. (5) assumes a completely ionized medium (i.e. $n_{\rm e} = n_{\rm p} \equiv \bar{n}_{\rm jet}$), radiating at a constant electron temperature, i.e. $\varepsilon_{\alpha}$ is constant throughout the jet emitting volume. According to Sect. 3.4.2. we approximate its geometry by the conus, i.e. $$V_{\rm jet} = \frac{1}{3}R^3_{\rm jet}\times\Delta\Omega.$$ Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5), we can express the jet radius by means of the parameters, obtained directly from observations ($L_{\rm jet}$ and $\Delta\Omega$), as $$R_{\rm jet} = \left(\frac{3 L_{\rm jet}({\rm H\alpha})}
{\varepsilon_{\alpha}(H,T_{\rm e})
\Delta\Omega}\,
\bar{n}_{\rm jet}^{-2} \right)^{1/3}.$$ This expression allows us to rewrite Eq. (4) as $$\dot M_{\rm jet} = \xi_1 \times
\left(\frac{\Delta\Omega}
{\bar{n}_{\rm jet}}\right)^{1/3}
\left(\frac{L_{\rm jet}}
{[L_{\sun}]}\right)^{2/3}
\frac{v_{\rm jet}}{[{\rm km\,s^{-1}}]}~
M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr^{-1}},$$ and/or as a function of the radius $R_{\rm jet}$ as $$\dot M_{\rm jet} = \xi_2 \times
\left(\frac{R_{\rm jet}}{[AU]}
\frac{\Delta\Omega}{[{\rm sr}]}
\frac{L_{\rm jet}}{[L_{\sun}]}\right)^{1/2}
\frac{v_{\rm jet}}{[{\rm km\,s^{-1}}]}~
M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr^{-1}},$$ where the factor $\xi_1$ = $5.9\times 10^{-6}$ or $1.1\times 10^{-5}$ and $\xi_2$ = $3.6\times 10^{-9}$ or $5.9\times 10^{-9}$ for luminosities in [H$\alpha$]{} or [H$\beta$]{}, respectively. Volume emission coefficients for $T_{\rm e} = 2\times 10^{4}$K, $\varepsilon_{\alpha}$ = 1.83 and $\varepsilon_{\beta} =
0.682 \times 10^{-25}\rm erg\,cm^{3}\,s^{-1}$ [@ost89].
### Additional constraints for $\dot M_{\rm jet}$
According to Eqs. (8) and (9), determination of $\dot M_{\rm jet}$ requires to estimate reasonable values of $\bar{n}_{\rm jet}$ or $R_{\rm jet}$. Figure 7 plots dependencies between these parameters. Below we discuss some constraints that allow us to determine more accurate ranges of the jet parameters.
\(i) [@sl04] introduced conditions for thermally launching jets from accretion disks around WDs. In their model the accreted material is strongly shocked due to large gradients of physical quantities in the boundary layer and cools on the timescale longer than its ejection time from the disk. The model requires large accretion rates of $\dot M_{\rm acc} \ga 10^{-6}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{}. Some observational evidences of the disk-jet connection, as described in Section 4, could support this scenario. In agreement with this suggestion and the fact that there is a large disk encompassing the WD (Sects. 3.1. and 3.3.), we can exclude rates of $\dot M_{\rm jet} \lesssim 5.5\times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} (i.e. $\dot M_{\rm acc} \lesssim 5.5\times 10^{-6}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{}, Sect. 4.1) that correspond to $\bar{n}_{\rm jet} \ga 10^{12}$[cm$^{-3}$]{} and $R_{\rm jet} \lesssim 0.086$AU (see Fig. 7), because of too small jet radii that would be significantly occulted by the disk for the orbital inclination of $\sim 75\degr$. Observations do not indicate this case (e.g. Table 2, Fig. 6). From the other side, we exclude rates $\dot M_{\rm jet} \ga 5.5\times 10^{-6}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} (i.e. $\bar{n}_{\rm jet} \lesssim 10^{9}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}, $R_{\rm jet} \ga 9$AU, Fig. 7), because this would require too high accretion rates of $\ga 5.5\times 10^{-5}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} (see also Sect. 4.1). As the mass of the disk can be estimated to $\sim 10^{-4} - 10^{-5}$[$M_{\sun}$]{} (e.g. $R_{\rm D} = 20$[$R_{\sun}$]{}, $H/R_{\rm D} = 0.3$ [@sk06] and average density $\log\rho$ = -7 to -8), the accretion rates of about $10^{-4}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} would exhaust the disk during a short time. However, observations indicate the presence of a large disk with jets for about six months, from 2006 July to 2007 January (Sect. 3.3, Fig. 5). These conditions thus limit $\dot M_{\rm jet}$ to $5.5\times 10^{-6} > \dot M_{\rm jet} > 5.5\times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} and consequently, $10^{9} < \bar{n}_{\rm jet} < 10^{12}$[cm$^{-3}$]{} and $0.1 < R_{\rm jet} < 9$AU.
\(ii) During active phases of ZAnd the emission measure produced by the ionized hot star wind was determined to $EM_{\rm W} \sim 3\times 10^{59}$[cm$^{-3}$]{} [Table 1 in @sk06]. It represents the so-called low-temperature nebula, which is subject to eclipses in active symbiotic systems [@sk05; @sk06], and thus it is located within the radius of the giant, $R_{\rm G}$, around the hot component. For ZAnd, the average particle concentration in the wind around the hot star within the radius $R_{\rm G} = 106$[$R_{\sun}$]{} is $\bar n_{\rm W} =
(EM_{\rm W}/V_{\rm G})^{1/2} = 1.3 \times 10^{10}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}. For a comparison, the mean concentration of the jet particles within this distance, $\bar n_{\rm jet}(0.5\,{\rm AU}) \sim 7.5 \times 10^{10}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}, which corresponds to $\dot M_{\rm jet} \sim 1.3\times 10^{-6}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} (Fig. 7). This suggests that $\bar n_{\rm jet} > \bar n_{\rm W}$ and also the normalized mass loss rate (e.g. into 1sr) via the jets is larger than that through the wind.
\(iii) The transient decrease in the flux ratio, $F_{\rm S^{+}}/F_{\rm S^{-}} < 1$, measured during the inferior conjunction of the giant (Fig. 6), could be caused by the occultation of the red jet component by the stellar disk of the giant [also noted by @sw06]. As $2 R_{\rm G} \sim 1$AU, this observation suggests that the radii of jets are $\gtrapprox 1$AU. However, uncertainties in the orbital elements do not allow a more accurate estimate [see @fl94; @mk96; @sk98; @fek+00]. Finally, we note that some theoretical works, devoted to modeling the jets in symbiotic stars, also adopt the jet radius of 1AU [e.g. @sc05; @ss07]. Therefore, we determined the mass loss rate $\dot M_{\rm jet}$ in Table 2 for a representative value of $R_{\rm jet} \equiv 1$AU.
### Emitting mass in jets
The mean concentration and the volume of jets determine their emitting mass as $$M_{\rm jet}^{em} =
\mu m_{\rm H}\,\bar{n}_{\rm jet}\,V_{\rm jet},$$ which can be rewritten with the aid of Eqs. (6) and (7) as $$M_{\rm jet}^{em} = \xi_3 \times
\left(\frac{\Delta\Omega}{[{\rm sr}]}
\frac{L_{\rm jet}}{[L_{\sun}]}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{R_{\rm jet}}{[AU]}\right)^{3/2}
~M_{\sun},$$ where $\xi_3 = 5.7\times 10^{-9}$ or 9.3$\times 10^{-9}$ for luminosities in [H$\alpha$]{} or [H$\beta$]{}, respectively. The average value of $\theta_0 = 6.\degr1$ (Sect. 3.5), $L_{\rm jet} = 0.32\,L_{\sun}$ in [H$\alpha$]{} (from the 2006 August – September maximum) and $R_{\rm jet}$ = 1AU yield the emitting mass of $M_{\rm jet}^{em} = 6\times 10^{-10}~M_{\sun}$ in both jet components. [@t+07] derived significantly larger value of $M_{\rm jet}^{em} = 1.4 \times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}$]{} for the similar luminosity of the jet pair they observed on 12/08/2006. This difference results from their adopted mean density of only $10^{8}$[cm$^{-3}$]{}, which requires very large size of one jet, $R_{\rm jet} \dot = 40$AU. However, such an extension of the jet is beyond the limits we estimated in Sect. 3.8.
### Total mass released by jets
With respect to our approximation, in which the jet medium has a constant particle density and emits within its Strömgren radius, we approximate the total mass released by the jets during the time of their detection, $\Delta T_{\rm jet}$, as $$M_{\rm jet}^{\rm total} \approx \widehat{\dot M_{\rm jet}}
\times \Delta T_{\rm jet},$$ where $\widehat{\dot M_{\rm jet}}$ is the average mass loss rate via jets. Values from Table 2 ($\widehat{\dot M_{\rm jet}} = 1.75\times 10^{-6}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} for the jet pair and $\Delta T_{\rm jet} = 154$ days) yield $M_{\rm jet}^{\rm total} \approx 7.4\times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}$]{}.
Mass loss through the wind
--------------------------
It is generally well known that during active phases the hot components in symbiotic binaries lose their mass in the form of wind. To estimate the rate of the mass loss produced by the active star through the stellar wind, we used the [H$\alpha$]{} method as suggested by [@sk06]. The method assumes that the broad wings are due to kinematics of the photoionized and optically thin stellar wind. Profiles from the maximum were modeled with the same input parameters as those from the 2000-maximum. The disk radius, $R_{\rm D} = 6.4$[$R_{\sun}$]{}, and the disk thickness at its edge, $H$ = 1.92[$R_{\sun}$]{}, were adjusted to the effective radius of the hot object derived from the SED assuming a flared disk with $H/R_{\rm D} = 0.3$. Prior to and after the outburst we used $R_{\rm D} = 3.5$[$R_{\sun}$]{} and $H$ = 1.05[$R_{\sun}$]{}. The results do not depend critically on these parameters. Examples of comparison between the modeled and observed profiles are shown in Figs. 4 and 8. Synthetic profiles fit well the observed wings for $|RV| \ga 300$[kms$^{-1}$]{}. Corresponding mass loss rates through the wind, $\dot M_{\rm W}$ are around 2$\times\,10^{-6}\,M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ (Table 2). Other model parameters are the terminal velocity, which runs between 1500[kms$^{-1}$]{} and 3000[kms$^{-1}$]{}, and the acceleration parameter $\beta \sim 1.7$ [cf. Eq. (2) in @sk06].
It is of interest to note that the observation made just prior to the outbursts (the HET spectrum) revealed a more complex structure in the wind outflow. The $O-C$ plot shows a faint and very broad (FWHM $\approx$ 1200[kms$^{-1}$]{}) emission component superposed on the extended blue [H$\alpha$]{} wing (Fig. 8).
A disk-jet connection
=====================
Observational evidence
----------------------
The red giant in ZAnd loses mass via the wind at $\dot M_{\rm G}\sim 7 \times 10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} [@sk05 Table 3]. According to the recent study on the wind accretion in binary stars [@nagae+04] the WD companion can accrete with efficiency up to 10%, i.e. at $\dot M_{\rm acc}^{\rm wind}
\sim 7 \times 10^{-8}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} during [*quiescent phases*]{} of ZAnd (the total system mass of 3.2[$M_{\sun}$]{} and the wind velocity of 30[kms$^{-1}$]{} at the accretor were adopted). This quantity corresponds to the accretion luminosity of $\sim 70$[$L_{\sun}$]{} (parameters from Sect. 3.6), which is at least a factor of 30 smaller than the observed luminosity of the hot stellar object [e.g. @sk05]. This discrepancy led to suggestion that an additional source of the energy in a form of steadily burning material on the white dwarf surface has to be present [e.g. @mk92].
During the recent active phase, the $\dot M_{\rm jet}$ rate put limits for the accretion rate through the disk, $\dot M_{\rm acc}$, because both the rates are proportional. Typical values of $\dot M_{\rm jet}/\dot M_{\rm acc}$ are in the range 0.01$-$0.3 [e.g. @liz+88; @p93; @livio97], although [@lpk03] found that $\dot M_{\rm jet}$ can almost be equal to $\dot M_{\rm acc}$, if the accretion energy is converted efficiently into magnetic energy and is emitted in the form of a magnetically dominated outflow or jet. Here we will consider the ratio $\dot M_{\rm jet}/\dot M_{\rm acc} \sim 0.1$. Accordingly, the observed $\dot M_{\rm jet} \sim 10^{-6}
(R_{\rm jet}/1\,{\rm AU})^{1/2}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} thus requires $\dot M_{\rm acc} \sim 10^{-5}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{}. Two possible mechanisms how to increase the accretion rate are either a disk instability or an increase in the mass loss rate from the giant. If the latter possibility had been the case, the normal red giant in ZAnd would have increased its $\dot M_{\rm G}$ by 3 orders of magnitude – from a few times $10^{-7}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} during quiescence to $\approx 10^{-4}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} for a short time during the activity, to power the observed jets. This seems to be unlikely. Thus, assuming that $\dot M_{\rm G}$ is more or less constant, a disk instability had to be responsible for the transient, but significant, increase in $\dot M_{\rm acc}$ through the disk. We summarize critical observations supporting this suggestion as follows:
1. The rapid photometric variability originates in the disk (Sects. 3.1 and 3.3). Figure 3 shows the change from an irregular low-amplitude variation prior to the outburst to a slower, but higher-magnitude variation, observed during the maximum when the jets were launched. According to [@s+k03], who examined the disk-jet connection in CHCyg, the disappearance of the fastest variations indicates that the innermost disk was disrupted around the time when the jets were produced. This interpretation is based on the relationship between the disk radius and variability timescale [slower variations come from larger disk radii and vice versa, as summarized by @s+k03]. Also the gas-dynamical modeling of the flow structures during the ZAnd outburst suggested that the sudden increase of the accretion rate could result from the disruption of the disk [@bis+06]. The disk disruption, i.e. the removal of material from its inner parts, implies that the jets were accretion-powered.
2. Dramatic spectroscopic evolution around the optical maximum (2006 July/August), as indicated by complex absorption/emission profiles accompanied by the asymmetric ejection of jets [Fig. 4, Sect. 3.2 here and Fig. 2 in @t+07], could also be a direct result of the disk disruption. It is of interest to note that similar behavior was also observed during CHCyg outbursts in 1982-84, 1992-94 and 1998-00, but on somewhat longer timescales [see Figs. 1 and 4 of @sk+02]. All the outbursts were followed by jet-extended features on the radio images [@crok+01]. However, for ZAnd these features have been recorded for the first time. For example, during its 2000-03 major outburst no jets were present [see @sok+06; @sk+06].
3. Simultaneous presence of both the disk and jets during the period 2006 July – December and their disappearance from 2007 January (Sect. 3.3, Figs. 4 and 5) suggest that bulk of the accretion energy was released in the form of jets. As a result the hot stellar source in ZAnd had reduced its radiation significantly and therefore we observed a rapid decline in the star’s brightness from 2007 January (see Figs. 1 and 5). From this point of view, the absence of jets during the previous (2000-03) major outburst is consistent with a slower decline in the brightness from the 2000-maximum (see Fig. 1) and the disk presence for a longer time [$\sim$1.5 years, @sk+06]. In both the outbursts the presence of a large disk was terminated observationally by a small optical rebrightening accompanied by the emergence of the Raman line [Fig. 5 here and Sect. 3.6 in @sk+06].
We note that the disk-jet connection in ZAnd, as summarized in the points above, has some similarities with a hard state of the microquasar GRS1915+105 as described by [@belloni00] and later discussed by [@lpk03]. For the symbiotic star CHCyg this similarity was pointed out by [@s+k03].
Variation of jets and disk – a self-induced warping of the disk?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The asymmetric jet episode in ZAnd lasted for less than one month – from the jets launching in 2006 July to the beginning of 2006 August (Fig. 6, Sect. 3.4). The velocity asymmetry in jets was so far revealed only for other objects and at significantly larger timescales of years to decades [e.g. @hirth+94; @woitas+02; @lm+03; @namouni]. Thus, the very short duration of the asymmetric jets in ZAnd was probably connected with a disk instability induced during the optical maximum. Qualitatively, the instability could cause different conditions on the accretor’s poles for the ejection of jets. Particularly, the anti-correlation of the opening angles to the jet velocities at the initial stage of the jets launching (Fig. 6) could be a possible cause of the observed jet’s asymmetry. The larger the jet nozzle is, the lower ejection velocity can be expected to drive the jet flow at the same rate (Eq. (4)). This possibility was already suggested by [@hirth+94] for magnetically driven jets if the opening angles are different due to different pressure gradients. The short-term, $\Delta m \sim 0.06$mag, photometric variations represent another type of variability, which developed during the jet ejection (Fig. 3, Sect. 3.1). Their source was associated with the disk (Sect. 3.1). In the previous section we ascribed the evolution in the short-term variability to disruption of the inner parts of the disk.
The origin of both these effects could become better understood by investigating a disk instability due to an increase of the hot component luminosity at the outburst maximum. According to [@p96] irradiation of the disk by the central star can lead an originally planar disk to become twisted and tilted out of the orbital plane. In our case, additional energy liberated during the outburst by thermonuclear burning on the WD surface increases formally the efficiency $\epsilon$ of the accretion process [see Eq. (3.10) in @p97], which then could lead to radiation-driven warping close to the disk’s center even for WD accretors. For ZAnd, the radiation-induced warping occurs at all radii $R \ga 0.6$[$R_{\sun}$]{} for the luminosity of $\sim 10^4$[$L_{\sun}$]{} around the optical maximum [e.g. @sok+06], the mass accretion rate from the wind of $\sim 7\times 10^{-8}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{} (Sect. 4.1) and the WD mass of 0.64[$M_{\sun}$]{} (Sect. 3.6). With respect to the disk radius of $\ga$10[$R_{\sun}$]{} (Sect. 3.1), the warping will act from inner parts of the disk.
However, connections between jets and disk variability in symbiotics have not been studied theoretically in detail yet. Current theories on the warping and wobbling disks were elaborated for different types of objects and are characterized by significantly larger timescales than those suggested by observations of ZAnd [e.g. @p96; @lp97; @wp99].
Summary
=======
The main results of this paper can be summarized as follows:
\(i) Between 2006 July 19 and 28 our photometric monitoring of the prototypical symbiotic star ZAnd revealed the highest maximum of its brightness that has ever been recorded by the multicolor photometry ($U\sim$8.0, Fig. 1). Around the mid of August the brightness declined to $U\sim 9$ and persisted around this level to 2007 January. During this period, rapid photometric variation ($\Delta B \sim \Delta V \sim 0.06$mag) on the timescale of hours developed (Fig. 3).
\(ii) The SED models and spectral characteristics from the optical maximum can be explained by a disk-like structure of the hot active object (Sect. 3.3). The short-term photometric variation was produced by the disk (Sect. 3.1).
\(iii) During the optical maximum a mass ejection from the active object was indicated photometrically through an increase of the nebular emission (Fig. 2) and spectroscopically by the development of complex absorptions on the blue side of the hydrogen and helium lines and a strong S$^{+}$ jet emission (Fig. 4).
\(iv) High velocity satellite components to [H$\alpha$]{} and [H$\beta$]{} emission lines developed in the spectrum from the optical maximum. Their presence in the spectrum was transient. Our first and last detection was on 25/07/2006 and 27/12/2006, respectively. Their spectral properties (Table 2) indicated ejection of highly collimated bipolar jets. We summarize their main characteristics as follows:
1. The jets were asymmetrical in their velocities for less than one month from their launching in 2006 July ($RV_{\rm S^{+}}/RV_{\rm S^{-}}$ = 1.2 – 1.3). After this episode they became suddenly symmetrical until the end of their presence (Fig. 6).
2. The jets were collimated within an average opening angle of 6$\degr$.1 for the orbital inclination $i = 76\degr$ (Sect. 3.5).
3. The average velocity of jets was 4960[kms$^{-1}$]{}. The ratio $v_{\rm jet}/v_{\rm escape} \sim 1$ implies mass of the accreting WD of $\sim 0.64\,M_{\sun}$ (Sect. 3.6).
4. The average outflow rate via jets was $\dot M_{\rm jet}\sim 2\times 10^{-6}
(R_{\rm jet}/1\,{\rm AU})^{1/2}$[$M_{\sun}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$]{}, during their August–September maximum, which corresponds to the emitting mass in jets, $M_{\rm jet}^{\rm em} \sim 6\times 10^{-10}
(R_{\rm jet}/1\,{\rm AU})^{3/2}$[$M_{\sun}$]{} (Sect. 3.8.2).
5. The total mass released by the jets during their detection was approximated to $M_{\rm jet}^{\rm total} \approx 7.4\times 10^{-7}\,M_{\sun}$ (Sect. 3.8.3).
\(v) The short duration of the asymmetry in the jet velocities and evolution in the rapid photometric variability resulted from a disruption of the innermost disk. In particular, we pointed out a possibility of the radiation-induced warping, which can occur close to the disk’s center due to the additional source of energy from the thermonuclear burning on the WD surface. For ZAnd parameters, this type of disk instability could occur at all radii $R \ga 0.6$[$R_{\sun}$]{} from the accretor (Sect. 4.2).
The authors thank Mario Livio for constructive comments that helped improve the clarity of the paper. Dmitri Bisikalo and Drahomír Chochol are thanked for discussions. Martin Vaňko and Pavel Schalling are thanked for taking some photometric observations and Miroslav Šlechta for initial reduction of the spectra taken at the Ondřejov Observatory. This research was supported in part by a grant of the Slovak Academy of Sciences No. 2/7010/27 and by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic, Grant No. 205/06/0217 and 205/08/H005. JB acknowledges the support from the Pennsylvania State University and the [NSF-NATO]{} grant [DGE-0312144]{} and the Marie Curie international reintegration grant MIRG-CT-2007-200297. The Hobby-Eberly Telescope (HET) is a joint project of the University of Texas at Austin, the Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München, and Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. The HET is named in honor of its principal benefactors, William P. Hobby and Robert E. Eberly.
Ionization boundary of jets
===========================
Here we calculate the boundary between the ionized and neutral part of the jet for the case that the sources of both the ionizing photons and particles are located at the central star. The boundary is determined by the locus of points, at which the flux of ionizing photons is balanced by the rate of ionization/recombination acts inside the nebula. Thus the equilibrium condition between the number of ionizing photons $L_{\rm ph}$, emitted into the fraction of the sphere $\Delta\Omega /4\pi$ around the direction of the jet, and the number of recombinations, can be expressed as $$L_{\rm ph}\frac{\Delta\Omega}{4\pi} = \frac{\Delta\Omega}{4\pi}
\int_{0}^{R_{\rm jet}}n_{\rm e}n_{\rm p}
\alpha_{\rm B}(H,T_{\rm e})4\pi r^2 \,{\rm d}r.$$ It is assumed that the ionizing photons are emitted by the central source spherically symmetrically, $\alpha_{\rm B}(H,T_{\rm e})$ stands for the total hydrogenic recombination coefficient in the case $B$, $n_{\rm e}$ and $n_{\rm p}$ are concentrations of electrons and protons and $r$ measures the distance from the central ionizing source along the jet. For the fully ionized hydrogen plasma ($n_{\rm e} = n_{\rm p}$) with a mean particle concentration, $\bar{n}_{\rm jet}$, Eq. (A1) can be integrated to give $$\frac{L_{\rm ph}}{4\pi} = \frac{1}{3}\alpha_{\rm B}(H,T_{\rm e})
\bar{n}_{\rm jet}^2 R_{\rm jet}^3.$$ In the sense of this relation, the radius of the visible part of the jet, $R_{\rm jet}$, represents that of the Strömgren sphere.
Number of ionizing photons
==========================
To determine the total number of photons, $L_{\rm ph}$, capable to ionize neutral hydrogen and helium, emitted by the star of temperature $T$, we integrated the Plank curve from the corresponding ionization limits (i.e. 13.598eV, $\nu_0 = 3.29 \times 10^{15}$s$^{-1}$ and 54.416eV, $\nu_0 = 13.16 \times 10^{15}$s$^{-1}$ for hydrogen and helium, respectively) to $\infty$. Figure 9 shows the $L_{\rm ph}$ quantity as a function of the temperature for a luminosity of the ionizing source of 10000$L_{\sun}$. It is worth to note that the function $L_{\rm ph}(T,H)$ is slightly decreasing from $\sim$73000K to higher temperatures, in spite that the total energy beyond the ionization limit increases. Therefore, irrespective to a large temperature changes between 50000 and 125000K, the number of the hydrogen ionizing photons varies only within 15% of the maximum value at 73000K at a given luminosity (see Fig. 9).
[^1]: See the project homepage http://c-munipack.sourceforge.net/
[^2]: $R_{\rm J}$ fluxes were estimated from the measured $R_{\rm C}$ magnitudes, corrected for the [H$\alpha$]{} emission, using transformations of [@b83] for the less red stars.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the interplay between linear systems on curves and graphs in the context of specialization of divisors on an arithmetic surface. We also provide some applications of our results to graph theory, arithmetic geometry, and tropical geometry.'
address: |
School of Mathematics\
Georgia Institute of Technology\
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0160\
USA
author:
- Matthew Baker
bibliography:
- 'specialization.bib'
date: 'July 5, 2007'
title: Specialization of Linear Systems from Curves to Graphs
---
[^1]
Introduction {#IntroSection}
============
Notation and terminology {#section:Notation}
------------------------
We set the following notation, which will be used throughout the paper unless otherwise noted.
a graph, by which we will mean a finite, unweighted, connected multigraph without loop edges. We let $V(G)$ (resp. $E(G)$) denote the set of vertices (resp. edges) of $G$.
a metric graph (see §\[MetricGraphSection\] for the definition).
the set of “rational points” of $\Gamma$ (see §\[MetricGraphSection\]).
a complete discrete valuation ring with field of fractions $K$ and algebraically closed residue field $k$.
a fixed algebraic closure of $K$.
a smooth, proper, geometrically connected curve over $K$.
a proper model for $X$ over $R$. For simplicity, we assume unless otherwise stated that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, that the irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are all smooth, and that all singularities of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are ordinary double points.
Unless otherwise specified, by a [*smooth curve*]{} we will always mean a smooth, proper, geometrically connected curve over a field, and by an [*arithmetic surface*]{} we will always mean a proper flat scheme of dimension 2 over a discrete valuation ring whose generic fiber is a smooth curve. We will usually, but not always, be working with [*regular*]{} arithmetic surfaces. A [*model*]{} for a smooth curve $X/K$ is an arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ whose generic fiber is $X$. An arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is called [*semistable*]{} if its special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ is reduced and has only ordinary double points as singularities. If in addition the irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are all smooth (so that there are no components with self-crossings), we will say that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is [*strongly semistable*]{}.
Overview
--------
In this paper, we show that there is a close connection between linear systems on a curve $X/K$ and linear systems, in the sense of [@BakerNorine], on the dual graph $G$ of a regular semistable model ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ for $X$. A brief outline of the paper is as follows. In §\[SpecializationSection\], we prove a basic inequality – the “Specialization Lemma” – which says that the dimension of a linear system can only go up under specialization from curves to graphs (see Lemma \[SpecializationLemma\] for the precise statement) . In the rest of the paper, we explore various applications of this fact, illustrating along the way a fruitful interaction between divisors on graphs and curves. The interplay works in both directions: for example, in §\[ApplicationSection\] we use Brill-Noether theory for curves to prove and/or conjecture some new results about graphs (c.f. Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\] and Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\]) and, in the other direction, in §\[WeierstrassSection\] we use the notion of Weierstrass points on graphs to gain new insight into Weierstrass points on curves (c.f. Corollaries \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\] and \[WeierstrassBananaCor\]).
Another fruitful interaction which emerges from our approach is a “machine” for transporting certain theorems about curves from classical to tropical[^2] algebraic geometry. The connection goes through the theory of arithmetic surfaces, by way of the deformation-theoretic result proved in Appendix \[DeformationTheorySection\], and uses the approximation method introduced in [@GathmannKerber] to pass from $\QQ$-graphs to arbitrary metric graphs, and finally to tropical curves. As an illustration of this machine, we prove an analogue for tropical curves (c.f. Theorem \[TropicalBrillNoetherTheorem\] below) of the classical fact that if $g,r,d$ are nonnegative integers for which the Brill-Noether number $\rho(g,r,d) := g - (r+1)(g-d+r)$ is nonnegative, then on every smooth curve $X/\CC$ of genus $g$ there is a divisor $D$ with $\dim |D| = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$. We also prove, just as in the classical case of algebraic curves, that there exist Weierstrass points on every tropical curve of genus $g \geq 2$ (c.f. Theorem \[WeierstrassExistenceTheorem\]).
We conclude the paper with two appendices which can be read independently of the rest of the paper. In Appendix \[RaynaudAppendix\], we provide a reformulation of certain parts of Raynaud’s theory of “specialization of the Picard functor” [@RaynaudPicard] in terms of linear systems on graphs. We also point out some useful consequences of Raynaud’s results for which we do not know any references. Although we do not actually use Raynaud’s results in the body of the paper, it should be useful for future work on the interplay between curves and graphs to highlight the compatibility between Raynaud’s theory and our notion of linear equivalence on graphs. Appendix \[DeformationTheorySection\], written by Brian Conrad, discusses a result from the deformation theory of stable marked curves which implies that every finite graph occurs as the dual graph of a regular semistable model for some smooth curve $X/K$ with totally degenerate special fiber. This result, which seems known to the experts but for which we could not find a suitable reference, is used several times throughout the main body of the paper.
Divisors and linear systems on graphs {#GraphDivisorSection}
-------------------------------------
By a [*graph*]{}, we will always mean a finite, connected multigraph without loop edges. Let $G$ be a graph, and let $V(G)$ (resp. $E(G)$) denote the set of vertices (resp. edges) of $G$. We let ${\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ denote the free abelian group on $V(G)$, and refer to elements of ${\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ as [*divisors*]{} on $G$. We can write each divisor on $G$ as $D = \sum_{v \in V(G)} a_v (v)$ with $a_v \in \ZZ$, and we will say that $D \geq 0$ if $a_v \geq 0$ for all $v \in V(G)$. We define $\deg(D) = \sum_{v \in V(G)} a_v$ to be the [*degree*]{} of $D$. We let ${\operatorname{Div}}_+(G) = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G) \; : \; E \geq 0 \}$ denote the set of [*effective*]{} divisors on $G$, and we let ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ denote the set of divisors of degree zero on $G$. Finally, we let ${\operatorname{Div}}_+^d(G)$ denote the set of effective divisors of degree $d$ on $G$.
Let ${{\mathcal M}}(G)$ be the group of $\ZZ$-valued functions on $V(G)$, and define the Laplacian operator $\Delta : {{\mathcal M}}(G) \to {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ by $$\Delta(\varphi) = \sum_{v \in V(G)} \sum_{e = vw \in E(G)}
\left(\varphi(v) - \varphi(w) \right)(v).$$ We let $${\operatorname{Prin}}(G) = \Delta({{\mathcal M}}(G)) \subseteq {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$$ be the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ consisting of [*principal divisors*]{}.
If $D,D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$, we write $D \sim D'$ if $D - D' \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$, and set $$|D| = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G) \; : \; E \geq 0 \textrm{ and } E \sim D \}.$$ We refer to $|D|$ as the [*(complete) linear system*]{} associated to $D$, and call divisors $D,D'$ with $D \sim D'$ [*linearly equivalent*]{}.
Given a divisor $D$ on $G$, define $r(D) = -1$ if $|D| = \emptyset$, and otherwise set $$r(D) = \max \{ k \in \ZZ \; : \; |D - E| \neq \emptyset \; \forall \; E \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+^k(G)
\}.$$ Note that $r(D)$ depends only on the linear equivalence class of $D$, and therefore can be thought of as an invariant of the complete linear system $|D|$.
When we wish to emphasize the underlying graph $G$, we will sometimes write $r_G(D)$ instead of $r(D)$.
We define the [*canonical divisor*]{} on $G$ to be $$K_G = \sum_{v \in V(G)} (\deg(v) - 2)(v).$$ We have $\deg(K_G) = 2g-2$, where $g = |E(G)| - |V(G)| + 1$ is the [*genus*]{} (or [*cyclomatic number*]{}) of $G$.
The Riemann-Roch theorem for graphs, proved in [@BakerNorine Theorem 1.12], is the following assertion:
\[GraphRiemannRoch\] Let $D$ be a divisor on a graph $G$. Then $$r(D) - r(K_G - D) = \deg(D) + 1 - g.$$
One of the main ingredients in the proof of Theorem \[GraphRiemannRoch\] is the following result [@BakerNorine Theorem 3.3], which is also quite useful for computing $r(D)$ in specific examples. For each linear ordering $<$ of the vertices of $G$, we define a corresponding divisor $\nu \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ of degree $g-1$ by the formula $$\nu = \sum_{v \in V(G)}(|\{e = vw \in E(G) \; : \; w < v \}| - 1)(v).$$
Then:
\[OrderTheorem\] For every $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$, exactly one of the following holds:
- $r(D) \ge 0$; or
- $r(\nu - D) \ge 0$ for some divisor $\nu$ associated to a linear ordering $<$ of $V(G)$.
Subdivisions, metric graphs, and $\QQ$-graphs {#MetricGraphSection}
---------------------------------------------
By a [*weighted graph*]{}, we will mean a graph in which each edge is assigned a positive real number called the [*length*]{} of the edge. Following the terminology of [@BF], a [*metric graph*]{} (or [*metrized graph*]{}) is a compact, connected metric space $\Gamma$ which arises by viewing the edges of a weighted graph $G$ as line segments. Somewhat more formally, a metric graph should be thought of as corresponding to an [*equivalence class*]{} of weighted graphs, where two weighted graphs $G$ and $G'$ are [*equivalent*]{} if they admit a common refinement. (A [*refinement*]{} of $G$ is any weighted graph obtained by subdividing the edges of $G$ in a length-preserving fashion.) A weighted graph $G$ in the equivalence class corresponding to $\Gamma$ is called a [*model*]{} for $\Gamma$. Under the correspondence between equivalence classes of weighted graphs and metric graphs, after choosing an orientation, each edge $e$ in the model $G$ can be identified with the real interval $[0,\ell(e)] \subseteq \Gamma$.
We let ${\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ denote the free abelian group on the points of the metric space $\Gamma$, and refer to elements of ${\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ as [*divisors*]{} on $\Gamma$. We can write an element $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ as $D = \sum_{P \in \Gamma} a_P (P)$ with $a_P \in \ZZ$ for all $P$ and $a_P = 0$ for all but finitely many $P$. We will say that $D \geq 0$ if $a_P \geq 0$ for all $P \in \Gamma$. We let $\deg(D) = \sum_{P \in \Gamma} a_P$ be the [*degree*]{} of $D$, we let ${\operatorname{Div}}_+(\Gamma) = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma) \; : \; E \geq 0 \}$ denote the set of [*effective*]{} divisors on $\Gamma$, and we let ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(\Gamma)$ denote the subgroup of divisors of degree zero on $\Gamma$. Finally, we let ${\operatorname{Div}}_+^d(\Gamma)$ denote the set of effective divisors of degree $d$ on $\Gamma$.
Following [@GathmannKerber], a [*$\QQ$-graph*]{} is a metric graph $\Gamma$ having a model $G$ whose edge lengths are rational numbers. We call such a model a [*rational model*]{} for $\Gamma$. An ordinary unweighted graph $G$ can be thought of as a $\QQ$-graph whose edge lengths are all 1. We denote by $\Gamma_{\QQ}$ the set of points of $\Gamma$ whose distance from every vertex of $G$ is rational; we call elements of $\Gamma_{\QQ}$ [*rational points*]{} of $\Gamma$. It is immediate that the set $\Gamma_{\QQ}$ does not depend on the choice of a rational model $G$ for $\Gamma$. We let ${\operatorname{Div}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ be the free abelian group on $\Gamma_{\QQ}$, and refer to elements of ${\operatorname{Div}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ as [*$\QQ$-divisors*]{} on $\Gamma$.
A [*rational function*]{} on a metric graph $\Gamma$ is a continuous, piecewise affine function $f : \Gamma \to \RR$, all of whose slopes are integers. We let ${{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma)$ denote the space of rational functions on $\Gamma$. The [*divisor*]{} of a rational function $f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma)$ is defined[^3] to be $$(f) = - \sum_{P \in \Gamma} \sigma_P(f) (P),$$ where $\sigma_P(f)$ is the sum of the slopes of $\Gamma$ in all directions emanating from $P$. We let ${\operatorname{Prin}}(\Gamma) = \{ (f) \; : \; f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma) \}$ be the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ consisting of [*principal divisors*]{}. It follows from Corollary 1 in [@BF] that $(f)$ has degree zero for all $f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma)$, i.e., ${\operatorname{Prin}}(\Gamma) \subseteq {\operatorname{Div}}^0(\Gamma)$.
If $\Gamma$ is a $\QQ$-graph, we denote by ${\operatorname{Prin}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ the group of principal divisors supported on $\Gamma_{\QQ}$.
\[LaplacianRemark\] As explained in [@BF], if we identify a rational function $f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma)$ with its restriction to the vertices of any model $G$ for which $f$ is affine along each edge of $G$, then $(f)$ can be naturally identified with the [*weighted combinatorial Laplacian*]{} $\Delta(f)$ of $f$ on $G$.
If $D,D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$, we write $D \sim D'$ if $D - D' \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(\Gamma)$, and set $$|D|_{\QQ} = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) \; : \; E \geq 0 \textrm{ and } E \sim D \}$$ and $$|D| = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma) \; : \; E \geq 0 \textrm{ and } E \sim D \}.$$
It is straightforward using Remark \[LaplacianRemark\] to show that if $G$ is a graph and $\Gamma$ is the corresponding $\QQ$-graph all of whose edge lengths are 1, then two divisors $D,D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ are equivalent on $G$ (in the sense of §\[GraphDivisorSection\]) if and only they are equivalent on $\Gamma$ in the sense just defined.
Given a $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$ and a $\QQ$-divisor $D$ on $\Gamma$, define $r_{\QQ}(D) = -1$ if $|D|_{\QQ} = \emptyset$, and otherwise set $$r_{\QQ}(D) = \max \{ k \in \ZZ \; : \; |D - E|_{\QQ} \neq \emptyset \; \forall \; E \in {\operatorname{Div}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) \textrm{ with } E \geq 0, \,
\deg(E) = k \}.$$ Similarly, given an arbitrary metric graph $\Gamma$ and a divisor $D$ on $\Gamma$, we define $r_{\Gamma}(D) = -1$ if $|D| = \emptyset$, and otherwise set $$r_{\Gamma}(D) = \max \{ k \in \ZZ \; : \; |D - E| \neq \emptyset \; \forall \; E \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+^k(\Gamma) \}.$$
Let $k$ be a positive integer, and let $\sigma_k(G)$ be the graph obtained from the (ordinary unweighted) graph $G$ by subdividing each edge of $G$ into $k$ edges. A divisor $D$ on $G$ can also be thought of as a divisor on $\sigma_k(G)$ for all $k\geq 1$ in the obvious way. The following recent combinatorial result [@HKN], which had been conjectured by the author, relates the quantities $r(D)$ on $G$ and $\sigma_k(G)$:
\[SubdivisionTheorem\] Let $G$ be a graph. If $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$, then for every integer $k \geq 1$, we have $$r_G(D) = r_{\sigma_k(G)}(D).$$
When working with metric graphs, if $\Gamma$ is the metric graph corresponding to $G$ (in which every edge of $G$ has length 1), then we will usually think of each edge of $\sigma_k(G)$ as having length $1/k$; in this way, each finite graph $\sigma_k(G)$ can be viewed as a model for the same underlying metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$.
It is evident from the definitions that $r_{\QQ}(D)$ and $r_\Gamma(D)$ do not change if the length of every edge in (some model for) $\Gamma$ is multiplied by a positive integer $k$. Using this observation, together with Proposition 2.4 of [@GathmannKerber], one deduces from Theorem \[SubdivisionTheorem\] the following result:
\[SubdivisionCorollary\] If $G$ is a graph and $\Gamma$ is the corresponding metric $\QQ$-graph in which every edge of $G$ has length 1, then for every divisor $D$ on $G$ we have $$\label{eq:RankInvariance}
r_G(D) = r_{\QQ}(D) = r_{\Gamma}(D).$$
By Corollary \[SubdivisionCorollary\], we may unambiguously write $r(D)$ to refer to any of the three quantities appearing in (\[eq:RankInvariance\]).
Our only use of Theorem \[SubdivisionTheorem\] in this paper, other than the notational convenience of not having to worry about the distinction between $r_{\QQ}(D)$ and $r_G(D)$, will be in Remark \[WeierstrassSubdivisionRemark\]. In practice, however, Theorem \[SubdivisionTheorem\] is quite useful, since without it there is no obvious way to calculate the quantity $r_{\QQ}(D)$ for a divisor $D$ on a metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$.
On the other hand, we [*will*]{} make use of the equality $r_{\QQ}(D) = r_{\Gamma}(D)$ given by [@GathmannKerber Proposition 2.4] when we develop a machine for deducing theorems about metric graphs from the corresponding results for $\QQ$-graphs (c.f. §\[TropicalBrillNoetherSection\]).
Finally, we recall the statement of the Riemann-Roch theorem for metric graphs. Define the [*canonical divisor*]{} on $\Gamma$ to be $$K_\Gamma = \sum_{v \in V(G)} (\deg(v) - 2)(v)$$ for any model $G$ of $\Gamma$. It is easy to see that $K_\Gamma$ is independent of the choice of a model $G$, and that $\deg(K_\Gamma) = 2g-2$, where $g = |E(G)| - |V(G)| + 1$ is the [*genus*]{} (or [*cyclomatic number*]{}) of $\Gamma$.
The following result is proved in [@GathmannKerber] and [@MikhalkinZharkov]:
\[MetricGraphRiemannRoch\] Let $D$ be a divisor on a metric graph $\Gamma$. Then $$\label{eq:MetricRR}
r_{\Gamma}(D) - r_{\Gamma}(K_\Gamma - D) = \deg(D) + 1 - g.$$
By Corollary \[SubdivisionCorollary\], there is a natural ‘compatibility’ between Theorems \[GraphRiemannRoch\] and \[MetricGraphRiemannRoch\].
Tropical curves {#TropicalCurveSection}
---------------
Tropical geometry is a relatively recent and highly active area of research, and in dimension one it is closely connected with the theory of metric graphs as discussed in the previous section. For the sake of brevity, we adopt a rather minimalist view of tropical curves in this paper – the interested reader should see [@GathmannKerber; @MikhalkinICM; @MikhalkinZharkov] for motivation and a more extensive discussion.
Following [@GathmannKerber §[1]{}], we define a [*tropical curve*]{} to be a “metric graph with possibly unbounded ends”. In other words, the only difference between a tropical curve $\tilde{\Gamma}$ and a metric graph $\Gamma$ is that we allow finitely many edges of $\tilde{\Gamma}$ to have infinite length.[^4] We assume that each unbounded edge of $\tilde{\Gamma}$ can be identified with the extended real interval $[0,\infty]$ in such a way that the $\infty$ end of the edge has valence 1. Note that every metric graph is also a tropical curve.
One can define divisors, rational functions, and linear equivalence for tropical curves exactly as we have done in §\[MetricGraphSection\] for metric graphs; see [@GathmannKerber §1 and Definition 3.2] for details. (The only real difference is that one must allow a rational function to take the values $\pm\infty$ at the unbounded ends of $\tilde{\Gamma}$.) Using the tropical notion of linear equivalence, one defines $r_{\tilde{\Gamma}}(D)$ for divisors on tropical curves just as we defined $r_{\Gamma}(D)$ in §\[MetricGraphSection\] for divisors on metric graphs. With these definitions in place, the Riemann-Roch formula (\[eq:MetricRR\]) holds in the context of tropical curves, a result which can be deduced easily from Theorem \[MetricGraphRiemannRoch\] (see [@GathmannKerber §[3]{}] for details).
The Specialization Lemma {#SpecializationSection}
========================
In this section, we investigate the behavior of the quantity $r(D)$ under specialization from curves to graphs. In order to make this precise, we first need to introduce some notation and background facts concerning divisors on arithmetic surfaces.
The specialization map
----------------------
Let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with field of fractions $K$ and algebraically closed residue field $k$. Let $X$ be a smooth curve over $K$, and let ${{\mathfrak X}}/ R$ be a strongly semistable regular model for $X$ with special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ (see §\[section:Notation\]). We let ${{\mathcal C}}= \{ C_1,\ldots,C_n \}$ be the set of irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$.
Let $G$ be the [*dual graph*]{} of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, i.e., $G$ is the finite graph whose vertices $v_i$ correspond to the irreducible components $C_i$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, and whose edges correspond to intersections between these components (so that there is one edge between $v_i$ and $v_j$ for each point of intersection between $C_i$ and $C_j$). The assumption that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is strongly semistable implies that $G$ is well-defined and has no loop edges.
We let ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$) be the group of Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. on ${{\mathfrak X}}$); since $X$ is smooth and ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak X}}$) are the same as Weil divisors. Recall that when $K$ is perfect, ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ can be identified with the group of ${\operatorname{Gal}}({{\bar K}}/K)$-invariant elements of the free abelian group ${\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}}))$ on $X({{\bar K}})$.
We also let ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Prin}}({{\mathfrak X}})$) denote the group of principal Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak X}}$).
There is a natural inclusion ${{\mathcal C}}\subset {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$, and an intersection pairing $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal C}}\times {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}}) &\to \ZZ \\
(C_i, {{\mathcal D}}) &\mapsto (C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $(C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}}) = \deg({{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathfrak X}}}({{\mathcal D}})|_{C_i})$.
The intersection pairing gives rise to a homomorphism $\rho : {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}}) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ by the formula $$\rho({{\mathcal D}}) = \sum_{v_i \in G} (C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}}) (v_i).$$ (If we wish to emphasize the dependence on the ground field $K$, we will sometimes write $\rho_K({{\mathcal D}})$ instead of $\rho({{\mathcal D}})$.) We call the homomorphism $\rho$ the [*specialization map*]{}. By intersection theory, the group ${\operatorname{Prin}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ is contained in the kernel of $\rho$.
The Zariski closure in ${{\mathfrak X}}$ of an effective divisor on $X$ is a Cartier divisor. Extending by linearity, we can associate to each $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ a Cartier divisor ${{\rm cl}}(D)$ on ${{\mathfrak X}}$, which we refer to as the [*Zariski closure*]{} of $D$. By abuse of terminology, we will also denote by $\rho$ the composition of $\rho : {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}}) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ with the map ${\rm cl}$. By construction, if $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ is [*effective*]{}, then $\rho(D)$ is an effective divisor on $G$. Furthermore, $\rho: {\operatorname{Div}}(X) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ is a degree-preserving homomorphism.
A divisor ${{\mathcal D}}\in {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ is called [*vertical*]{} if it is supported on ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, and [*horizontal*]{} if it is the Zariski closure of a divisor on $X$. If ${{\mathcal D}}$ is a vertical divisor, then $\rho({{\mathcal D}}) \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$; this follows from the fact that $\rho(C_i)$ is the negative Laplacian of the characteristic function of the vertex $v_i$. Since every divisor ${{\mathcal D}}\in {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ can be written uniquely as ${{\mathcal D}}_h + {{\mathcal D}}_v$ with ${{\mathcal D}}_h$ horizontal and ${{\mathcal D}}_v$ vertical, it follows that $\rho({{\mathcal D}})$ and $\rho({{\mathcal D}}_h)$ are linearly equivalent divisors on $G$.
Consequently, if $D \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$, then although the horizontal divisor ${{\mathcal D}}:= {{\rm cl}}(D)$ may not belong to ${\operatorname{Prin}}({{\mathfrak X}})$, it differs from a principal divisor ${{\mathcal D}}' \in {\operatorname{Prin}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ by a vertical divisor ${{\mathcal F}}\in {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ for which $\rho({{\mathcal F}}) \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$. Thus we deduce the following basic fact:
\[PrincipalSpecializationLemma\] If $D \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$, then $\rho(D) \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$.
When $D$ corresponds to a Weil divisor $\sum_{P \in X(K)} n_P(P)$ supported on $X(K)$, there is another, more concrete, description of the map $\rho$. Since ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, each point $P \in X(K)={{\mathfrak X}}(R)$ specializes to a nonsingular point of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, and hence to a well-defined irreducible component $c(P) \in {{\mathcal C}}$, which we may identify with a vertex $v(P) \in V(G)$. Then by [@Liu Corollary 9.1.32], we have $$\label{ConcreteRho}
\rho(D) = \sum_P n_P (v(P)).$$
\[SurjectivityRemark\] Since the natural map from $X(K)={{\mathfrak X}}(R)$ to the smooth locus of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k(k)$ is surjective (see, e.g., Proposition 10.1.40(b) of [@Liu]), it follows from (\[ConcreteRho\]) that $\rho : {\operatorname{Div}}(X) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ is surjective. In fact, this implies the stronger fact that the restriction of $\rho$ to $X(K) \subseteq {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ is surjective.
Behavior of $r(D)$ under specialization {#SpecializationSubsection}
---------------------------------------
Let $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, and let ${{\bar{D}}}= \rho(D) \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ be its specialization to $G$. We want to compare the dimension of the complete linear system $|D|$ on $X$ (in the sense of classical algebraic geometry) with the quantity $r({{\bar{D}}})$ defined in §\[GraphDivisorSection\]. In order to do this, we first need some simple facts about linear systems on curves.
We temporarily suspend our convention that $K$ denotes the field of fractions of a discrete valuation ring $R$, and allow $K$ to be an arbitrary field, with $X$ still denoting a smooth curve over $K$. We let ${\operatorname{Div}}(X(K))$ denote the free abelian group on $X(K)$, which we can view in a natural way as a subgroup of ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$. For $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, let $|D| = \{ E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X) \; : \; E \geq 0, \; E \sim D \}$. Set $r(D) = -1$ if $|D| = \emptyset$, and otherwise put $$r_{X(K)}(D) := \max \{ k \in \ZZ \; : \; |D - E| \neq \emptyset \; \forall \; E \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+^k(X(K)) \}.\\
$$
\[CurveRankLemma\] Let $X$ be a smooth curve over a field $K$, and assume that $X(K)$ is infinite. Then for $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, we have $r_{X(K)}(D) = \dim_K L(D) - 1$, where $L(D) = \{ f \in K(X) \; : \; (f) + D \geq 0 \} \cup \{ 0 \}$.
It is well-known that $\dim L(D-P) \geq \dim L(D) - 1$ for all $P \in X(K)$. If $\dim L(D) \geq k+1$, it follows that for any points $P_1,\ldots,P_k \in X(K)$ we have $\dim L(D-P_1-\cdots-P_k) \geq 1$, so that $L(D-P_1-\cdots-P_k) \neq (0)$ and $|D-P_1-\cdots-P_k| \neq \emptyset$.
Conversely, we prove by induction on $k$ that if $\dim L(D) = k$, then there exist $P_1,\ldots,P_k \in X(K)$ such that $L(D-P_1-\cdots-P_k) = (0)$, i.e., $|D-P_1-\cdots-P_k| = \emptyset$. This is clearly true for the base case $k = 0$. Suppose $\dim L(D) = k \geq 1$, and choose a nonzero rational function $f \in L(D)$. Since $f$ has only finitely many zeros and $X(K)$ is infinite, there exists $P = P_1 \in X(K)$ for which $f(P) \neq 0$. It follows that $L(D-P) \subsetneq L(D)$, so that $\dim L(D-P) = k-1$. By induction, there exist $P_2,\ldots,P_{k} \in X(K)$ such that $|D-P-P_2\cdots-P_k| = \emptyset$, which proves what we want.
Since $\dim L(D)$ remains constant under base change by an arbitrary field extension $K'/K$, we conclude:
\[CurveRankCor\] Let $X$ be a smooth curve over a field $K$, and assume that $X(K)$ is infinite. Let $K'$ be any extension field. Then for $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, we have $r_{X(K)}(D) = r_{X(K')}(D)$.
In view of Lemma \[CurveRankLemma\] and Corollary \[CurveRankCor\], we will simply write $r_X(D)$, or even just $r(D)$, to denote the quantity $r_{X(K)}(D) = \dim_K L(D) - 1$.
\[CurveGenericPointLemma\] Let $X$ be a smooth curve over a field $K$, and assume that $X(K)$ is infinite. If $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, then $r(D - P) \geq r(D) - 1$ for all $P \in X(K)$, and if $r(D) \geq 0$, then $r(D-P) = r(D) - 1$ for some $P \in X(K)$.
Let $k = r(D)$. The result is clear for $r(D) \leq 0$, so we may assume that $k \geq 1$. If $P = P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_{k} \in X(K)$ are arbitrary, then since $r(D) \geq k$, we have $$|D - P - P_2 - \cdots - P_k| \neq \emptyset,$$ and therefore $r(D - P) \geq k-1$. Also, since $r(D) = k$, it follows that there exist $P=P_1,P_2,\ldots,P_{k+1} \in X(K)$ such that $$|D - P - P_2 - \cdots - P_{k+1}| = \emptyset,$$ and therefore $r(D-P) \leq k-1$ for this particular choice of $P$.
The same proof shows that an analogous result holds in the context of graphs:
\[GraphGenericPointLemma\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$. Then $r(D - P) \geq r(D) - 1$ for all $P \in V(G)$, and if $r(D) \geq 0$, then $r(D-P) = r(D) - 1$ for some $P \in V(G)$.
We now come to the main result of this section. Returning to our conventional notation, we let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with field of fractions $K$ and algebraically closed residue field $k$. We let $X$ be a smooth curve over $K$, and let ${{\mathfrak X}}/ R$ be a strongly semistable regular model for $X$ with special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$.
\[SpecializationLemma\] For all $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$, we have $$r_G(\rho(D)) \geq r_X(D).$$
Let ${{\bar{D}}}:= \rho(D)$. We prove by induction on $k$ that if $r_X(D) \geq k$, then $r_G({{\bar{D}}}) \geq k$ as well. The base case $k = -1$ is obvious. Now suppose $k = 0$, so that $r_X(D) \geq 0$. Then there exists an effective divisor $E \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ with $D \sim E$, so that $D - E \in {\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$. Since $\rho$ is a homomorphism and takes principal (resp. effective) divisors on $X$ to principal (resp. effective) divisors on $G$, we have ${{\bar{D}}}= \rho(D) \sim \rho(E) \geq 0$, so that $r_G({{\bar{D}}}) \geq 0$ as well.
We may therefore assume that $k \geq 1$. Let ${{\bar{P}}}\in V(G)$ be arbitrary. By Remark \[SurjectivityRemark\], there exists $P \in X(K)$ such that $\rho(P) = {{\bar{P}}}$. Then $r_X(D - P) \geq k-1$, so by induction we have $r_G({{\bar{D}}}- {{\bar{P}}}) \geq k-1$ as well (and in particular, $r_G({{\bar{D}}}) \geq 0$). Since this is true for all ${{\bar{P}}}\in V(G)$, it follows from Lemma \[GraphGenericPointLemma\] that $r_G({{\bar{D}}}) \geq k$ as desired.
Compatibility with base change
------------------------------
Let $K'/K$ be a finite extension, let $R'$ be the valuation ring of $K'$, and let $X_{K'} := X \times_K K'$. It is known that there is a unique [*relatively minimal*]{} regular semistable model ${{\mathfrak X}}'/R'$ which dominates ${{\mathfrak X}}$, and the dual graph $G'$ of the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ is isomorphic to $\sigma_e(G)$, where $e$ is the ramification index of $K'/K$. If we assign a length of $1/e$ to each edge of $G'$, then the corresponding [*metric graph*]{} is the same for all finite extensions $K'/K$. In other words, $G$ and $G'$ are different models for the same metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$, which we call the [*reduction graph*]{} associated to the model ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ (see [@CR] for further discussion).
The discussion in [@CR], together with (\[ConcreteRho\]), shows that there is a unique surjective map $\tau : X({{\bar K}}) \to \Gamma_{\QQ}$ for which the induced homomorphism $$\tau_* : {\operatorname{Div}}(X_{{{\bar K}}}) \cong {\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}})) \to {\operatorname{Div}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$$ is compatible with $\rho$, in the sense that for $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X(K'))$, we have $\tau_*(D) = \rho_{K'}(D)$. Concretely, if $K'/K$ is a finite extension and $P \in X(K')$, then $\tau(P)$ is the point of $\Gamma_{\QQ}$ corresponding to the irreducible component of the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ to which $P$ specializes.
In general, for $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X) \subseteq {\operatorname{Div}}(X_{{{\bar K}}})$ we will not always have $\rho(D) = \tau_*(D)$, but $\rho(D)$ and $\tau_*(D)$ will at least be linearly equivalent as divisors on the metric graph $\Gamma$. (This is a consequence of standard facts from arithmetic intersection theory, e.g., Propositions 9.2.15 and 9.2.23 of [@Liu].)
From the discussion in §\[MetricGraphSection\], we deduce from the proof of Lemma \[SpecializationLemma\]:
\[SpecializationBaseChangeCor\] Let $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X_{{{\bar K}}})$. Then $$r_{\QQ}(\tau_*(D)) \geq r_X(D).$$
For the reader familiar with Berkovich’s theory of analytic spaces [@BerkovichBook], the following remark may be helpful. The metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$ can be identified with the [*skeleton*]{} of the formal model associated to ${{\mathfrak X}}$, and the map $\tau : X({{\bar K}}) \to \Gamma_{\QQ}$ can be identified with the restriction to $X({{\bar K}}) \subset X^{{{\rm an}}}$ of the natural deformation retraction $X^{{{\rm an}}} {\twoheadrightarrow}\Gamma$, where $X^{{{\rm an}}}$ denotes the Berkovich $K$-analytic space associated to $X$.
Some applications of the specialization lemma {#ApplicationSection}
=============================================
Specialization of $g^r_d$’s
---------------------------
Recall that a [*complete $g^r_d$*]{} on $X/K$ is defined to be a complete linear system $|D|$ with $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X_{{{\bar K}}})$, $\deg(D) = d$, and $r(D) = r$. For simplicity, we will omit the word “complete” and just refer to such a linear system as a $g^r_d$. A $g^r_d$ is called [*$K$-rational*]{} if we can choose the divisor $D$ to lie in ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$.
By analogy, we define a $g^r_d$ on a graph $G$ (resp. a metric graph $\Gamma$) to be a complete linear system $|D|$ with $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ (resp. $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$) such that $\deg(D) = d$ and $r(D) = r$. Also, we will denote by $g^r_{\leq d}$ (resp. $g^{\geq r}_d$) a complete linear system $|D|$ with $\deg(D) \leq d$ and $r(D) = r$ (resp. $\deg(D) = d$ and $r(D) \geq r$).
As an immediate consequence of Lemma \[SpecializationLemma\] and Corollary \[SpecializationBaseChangeCor\], we obtain:
\[grdcor\] Let $X$ be a smooth curve over $K$, and let ${{\mathfrak X}}/ R$ be a strongly semistable regular model for $X$ with special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$. Let $G$ be the dual graph of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, and let $\Gamma$ be the corresponding metric graph. If there exists a $K$-rational $g^r_d$ on $X$, then there exists a $g^{\geq r}_d$ and a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on $G$. Similarly, if there exists a $g^r_d$ on $X$, then there exists a $g^{\geq r}_d$ and a $g^{r}_{\leq d}$ on $\Gamma$.
This result places restrictions on the possible graphs which can appear as the dual graph of some regular model of a given curve $X/K$.
In the particular case $r=1$, we refer to the smallest positive integer $d$ for which there exists a $g^1_d$ (resp. a $K$-rational $g^1_d$) on $X$ as the [*gonality*]{} (resp. [*$K$-gonality*]{}) of $X$.
Similarly, we define the [*gonality*]{} of a graph $G$ (resp. a metric graph $\Gamma$) to be the smallest positive integer $d$ for which there exists a $g^1_d$ on $G$ (resp. $\Gamma$).
As a special case of Corollary \[grdcor\], we have:
\[gonalitycor\] The gonality of $G$ (resp. $\Gamma$) is at most the $K$-gonality (resp. gonality) of $X$.
Let $K_n$ denote the complete graph on $n\geq 2$ vertices.
[**Claim:**]{} The gonality of $K_n$ is equal to $n-1$.
Indeed, let $D = \sum a_v(v)$ be an effective divisor of degree at most $n-2$ on $K_n$, and label the vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ of $G$ so that $a_{v_1} \leq \cdots \leq a_{v_n}$. Then it is easy to see that $a_{v_1} = 0$ and $a_{v_i} \leq i-2$ for all $2 \leq i \leq n$. If $\nu$ is the divisor associated to the linear ordering $v_1 < \cdots < v_n$ of $V(K_n)$, it follows that $D - (v_1) \leq \nu$, so that $r(D - (v_1)) = -1$ by Theorem \[OrderTheorem\]. In particular, we have $r(D) \leq 0$, and thus the gonality of $K_n$ is at least $n-1$. On the other hand, for any vertex $v_0 \in V(K_n)$, the divisor $$D = \sum_{v \in V(K_n) \backslash \{ v_0 \} } (v)
$$ has degree $n-1$ and rank at least $1$, since $D - (v_0) \sim (n-2)(v_0)$.
It follows from Corollary \[gonalitycor\] that if $X/K$ has $K$-gonality at most $n-2$, then no regular model ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ for $X$ can have $K_n$ as its dual graph. For example, $K_4$ cannot be the dual graph of any regular model of a hyperelliptic curve $X/K$.
Hyperelliptic graphs
--------------------
Focusing now on the special case $d=2$, we recall from [@Hartshorne §[IV.5]{}] that a smooth curve $X/K$ of genus $g$ is called [*hyperelliptic*]{} if $g\geq 2$ and there exists a $g^1_2$ on $X$. If such a $g^1_2$ exists, it is automatically unique and $K$-rational.
Similarly, we say that a graph $G$ (resp. a metric graph $\Gamma$) of genus $g$ is [*hyperelliptic*]{} if $g \geq 2$ and there exists a $g^1_2$ on $G$ (resp. $\Gamma$).
One can show that if such a $g^1_2$ exists, it is automatically unique. Also, if $G$ is 2-edge-connected of genus at least $2$, then $G$ is hyperelliptic if and only if there is an involution $h$ on $G$ for which the quotient graph $G/{{\langle}}h {{\rangle}}$ is a tree. These and other matters are discussed in [@BakerNorine2].
By Clifford’s theorem for graphs [@BakerNorine Corollary 3.5], if $g \geq 2$ and $D$ is a divisor of degree 2 on $G$ with $r(D) \geq 1$, then in fact $r(D) = 1$, and thus $G$ is hyperelliptic. Combining this observation with Corollary \[grdcor\], we find:
\[HyperellipticCorollary\] If $X$ is hyperelliptic and $G$ has genus at least $2$, then $G$ is hyperelliptic as well.
The converse of Corollary \[HyperellipticCorollary\] is false, as the following example shows.
\[BananaExample\]
1\. Let $G = B_n$ be the “banana graph” of genus $n-1$ consisting of 2 vertices $Q_1,Q_2$ connected by $n\geq 3$ edges. Then the divisor $D = (Q_1)+(Q_2)$ on $G$ has degree 2 and $r(D) = 1$, so $G$ is hyperelliptic. On the other hand, there are certainly non-hyperelliptic curves $X$ possessing a regular strongly semistable model with dual graph $G$. For example, let $p \equiv 1 \pmod{12}$ be prime, and let $K = \QQ_p^{{{\rm nr}}}$ be the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $\QQ_p$. Then the modular curve $X_0(p)$ has a regular semistable model over $K$ (the “Deligne-Rapoport model” [@DeligneRapoport]) whose dual graph is isomorphic to $B_n$ with $n = (p-1)/12$. However, by a result of Ogg [@OggHyperelliptic], $X_0(p)$ is never hyperelliptic when $p>71$.
2\. More generally, let $G = B(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_n)$ be the graph obtained by subdividing the $i^{\rm th}$ edge of $B_n$ into $\ell_i$ edges for $1 \leq i \leq n$ (so that $B(1,1,\ldots,1) = B_n$). Then one easily checks that $|(Q_1)+(Q_2)|$ is still a $g^1_2$, so that $G$ is hyperelliptic. The dual graph of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is always of this type when the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ consists of two projective lines over $k$ intersecting transversely at $n$ points. For example, the modular curve $X_0(p)$ with $p\geq 23$ prime has a regular model whose dual graph $G$ is of this type. For all primes $p>71$, $G$ is hyperelliptic even though $X_0(p)$ is not.
Every graph of genus 2 is hyperelliptic, since by the Riemann-Roch theorem for graphs, the canonical divisor $K_G$ has degree 2 and dimension 1. It is not hard to prove that for every integer $g \geq 3$, there are both hyperelliptic and non-hyperelliptic graphs of genus $g$.
Brill-Noether theory for graphs
-------------------------------
Classically, it is known by [*Brill-Noether theory*]{} that every smooth curve of genus $g$ over the complex numbers has gonality at most $\lfloor (g+3)/2 \rfloor$, and this bound is tight: for every $g\geq 0$, the general curve of genus $g$ has gonality exactly equal to $\lfloor (g+3)/2 \rfloor$. More generally:
\[BrillNoetherTheorem\] Fix integers $g,r,d \geq 0$, and define the [*Brill-Noether number*]{} $\rho(g,r,d) = g - (r+1)(g-d+r)$. Then:
1. If $\rho(g,r,d) \geq 0$, then every smooth curve $X/\CC$ of genus $g$ has a divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
2. If $\rho(g,r,d)<0$, then on a general smooth curve of genus $g$, there is no divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
Based on extensive computer calculations by Adam Tart (an undergraduate at Georgia Tech), we conjecture that similar results hold in the purely combinatorial setting of finite graphs:
\[BrillNoetherConj\] Fix integers $g,r,d \geq 0$, and set $\rho(g,r,d) = g - (r+1)(g-d+r)$. Then:
1. If $\rho(g,r,d) \geq 0$, then every graph of genus $g$ has a divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
2. If $\rho(g,r,d)<0$, there exists a graph of genus $g$ for which there is no divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
In the special case $r=1$, Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\] can be reformulated as follows:
\[GonalityConjecture\]
For each integer $g \geq 0$:
\(1) The gonality of any graph of genus $g$ is at most $\lfloor (g+3)/2 \rfloor$.
\(2) There exists a graph of genus $g$ with gonality exactly $\lfloor (g+3)/2 \rfloor$.
Adam Tart has verified part (2) of Conjecture \[GonalityConjecture\] for $g \leq 12$, and part (2) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\] for $2 \leq r \leq 4$ and $g \leq 10$. He has also verified that part (1) of Conjecture \[GonalityConjecture\] holds for approximately $1000$ randomly generated graphs of genus at most $10$, and has similarly verified part (1) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\] for around $100$ graphs in the case $2 \leq r \leq 4$.
Although we do not know how to handle the general case, it is easy to prove that part (1) of Conjecture \[GonalityConjecture\] holds for small values of $g$:
Part (1) of Conjecture \[GonalityConjecture\] is true for $g \leq 3$.
For $g \leq 2$, this is a straightforward consequence of Riemann-Roch for graphs. For $g=3$, we argue as follows. The canonical divisor $K_G$ on any genus 3 graph $G$ has degree $4$ and $r(K_G) = 2$. By Lemma \[GraphGenericPointLemma\], there exists a vertex $P \in V(G)$ for which the degree $3$ divisor $K_G - P$ has rank 1. (In fact, it is not hard to see that $r(K_G - P)=1$ for [*every*]{} vertex $P$.) Therefore $G$ has a $g^1_3$, so that the gonality of $G$ is at most 3, proving the lemma.
For [*metric $\QQ$-graphs*]{}, we can prove the analogue of part (1) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\] using the Specialization Lemma and classical Brill-Noether theory:
\[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\] Fix nonnegative integers $g,r,d$ for which $g - (r+1)(g-d+r) \geq 0$. Then every metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$ of genus $g$ has a divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
By uniformly rescaling the edges of a suitable model for $\Gamma$ so that they all have integer lengths, then adding vertices of valence 2 as necessary, we may assume that $\Gamma$ is the metric graph associated to a graph $G$ (and that every edge of $G$ has length 1). By Theorem \[DeformationTheorem\], there exists an arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ whose generic fiber is smooth of genus $g$ and whose special fiber has dual graph $G$. By classical Brill-Noether theory, there exists a $g^r_{d'}$ on $X$ for some $d' \leq d$, so according to (the proof of) Corollary \[grdcor\], there is a $\QQ$-divisor $D$ on $\Gamma$ with $\deg(D) \leq d$ and $r(D) = r$.
In §\[TropicalBrillNoetherSection\], we will generalize Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\] to arbitrary metric graphs, and then to tropical curves, using ideas from [@GathmannKerber].
It would be very interesting to give a direct combinatorial proof of Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\]. In any case, we view the above proof of Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\] as an example of how one can use the Specialization Lemma, in conjunction with known theorems about algebraic curves, to prove nontrivial results about graphs (or more precisely, in this case, [*metric graphs*]{}).
For a given graph $G$ (resp. metric graph $\Gamma$) and an integer $r \geq 1$, let $D(G,r)$ (resp. $D(\Gamma,r)$) be the minimal degree $d$ of a $g^r_d$ on $G$ (resp. $\Gamma$).
\[SubdivisionConjecture\] Let $G$ be a graph, and let $\Gamma$ be the associated $\QQ$-graph. Then for every $r \geq 1$, we have:
1. $D(G,r) = D(\sigma_k(G),r)$ for all $k \geq 1$.
2. $D(G,r) = D(\Gamma,r)$.
Adam Tart has verified part (1) of Conjecture \[SubdivisionConjecture\] for $100$ different graphs with $1 \leq r,k \leq 4$, and for $1000$ randomly generated graphs of genus up to $10$ in the special case where $r = 1$ and $k = 2$ or $3$.
Note that Conjecture \[SubdivisionConjecture\], in conjunction with Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\], would imply part (1) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\].
Finally, we have the following analogue of part (2) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\] for metric graphs:
\[MetricBrillNoetherConj\] Fix integers $g,r,d \geq 0$, and set $\rho(g,r,d) = g - (r+1)(g-d+r)$. If $\rho(g,r,d)<0$, then there exists a metric graph of genus $g$ for which there is no divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
Note that Conjecture \[MetricBrillNoetherConj\] would follow from Conjecture \[SubdivisionConjecture\] and part (2) of Conjecture \[BrillNoetherConj\].
By a simple argument based on Theorem \[DeformationTheorem\] and Corollary \[gonalitycor\], a direct combinatorial proof of Conjecture \[MetricBrillNoetherConj\] in the special case $r=1$ would yield a new proof of the classical fact that for every $g \geq 0$, there exists a smooth curve $X$ of genus $g$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero having gonality at least $\lfloor (g+3)/2 \rfloor$.
A tropical Brill-Noether theorem {#TropicalBrillNoetherSection}
--------------------------------
In this section, we show how the ideas from [@GathmannKerber] can be used to generalize Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\] from metric $\QQ$-graphs to arbitrary metric graphs and tropical curves.
The key result is the following “Semicontinuity Lemma”, which allows one to transfer certain results about divisors on $\QQ$-graphs to arbitrary metric graphs. For the statement, fix a metric graph $\Gamma$ and a positive real number $\epsilon$ smaller than all edge lengths in some fixed model for $\Gamma$. We denote by $A_\epsilon(\Gamma)$ the “moduli space” of all metric graphs that are of the same combinatorial type as $\Gamma$, and whose edge lengths are within $\epsilon$ of the corresponding edge lengths in $\Gamma$. Then $A_\epsilon(\Gamma)$ can naturally be viewed as a compact polyhedral complex; in particular, there is a well-defined notion of convergence in $A_\epsilon(\Gamma)$.
Similarly, for each positive integer $d$, we define $M = M^{d}_{\epsilon}(\Gamma)$ to be the compact polyhedral complex whose underlying point set is $$M := \{ (\Gamma',D') \; : \; \Gamma' \in A_\epsilon(\Gamma), \, D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+^d (\Gamma') \}.$$
\[SemicontinuityLemma\] The function $r : M \to \ZZ$ given by $r(\Gamma',D') = r_{\Gamma'}(D')$ is upper semicontinuous, i.e., the set $\{ (\Gamma',D') \; : \; r_{\Gamma'}(D') \geq i \}$ is closed for all $i$.
Following the general strategy of [@GathmannKerber Proof of Proposition 3.1], but with some slight variations in notation, we set $$S := \{ (\Gamma',D',f,P_1,\ldots,P_d) \; : \; \Gamma' \in A_\epsilon(\Gamma), \, D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+(\Gamma'),
\, f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma'), \,
(f) + D' = P_1 + \cdots + P_d \}.
$$ Also, for each $i = 0,\ldots,d$, set $$M_i := \{ (\Gamma',D',P_1,\ldots,P_i) \; : \; \Gamma' \in A_\epsilon(\Gamma), \, D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+^d(\Gamma'), \,
P_1,\ldots,P_i \in \Gamma' \}.
$$ As in Lemma 1.9 and Proposition 3.1 of [@GathmannKerber], one can endow each of the spaces $S$ and $M_i$ ($0 \leq i \leq d$) with the structure of a polyhedral complex. The obvious “forgetful morphisms” $$\pi_i : S \to M_i, \, \, (\Gamma',D',f,P_1,\ldots,P_d) \mapsto (\Gamma',D',P_1,\ldots,P_i)$$ and $$p_i : M_i \to M, \, \, (\Gamma',D',P_1,\ldots,P_i) \mapsto (\Gamma',D')$$ are morphisms of polyhedral complexes, and in particular they are continuous maps between topological spaces. Following [@GathmannKerber Proof of Proposition 3.1], we make the following observations:
1. $p_i$ is an [*open map*]{} for all $i$ (since it is locally just a linear projection).
2. $M_i \backslash \pi_i(S)$ is a union of open polyhedra, and in particular, is an open subset of $M_i$.
3. For $(\Gamma',D') \in M$, we have $r_{\Gamma'}(D') \geq i$ if and only if $(\Gamma',D') \not\in p_i(M_i \backslash \pi_i(S))$.
From (1) and (2), it follows that $p_i(M_i \backslash \pi_i(S))$ is open in $M$. So by (3), we see that the subset $\{ (\Gamma',D') \; : \; r_{\Gamma'}(D') \geq i \}$ is closed in $M$, as desired.
The following corollary shows that the condition for a metric graph to have a $g^r_{\leq d}$ is closed:
\[SemicontinuityCor\] Suppose $\Gamma_n$ is a sequence of metric graphs in $A_{\epsilon}(\Gamma)$ converging to $\Gamma$. If there exists a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on $\Gamma_n$ for all $n$, then there exists a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on $\Gamma$ as well.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $r \geq 0$. Passing to a subsequence and replacing $d$ by some $d'\leq d$ if neccesary, we may assume that for each $n$, there exists an effective divisor $D_n \in {\operatorname{Div}}_+(\Gamma_n)$ with $\deg(D_n) = d$ and $r(D_n) = r$. Since $M$ is compact, $\{ (\Gamma_n, D_n) \}$ has a convergent subsequence; by passing to this subsequence, we may assume that $(\Gamma_n,D_n) \to (\Gamma,D)$ for some divisor $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$. By Lemma \[SemicontinuityLemma\], we have $r(D) \geq r$. Subtracting points from $D$ if necessary, we find that there is an effective divisor $D' \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ with $\deg(D') \leq d$ and $r(D) = r$, as desired.
\[SemicontinuityCor2\] Fix integers $r,g,d$. If there exists a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on every $\QQ$-graph of genus $g$, then there exists a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on every metric graph of genus $g$.
We can approximate a metric graph $\Gamma$ by a sequence of $\QQ$-graphs in $A_{\epsilon}(\Gamma)$ for some $\epsilon > 0$, so the result follows directly from Corollary \[SemicontinuityCor\].
Finally, we give our promised application of the Semicontinuity Lemma to Brill-Noether theory for tropical curves:
\[TropicalBrillNoetherTheorem\] Fix integers $g,r,d \geq 0$ such that $\rho(g,r,d) = g - (r+1)(g-d+r) \geq 0$. Then every tropical curve of genus $g$ has a divisor $D$ with $r(D) = r$ and $\deg(D) \leq d$.
By Theorem \[GraphBrillNoetherTheorem\], there exists a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on every metric $\QQ$-graph, so it follows from Corollary \[SemicontinuityCor2\] that the same is true for [*all*]{} metric graphs. By [@GathmannKerber Remark 3.6], if $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is a tropical curve and $\Gamma$ is the metric graph obtained from $\tilde{\Gamma}$ by removing all unbounded edges, then for every $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma)$ we have $r_{\tilde{\Gamma}}(D) = r_{\Gamma}(D)$. Therefore the existence of a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on $\Gamma$ implies the existence of a $g^r_{\leq d}$ on $\tilde{\Gamma}$.
Weierstrass points on curves and graphs {#WeierstrassSection}
=======================================
As another illustration of the Specialization Lemma in action, in this section we will explore the relationship between Weierstrass points on curves and (a suitable notion of) Weierstrass points on graphs. As an application, we will generalize and place into a more conceptual framework a well-known result of Ogg concerning Weierstrass points on the modular curve $X_0(p)$. We will also prove the existence of Weierstrass points on tropical curves of genus $g \geq 2$.
Weierstrass points on graphs {#GraphWPSection}
----------------------------
Let $G$ be a graph of genus $g$. By analogy with the theory of algebraic curves, we say that $P \in V(G)$ is a [*Weierstrass point*]{} if $r(g(P)) \geq 1$. We define Weierstrass points on [*metric graphs*]{} and [*tropical curves*]{} in exactly the same way.
\[WeierstrassSubdivisionRemark\] By Corollary \[SubdivisionCorollary\], if $\Gamma$ is the $\QQ$-graph corresponding to $G$ (so that every edge of $G$ has length 1), then $P \in V(G)$ is a Weierstrass point on $G$ if and only if $P$ is a Weierstrass point on $\Gamma$.
Let $P \in V(G)$. An integer $k \geq 1$ is called a [*Weierstrass gap*]{} for $P$ if $r(k(P)) = r((k-1)(P))$. The Riemann-Roch theorem for graphs, together with the usual arguments from the theory of algebraic curves, yields the following result, whose proof we leave to the reader:
1. The following are equivalent:
1. $P$ is a Weierstrass point.
2. There exists a positive integer $k\leq g$ which is a Weierstrass gap for $P$.
3. $r(K_G - g(P)) \geq 0$.
2. The set $W(P)$ of Weierstrass gaps for $P$ is contained in the finite set $\{ 1,2,\ldots,2g-1 \} \subseteq \NN$ and has cardinality $g$.
\[WeierstrassBananaRemark\]
1\. Unlike the situation for algebraic curves, there exist graphs of genus at least $2$ with no Weierstrass points. For example, consider the graph $G = B_n$ of genus $g = n-1$ introduced in Example \[BananaExample\]. We claim that $B_n$ has no Weierstrass points for any $n\geq 3$. Indeed, the canonical divisor $K_G$ is $(g-1)(Q_1) + (g-1)(Q_2)$, and by symmetry it suffices to show that $r((g-1)(Q_2) - (Q_1)) = -1$. This follows directly from Theorem \[OrderTheorem\], since $(g-1)(Q_2) - (Q_1) \leq \nu := g(Q_2) - (Q_1)$ and $\nu$ is the divisor associated to the linear ordering $Q_1 < Q_2$ of $V(G)$.
2\. More generally, let $G = B(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_n)$ be the graph of genus $g = n-1$ obtained by subdividing the $i^{\rm th}$ edge of $B_n$ into $\ell_i$ edges. Let $R_{ij}$ for $1 \leq j \leq \ell_i$ denote the vertices strictly between $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ lying on the $i^{\rm th}$ edge (in sequential order). Then $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are not Weierstrass points of $G$. Indeed, by symmetry it again suffices to show that $r((g-1)(Q_2) - (Q_1)) = -1$, and this follows from Theorem \[OrderTheorem\] by considering the linear ordering $$Q_1 < R_{11} < R_{12} < \ldots < R_{1(\ell_1 - 1)} < R_{21} < \cdots < R_{\ell_n (\ell_{n} - 1)} < Q_2.$$
3\. Other examples of families of graphs with no Weierstrass points are given in [@BakerNorine2].
On the complete graph $G = K_n$ on $n\geq 4$ vertices, every vertex is a Weierstrass point. Indeed, if $P,Q \in V(G)$ are arbitrary, then $g(P) - (Q)$ is equivalent to the effective divisor $(g - (n-1))(P) - (Q) + \sum_{v \in V(G)} (v)$, and thus $r(g(P)) \geq 1$.
The following example, due to Serguei Norine, shows that there exist metric $\QQ$-graphs with infinitely many Weierstrass points:
\[NorineExample\]
Let $\Gamma$ be the metric $\QQ$-graph associated to the banana graph $B_n$ for some $n \geq 4$. Then $\Gamma$ has infinitely many Weierstrass points.
Indeed, label the edges of $\Gamma$ as $e_1,\ldots,e_n$, and identify each $e_i$ with the segment $[0,1]$, where $Q_1$ corresponds to $0$, say, and $Q_2$ corresponds to $1$. We write $x(P)$ for the element of $[0,1]$ corresponding to the point $P \in e_i$ under this parametrization. Then for each $i$ and each $P \in e_i$ with $x(P) \in [\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3}]$, we claim that $r(3(P)) \geq 1$, and hence $P$ is a Weierstrass point on $\Gamma$.
To see this, we will show explicitly that for every $Q \in \Gamma$ we have $|3(P) - (Q)| \neq \emptyset$. For this, it suffices to construct a function $f \in {{\mathcal M}}(\Gamma)$ for which $\Delta(f) \geq -3(P) + (Q)$. This is easy if $P = Q$, and otherwise we have:
[**Case 1(a):**]{} If $Q \in e_i$ and $x(P) < x(Q)$, let $y = \frac{x(P)+x(Q)}{2}$ and take $f$ to be constant on $e_j$ for $j \neq i$, and on $e_i$ to have slope $-2$ on $[y,x(P)]$, slope $1$ on $[x(P),x(Q)]$, and slope $0$ elsewhere.
[**Case 1(b):**]{} If $Q \in e_i$ and $x(Q) < x(P)$, let $y = \frac{3x(P)-x(Q)}{2}$ and take $f$ to be constant on $e_j$ for $j \neq i$, and on $e_i$ to have slope $-1$ on $[x(Q),x(P)]$, slope $2$ on $[x(P),y]$, and slope $0$ elsewhere.
If $Q \in e_j$ for some $j \neq i$, take $f$ to be constant on $e_k$ for $k \neq i,j$. On $e_j$, let $z = \min(x(Q),1-x(Q))$, and take $f$ to have slope $1$ on $[0,z]$, slope $0$ on $[z,1-z]$, and slope $-1$ on $[1-z,1]$. Finally, along $e_i$, we have two cases:
[**Case 2(a):**]{} If $x(P) \in [\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]$, let $y=3x(P)-1$, and define $f$ on $e_i$ to have slope $-1$ on $[0,y]$, slope $-2$ on $[y,x(P)]$, and slope $1$ on $[x(P),1]$.
[**Case 2(b):**]{} If $x(P) \in [\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{3}]$, let $y=3x(P)-1$, and define $f$ on $e_i$ to have slope $-1$ on $[0,x(P)]$, slope $2$ on $[x(P),y]$, and slope $1$ on $[y,1]$.
Similarly, one can show that for each integer $m \geq 2$, if $x(P) \in [\frac{1}{m},\frac{m-1}{m}]$ then $r(m(P)) \geq 1$, and thus $P$ is a Weierstrass point on $\Gamma$ as long as the genus of $\Gamma$ is at least $m$.
We close this section with a result which generalizes Remark \[WeierstrassBananaRemark\], and which can be used in practice to identify non-Weierstrass points on certain graphs.
\[ResidualTreeLemma\] Let $v$ be a vertex of a graph $G$ of genus $g \geq 2$, and let $G'$ be the graph obtained by deleting the vertex $v$ and all edges incident to $v$. If $G'$ is a tree, then $v$ is not a Weierstrass point.
Since $G'$ is a tree, there is a linear ordering $$v_1 < \cdots < v_{n-1}$$ of the vertices of $G'$ such that each vertex other than the first one has exactly one neighbor preceding it in the order. Extend $<$ to a linear ordering of $V(G)$ by letting $v$ be the last element in the order. Since the corresponding divisor $\nu$ is equal to $g(v) - (v_1)$, it follows from Theorem \[OrderTheorem\] that $|g(v) - (v_1)| = \emptyset$, and therefore $r(g(v)) = 0$. Thus $v$ is not a Weierstrass point.
\[ResidualTreeRemark\] It is easy to see that if $(G,v)$ satisfies the hypothesis of Lemma \[ResidualTreeLemma\], then so does $(\tilde{G},v)$, where $\tilde{G}$ is obtained by subdividing each edge $e_i$ of $G$ into $m_i$ edges for some positive integer $m_i$.
Specialization of Weierstrass points on totally degenerate curves {#WeierstrassSpecializationSection}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We say that an arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ is [*totally degenerate*]{} if the genus of its dual graph $G$ is the same as the genus of $X$. Under our hypotheses on ${{\mathfrak X}}$, the genus of $X$ is the sum of the genus of $G$ and the genera of all irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, so ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is totally degenerate if and only if all irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ have genus 0.
Applying the Specialization Lemma and the definition of a Weierstrass point, we immediately obtain:
\[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\] If ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is a strongly semistable, regular, and totally degenerate arithmetic surface, then for every $K$-rational Weierstrass point $P \in X(K)$, $\rho(P)$ is a Weierstrass point of the dual graph $G$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}$. More generally, for every Weierstrass point $P \in X({{\bar K}})$, $\tau_*(P)$ is a Weierstrass point of the reduction graph $\Gamma$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}$.
As a sample consequence, we have the following concrete result:
\[WeierstrassBananaCor\] (1) Let ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ be a strongly semistable, regular, totally degenerate arithmetic surface whose special fiber has a dual graph with no Weierstrass points (e.g. the graph $B_n$ for some $n \geq 3$). Then $X$ does not possess any $K$-rational Weierstrass points.
\(2) Let ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ be a (not necessarily regular) arithmetic surface whose special fiber consists of two genus $0$ curves intersecting transversely at $3$ or more points. Then every Weierstrass point of $X(K)$ specializes to a singular point of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$.
\(3) More generally, let ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ be a (not necessarily regular) strongly semistable and totally degenerate arithmetic surface whose dual graph $G$ contains a vertex $v$ for which $G' := G \backslash \{ v \}$ is a tree. Then there are no $K$-rational Weierstrass points on $X$ specializing to the component $C$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ corresponding to $v$.
Part (1) follows from what we have already said. For (2), it suffices to note that $X$ has a strongly semistable regular model ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ whose dual graph $G'$ is isomorphic to $B(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_g)$ for some positive integers $\ell_i$, and a point of $X(K)$ which specializes to a nonsingular point of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ will specialize to either $Q_1$ or $Q_2$ in $G'$, neither of which is a Weierstrass point by Remark \[WeierstrassBananaRemark\]. Finally, (3) follows easily from Lemma \[ResidualTreeLemma\] and Remark \[ResidualTreeRemark\].
We view Corollary \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] as a generalization of Ogg’s argument in [@OggWeierstrass] showing that the cusp $\infty$ is never a Weierstrass point on $X_0(p)$ for $p \geq 23$ prime, since $X_0(p)/\QQ_p^{{{\rm nr}}}$ has a model ${{\mathfrak X}}_0(p)$ of the type described in part (2) of the corollary (the Deligne-Rapoport model), and $\infty$ specializes to a nonsingular point on the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}_0(p)$. More generally, Corollary \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] shows (as does Ogg’s original argument) that all Weierstrass points of $X_0(p)$ specialize to supersingular points in the Deligne-Rapoport model. Corollaries \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\] and \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] give a recipe for extending Ogg’s result to a much broader class of curves with totally degenerate reduction.
Corollary \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] has strong implications concerning the arithmetic of Weierstrass points on curves. For example, in the special case where $K = \QQ_p^{{{\rm nr}}}$, the conclusion of part (1) of Corollary \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] implies that every Weierstrass point on $X$ is ramified at $p$.
The hypothesis that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is totally degenerate is necessary in the statement of Corollary \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\]. For example, it follows from a theorem of Atkin [@Atkin Theorem 1] that the cusp $\infty$ is a $\QQ$-rational Weierstrass point on $X_0(180)$. The mod 5 reduction of the Deligne-Rapoport model of $X_0(180)$ consists of two copies of $X_0(36)_{\FF_5}$ intersecting transversely at the supersingular points, and the cusp $\infty$ specializes to a nonsingular point on one of these components. (This does not contradict Corollary \[WeierstrassBananaCor\] because $X_0(36)$ does not have genus 0.)
We conclude this section with another application of algebraic geometry to tropical geometry: we use the classical fact that Weierstrass points exist on every smooth curve of genus at least 2 to show that there exist Weierstrass points on every tropical curve of genus at least 2.
\[WeierstrassExistenceTheorem\] Let $\tilde{\Gamma}$ be a tropical curve of genus $g \geq 2$. Then there exists at least one Weierstrass point on $\tilde{\Gamma}$.
We first consider the case of a $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$. By rescaling if necessary, we may assume that $\Gamma$ is the metric graph associated to a finite graph $G$, with every edge of $G$ having length one. By Theorem \[DeformationTheorem\], there exists a strongly semistable, regular, totally degenerate arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ whose generic fiber is smooth of genus $g$ and whose special fiber has reduction graph $\Gamma$. Let $P \in X({{\bar K}})$ be a Weierstrass point, which exists by classical algebraic geometry since $g \geq 2$. By Corollary \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\], $\tau_*(P)$ is a Weierstrass point of $\Gamma$. We have thus shown that every metric $\QQ$-graph of genus at least 2 has a Weierstrass point.
Now let $\Gamma$ be an arbitrary metric graph. As in §\[TropicalBrillNoetherSection\], for $\epsilon > 0$ sufficiently small, we can approximate $\Gamma$ by a sequence $\Gamma_n$ of $\QQ$-graphs within the space $A_{\epsilon}(\Gamma)$. Let $P_n \in \Gamma_n$ be a Weierstrass point. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume without loss of generality that $(\Gamma_n,P_n) \to (\Gamma,P)$ in $M^{1}_\epsilon(\Gamma)$ for some point $P \in \Gamma$. Since $r_{\Gamma_n}(gP_n) \geq 1$ for all $n$ and $(\Gamma_n,gP_n) \to (\Gamma,gP)$ in $M^{g}_{\epsilon}(\Gamma)$, we conclude from the Semicontinuity Lemma (Lemma \[SemicontinuityLemma\]) that $r_{\Gamma}(gP) \geq 1$, i.e., that $P$ is a Weierstrass point on $\Gamma$.
Finally, suppose that $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is a tropical curve, and let $\Gamma$ be the metric graph obtained from $\tilde{\Gamma}$ by removing all unbounded edges. It follows from [@GathmannKerber Remark 3.6] that every Weierstrass point on $\Gamma$ is also a Weierstrass point on $\tilde{\Gamma}$. Therefore the existence of Weierstrass points on $\Gamma$ implies the existence of Weierstrass points on $\tilde{\Gamma}$.
We do not know a direct combinatorial proof of Theorem \[WeierstrassExistenceTheorem\], but it would certainly be interesting to give such a proof. Also, in light of Example \[NorineExample\], it is not clear if there is an analogue for metric graphs of the classical fact that the total weight of all Weierstrass points on a smooth curve of genus $g\geq 2$ is $g^3 - g$.
Specialization of a canonical divisor
-------------------------------------
Since $P \in X({{\bar K}})$ is a Weierstrass point of $X$ if and only if $r(K_X - g(P)) \geq 0$, where $K_X$ denotes a canonical divisor on $X$, and since $P \in V(G)$ is a Weierstrass point of $G$ if and only if $r(K_G - g(P)) \geq 0$, Corollary \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\] suggests a relationship between the canonical divisor of $G$ and the specialization of $K_X$ when ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is totally degenerate. We investigate this relationship in this section.
Let ${{\mathfrak X}}$ be a strongly semistable, regular, totally degenerate arithmetic surface. Let $\omega_{{{\mathfrak X}}/R}$ be the [*canonical sheaf*]{} for ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$, and let $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ be a Cartier divisor such that ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathfrak X}}}(K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}) \cong \omega_{{{\mathfrak X}}/R}$; we call any such $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ a [*canonical divisor*]{}.
\[CanonicalSpecializationLemma\] We have $\rho(K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}) = K_G$.
This is a consequence of the [*adjunction formula*]{} for arithmetic surfaces (see [@Liu Theorem 9.1.37]), which tells us that $$\label{eq:Adjunction1}
(K_{{{\mathfrak X}}} \cdot C_i) = 2g(C_i) - 2 - (C_i\cdot C_i) = -2 - (C_i \cdot C_i)$$ for all $i$. Since $(C \cdot C_i) = 0$ for all $i$, we have $$\label{eq:Adjunction2}
(C_i \cdot C_i) = -\sum_{j \neq i} (C_i \cdot C_j) = -\deg(v_i).$$
Combining (\[eq:Adjunction1\]) and (\[eq:Adjunction2\]) gives $$(K_{{{\mathfrak X}}} \cdot C_i) = \deg(v_i) - 2$$ for all $i$, as desired.
Lemma \[CanonicalSpecializationLemma\] helps explain why there is in fact a canonical [*divisor*]{} on a graph $G$, rather than just a canonical [*divisor class*]{}, and also explains the connection between the canonical divisor on a graph and the canonical divisor class in algebraic geometry. This connection is implicit in the earlier work of S. Zhang [@ZhangAP].
Note that the restriction of $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ to $X$ is a canonical divisor $K_X \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ of degree $2g-2$, but $K_X$ is not necessarily supported on the set $X(K)$ of $K$-rational points of $X$.
Let $\Gamma$ denote the metric $\QQ$-graph associated to $G$. As before, we let $\tau : X({{\bar K}}) \to \Gamma_{\QQ}$ denote the natural surjective specialization map, and we let $\tau_* : {\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}})) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(\Gamma_{\QQ})$ denote the induced homomorphism on divisors.
\[CanonicalSpecializationLemma2\] Let $K_X \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ be a canonical divisor. Then $\tau_*(K_X)$ is linearly equivalent to $K_G$.
Since the Zariski closure of $K_X$ differs from a canonical divisor $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ on ${{\mathfrak X}}$ by a vertical divisor, this follows from Lemma \[CanonicalSpecializationLemma\] and the remarks preceding Lemma \[PrincipalSpecializationLemma\].
\[HorizontalRemark\] By a general [*moving lemma*]{} (e.g. Corollary 9.1.10 or Proposition 9.1.11 of [@Liu]), there exists a horizontal canonical divisor $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ on ${{\mathfrak X}}$. Since $K_{{{\mathfrak X}}}$ is the Zariski closure of $K_X$ in this case, it follows that there exists a canonical divisor $K_X \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}}))$ for which $\tau_*(K_X)$ is [*equal*]{} to $K_G$ (and not just linearly equivalent to it).
An example {#ExampleSection}
----------
We conclude with an explicit example which illustrates many of the concepts that have been discussed in this paper.
Let $p$ be an odd prime, and let $X$ be the smooth plane quartic curve over $\QQ_p$ given by $F(x,y,z) = 0$, where $$\label{eq:F}
F(x,y,z) = (x^2 - 2y^2 + z^2)(x^2 - z^2) + py^3z.$$
By classical algebraic geometry, we have $g(X) = 3$, and the $\overline{\QQ}_p$-gonality of $X$ is also $3$. We let $K = \QQ_p^{{{\rm nr}}}$, and consider $X$ as an algebraic curve over $K$.
Let ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ be the model for $X$ over the valuation ring $R$ of $K$ given by the equation (\[eq:F\]). According to [@Liu Exercise 10.3.10], the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ is semistable and consists of two projective lines $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ with equations $x=z$ and $x=-z$, respectively, which intersect transversely at the point $(0:1:0)$, together the conic $C$ defined by $x^2 - 2y^2 + z^2 = 0$, which intersects each of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ transversely at 2 points. The model ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ is not regular, but a regular model ${{\mathfrak X}}$ can be obtained from ${{\mathfrak X}}'$ by blowing up the point $(0:1:0)$ of the special fiber of ${{\mathfrak X}}'$, which produces an exceptional divisor $E$ in ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ isomorphic to $\PP^1_k$, and which intersects each of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ transversely in a single point (see [@Liu Corollary 10.3.25]). The special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}$ and the dual graph $G$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are depicted in Figures \[reduction1\] and \[reduction2\] below.
In Figure \[reduction2\], the vertex $P$ corresponds to the conic $C$, $Q_i$ corresponds to the line $\ell_i$ ($i=1,2$), and $P'$ corresponds to the exceptional divisor $E$ of the blowup. Note that $G$ is a graph of genus 3, and that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ has totally degenerate strongly semistable reduction.
[**Claim:**]{} $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are Weierstrass points of $G$, while $P$ and $P'$ are not.
Indeed, since $3(Q_1) \sim 3(Q_2) \sim 2(P) + (P')$, it follows easily that $r(3(Q_1)) = r(3(Q_2)) \geq 1$, and therefore $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are Weierstrass points. On the other hand, $P$ is not a Weierstrass point of $G$ by Lemma \[ResidualTreeLemma\], and $P'$ is not a Weierstrass point either, since $3(P') - (P)$ is equivalent to $(Q_1) + (Q_2) + (P') - (P)$, which is the divisor associated to the linear ordering $P < Q_1 < Q_2 < P'$ of $V(G)$.
[**Claim:**]{} The gonality of $G$ is $3$.
We have already seen that $r(3(Q_1)) \geq 1$, so the gonality of $G$ is at most 3. It remains to show that $G$ is not hyperelliptic, i.e., that there is no $g^1_2$ on $G$. By symmetry, and using the fact that $(Q_1) + (Q_2) \sim 2(P')$, it suffices to show that $r(D) = 0$ for $D = (P)+(P')$ and for each of the divisors $(Q_1) + (X)$ with $X \in V(G)$. For this, it suffices to show that $|D| = \emptyset$ for each of the divisors $(Q_1) + 2(Q_2) - (P), (P) + 2(Q_1) - (P')$, and $(P) + (P') + (Q_1) - (Q_2)$. But these are the $\nu$-divisors associated to the linear orderings $P < Q_1 < P' < Q_2$, $P' < Q_2 < P < Q_1$, and $Q_1 < P < Q_2 < P'$ of $V(G)$, respectively. The claim therefore follows from Theorem \[OrderTheorem\].
The canonical divisor $K_G$ on $G$ is $2(P) + (Q_1) + (Q_2)$. We now compute the specializations of various canonical divisors in ${\operatorname{Div}}(X(K))$. Since a canonical divisor on $X$ is just a hyperplane section, the following divisors are all canonical:
- $(x = z) \cap X = (0:1:0) + 3(1:0:1)$.
- $(x = -z) \cap X = (0:1:0) + 3(1:0:-1)$.
- $(z = 0) \cap X = 2(0:1:0) + (\sqrt{2}:1:0) + (-\sqrt{2}:1:0)$.
- $(y = 0) \cap X = (1:0:1) + (1:0:-1) + (1:0:\sqrt{-1}) + (1:0:-\sqrt{-1})$.
The specializations of these divisors under $\rho$ (or equivalently, under $\tau_*$) are:
- $(P') + 3(Q_1)$.
- $(P') + 3(Q_2)$.
- $2(P') + 2(P)$.
- $(Q_1) + (Q_2) + 2(P)$.
It is straightforward to check that each of these divisors is linearly equivalent to $K_G = (Q_1) + (Q_2) + 2(P)$, in agreement with Lemma \[CanonicalSpecializationLemma2\].
Finally, note that (as follows from the above calculations) $(1:0:1)$ and $(1:0:-1)$ are Weierstrass points on $X$, and they specialize to $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, respectively. As we have seen, these are both Weierstrass points of $G$, as predicted by Corollary \[WeierstrassSpecializationCor\].
A reformulation of Raynaud’s description of the N[é]{}ron model of a Jacobian {#RaynaudAppendix}
=============================================================================
In this appendix, we re-interpret in the language of divisors on graphs some results of Raynaud concerning the relation between a proper regular model for a curve and the N[é]{}ron model of its Jacobian. The main result here is that the diagrams (\[BigDiagram1\]) and (\[BigDiagram2\]) below are exact and commutative. This may not be a new observation, but since we could not find a reference, we will attempt to explain how it follows in a straightforward way from Raynaud’s work.
In order to keep this appendix self-contained, we have repeated certain definitions which appear in the main body of the text. Some references for the results described here are [@BertoliniDarmon Appendix], [@BLR], [@Edixhoven], and [@RaynaudPicard].
Raynaud’s description
---------------------
Let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with field of fractions $K$ and algebraically closed residue field $k$. Let $X$ be a smooth, proper, geometrically connected curve over $K$, and let ${{\mathfrak X}}/ R$ be a proper model for $X$ with reduced special fiber ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$. For simplicity, we assume throughout that ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, that the irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are all smooth, and that all singularities of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ are ordinary double points. We let ${{\mathcal C}}= \{ C_1,\ldots,C_n \}$ be the set of irreducible components of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$.
Let $J$ be the Jacobian of $X$ over $K$, let ${{\mathcal J}}$ be the N[é]{}ron model of $J/R$, and let ${{\mathcal J}}^0$ be the connected component of the identity in ${{\mathcal J}}$. We denote by $\Phi = {{\mathcal J}}_k / {{\mathcal J}}_k^0$ the group of connected components of the special fiber ${{\mathcal J}}_k$ of ${{\mathcal J}}$.
Let ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$) be the group of Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. on ${{\mathfrak X}}$); since $X$ is smooth and ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak X}}$) are the same as Weil divisors.
The Zariski closure in ${{\mathfrak X}}$ of an effective divisor on $X$ is a Cartier divisor. Extending by linearity, we can associate to each $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ a Cartier divisor ${{\mathcal D}}$ on ${{\mathfrak X}}$, which we refer to as the [*Zariski closure*]{} of $D$.
Let ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(X)$ denote the subgroup of Cartier divisors of degree zero on $X$. In addition, let ${\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}({{\mathfrak X}})$ denote the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ consisting of those Cartier divisors ${{\mathcal D}}$ for which the restriction of the associated line bundle ${{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathfrak X}}}({{\mathcal D}})$ to each irreducible component of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$ has degree zero, i.e., for which $$\deg({{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathfrak X}}}({{\mathcal D}})|_{C_i}) = 0 \textrm{ for all } C_i \in {{\mathcal C}}.$$
Finally, let $${\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X) = \{ D \in {\operatorname{Div}}^0(X) \; : \; {{\mathcal D}}\in {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}({{\mathfrak X}}) \},$$ where ${{\mathcal D}}$ is the Zariski closure of $D$.
Let ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Prin}}({{\mathfrak X}})$) denote the group of principal Cartier divisors on $X$ (resp. ${{\mathfrak X}}$). There is a well-known isomorphism $$\label{RaynaudIsom1}
J(K) = {{\mathcal J}}(R) \cong {\operatorname{Div}}^0(X) / {\operatorname{Prin}}(X),
$$ and according to Raynaud, there is an isomorphism $$\label{RaynaudIsom2}
\begin{aligned}
J^0(K) := {{\mathcal J}}^0(R) \cong {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X) / {\operatorname{Prin}}^{(0)}(X),
\end{aligned}$$ where $${\operatorname{Prin}}^{(0)}(X) := {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X) \cap {\operatorname{Prin}}(X).$$
The isomorphism in (\[RaynaudIsom2\]) comes from the fact that ${{\mathcal J}}^0 = {\operatorname{Pic}}^0_{{{\mathfrak X}}/R}$ represents the functor “isomorphism classes of line bundles whose restriction to each element of ${{\mathcal C}}$ has degree zero”. (Recall that there is a canonical isomorphism between isomorphism classes of line bundles on ${{\mathfrak X}}$ and the Cartier class group of ${{\mathfrak X}}$.)
\[KeyRemark\] In particular, it follows from the above discussion that every element $P \in J^0(K)$ can be represented as the class of $D$ for some $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X)$.
There is a natural inclusion ${{\mathcal C}}\subset {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$, and an intersection pairing $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathcal C}}\times {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}}) &\to \ZZ \\
(C_i, {{\mathcal D}}) &\mapsto (C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $(C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}}) = \deg({{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathfrak X}}}(D)|_{C_i})$.
The intersection pairing gives rise to a map $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha : \ZZ^{{\mathcal C}}&\to \ZZ^{{\mathcal C}}\\
f &\mapsto \left( C_i \mapsto \sum_{C_j \in {{\mathcal C}}} (C_i \cdot C_j) f(C_j) \right).
\end{aligned}$$
Since $k$ is algebraically closed and the canonical map $J(K) \to {{\mathcal J}}_k(k)$ is surjective by Proposition 10.1.40(b) of [@Liu], there is a canonical isomorphism $J(K)/J^0(K) \cong \Phi$. According to Raynaud, the component group $\Phi$ is canonically isomorphic to the homology of the complex $$\label{RaynaudExactSeq1}
\begin{CD}
\ZZ^{{{\mathcal C}}} @>>{\alpha}> \ZZ^{{{\mathcal C}}} @>>{\deg}> \ZZ,
\end{CD}$$ where $\deg : f \mapsto \sum_{C_i} f(C_i)$.
The isomorphism $$\phi : J(K)/J^0(K) \cong {\operatorname{Ker}}(\deg)/{\operatorname{Im}}(\alpha)$$ can be described in the following way. Let $P \in J(K)$, and choose $D \in {\operatorname{Div}}^0(X)$ such that $P = [D]$. Let ${{\mathcal D}}\in {\operatorname{Div}}({{\mathfrak X}})$ be the Zariski closure of $D$. Then $$\phi(P) = [C_i \mapsto (C_i \cdot {{\mathcal D}})].$$
When $D$ corresponds to a Weil divisor supported on $X(K)$, we have another description of the map $\phi$. Write $D = \sum_{P \in X(K)} n_P(P)$ with $\sum n_P = 0$. Since ${{\mathfrak X}}$ is regular, each point $P \in X(K)={{\mathfrak X}}(R)$ specializes to a well-defined element $c(P)$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$. Identifying a formal sum $\sum_{C_i \in {{\mathcal C}}} a_i C_i$ with the function $C_i \mapsto a_i \in \ZZ^{{{\mathcal C}}}$, we have $$\label{SpecializationSpecialCase}
\phi([D]) = [\sum_P n_P c(P)].$$
The quantities appearing in (\[RaynaudExactSeq1\]) can be interpreted in a more suggestive fashion using the language of graphs. Let $G$ be the [*dual graph*]{} of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, i.e., $G$ is the finite graph whose vertices $v_i$ correspond to the irreducible components $C_i$ of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k$, and whose edges correspond to intersections between these components (so that there is one edge between $v_i$ and $v_j$ for each point of intersection between $C_i$ and $C_j$). We let ${\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ denote the free abelian group on the set of vertices of $G$, and define ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ to be the kernel of the natural map $\deg : {\operatorname{Div}}(G) \to \ZZ$ given by $\deg(\sum a_i (v_i)) = \sum a_i$. In particular, the set $V(G)$ of vertices of $G$ is in bijection with ${{\mathcal C}}$, and the group ${\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ is isomorphic to $\ZZ^{{{\mathcal C}}}$, with ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ corresponding to ${\operatorname{Ker}}(\deg)$.
Let ${{\mathcal M}}(G) = \ZZ^{V(G)}$ be the set of $\ZZ$-linear functions on $V(G)$, and define the Laplacian operator $\Delta : {{\mathcal M}}(G) \to {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ by $$\Delta(\varphi) = \sum_{v \in V(G)} \sum_{e = vw} \left(\varphi(v) - \varphi(w) \right)(v),$$ where the inner sum is over all edges $e$ of $G$ having $v$ as an endpoint. Finally, define $${\operatorname{Prin}}(G) = \Delta({{\mathcal M}}(G)) \subseteq {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G),$$ and let ${\operatorname{Jac}}(G) = {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)/{\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$ be the [*Jacobian*]{} of $G$. It is a consequence of Kirchhoff’s Matrix-Tree Theorem that ${\operatorname{Jac}}(G)$ is a finite abelian group whose order is equal to the number of spanning trees of $G$.
Since the graph $G$ is connected, one knows that ${\operatorname{Ker}}(\Delta)$ consists precisely of the constant functions, and it follows from (\[RaynaudExactSeq1\]) that there is a canonical exact sequence $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}(G) @>\gamma_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G) @>\gamma_2>> \Phi @>>> 0.
\end{CD}$$ In other words, the component group $\Phi$ is canonically isomorphic to the Jacobian group of the graph $G$.
We can summarize much of the preceding discussion by saying that the following diagram is commutative and exact:
$$\label{BigDiagram1}
\begin{CD}
@. 0 @. 0 @. 0 @. \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}^{(0)}(X) @>\alpha_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X) @>\alpha_2>> J^0(K) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}(X) @>\beta_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{0}(X) @>\beta_2>> J(K) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}(G) @>\gamma_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{0}(G) @>\gamma_2>> {\operatorname{Jac}}(G) \cong \Phi @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
@. 0 @. 0 @. 0 @. \\
\end{CD}$$
A few remarks are in order about the exactness of the rows and columns in (\[BigDiagram1\]). It is well-known that the natural map from $X(K)={{\mathfrak X}}(R)$ to the smooth locus of ${{\mathfrak X}}_k(k)$ is surjective (see e.g. Proposition 10.1.40(b) of [@Liu]); by (\[SpecializationSpecialCase\]), this implies that the natural maps ${\operatorname{Div}}(X) \to {\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ and ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(X) \to {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ are surjective. The surjectivity of the horizontal map $\alpha_2 : {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X) \to J^0(K)$ follows from Remark \[KeyRemark\]. Using this, we see from the Snake Lemma that since the vertical map ${\operatorname{Div}}^0(X) \to {\operatorname{Div}}^0(G)$ is surjective, the vertical map ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X) \to {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$ is also surjective. All of the other claims about the commutativity and exactness of (\[BigDiagram1\]) follow in a straightforward way from the definitions.
Passage to the limit
--------------------
If $K'/K$ is a finite extension of degree $m$ with ramification index $e \mid m$ and valuation ring $R'$, then by a sequence of blow-ups we can obtain a regular model ${{\mathfrak X}}'/R'$ for $X$ whose corresponding dual graph $G'$ is the graph $\sigma_e(G)$ obtained by subdividing each edge of $G$ into $e$ edges. If we think of $G$ as an unweighted graph and of $\sigma_e(G)$ as a weighted graph in which every edge has length $1/e$, then $G$ and $\sigma_e(G)$ are different models for the same metric $\QQ$-graph $\Gamma$, which one calls the [*reduction graph*]{} of ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$. The discussion in [@CR] shows that the various maps $c_{K'} : X(K') \to G'$ are compatible, in the sense that they give rise to a specialization map $\tau : X({{\bar K}}) \to \Gamma$ which takes $X({{\bar K}})$ surjectively onto $\Gamma_{\QQ}$.
It is straightforward to check that the diagram (\[BigDiagram1\]) behaves functorially with respect to finite extensions, and therefore that there is a commutative and exact diagram
$$\label{BigDiagram2}
\begin{CD}
@. 0 @. 0 @. 0 @. \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}^{(0)}(X({{\bar K}})) @>\alpha_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X({{\bar K}})) @>\alpha_2>> J^0({{\bar K}}) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}(X({{\bar K}})) @>\beta_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{0}(X({{\bar K}})) @>\beta_2>> J({{\bar K}}) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
0 @>>> {\operatorname{Prin}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) @>\gamma_1>> {\operatorname{Div}}^{0}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) @>\gamma_2>> {\operatorname{Jac}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV @. \\
@. 0 @. 0 @. 0 @. \\
\end{CD}$$
Let ${{\tilde{K}}}$ be the completion of an algebraic closure ${{\bar K}}$ of $K$, so that ${{\tilde{K}}}$ is a complete and algebraically closed field equipped with a valuation $v : {{\tilde{K}}}\to \QQ \cup \{ +\infty \}$, and ${{\bar K}}$ is dense in ${{\tilde{K}}}$. By continuity, one can extend $\tau$ to a map $\tau : X({{\tilde{K}}}) \to \Gamma$ and replace ${{\bar K}}$ by ${{\tilde{K}}}$ everywhere in the diagram (\[BigDiagram2\]).
A few explanations are in order concerning the definitions of the various groups and group homomorphisms which appear in (\[BigDiagram2\]). Since ${{\bar K}}$ is algebraically closed, we may identify the group ${\operatorname{Div}}(X_{{{\bar K}}})$ of Cartier (or Weil) divisors on $X_{{{\bar K}}}$ with ${\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}}))$, the free abelian group on the set $X({{\bar K}})$. We define ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X({{\bar K}}))$ to be the subgroup of ${\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}}))$ consisting of principal divisors. The group ${\operatorname{Div}}(X({{\bar K}}))$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X({{\bar K}}))$) can be identified with the direct limit of ${\operatorname{Div}}(X_{K'})$ (resp. ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X_{K'})$) over all finite extensions $K'/K$. Accordingly, we define the group $J^0({{\bar K}})$ to be the direct limit of the groups $J^0(K')$ over all finite extensions $K'/K$, and we define ${\operatorname{Div}}^{(0)}(X({{\bar K}}))$ and ${\operatorname{Prin}}^{(0)}(X({{\bar K}}))$ similarly. Finally, we define ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ to be the quotient ${\operatorname{Div}}^{0}_{\QQ}(\Gamma) / {\operatorname{Prin}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$.
The fact that ${\operatorname{Prin}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$, as defined in §\[IntroSection\], coincides with the direct limit over all finite extensions $K'/K$ of the groups ${\operatorname{Prin}}(G')$ follows easily from Remark \[LaplacianRemark\].
With these definitions in place, it is straightforward to check using (\[BigDiagram1\]) that the diagram (\[BigDiagram2\]) is both commutative and exact.
In particular, we note the following consequence of the exactness of (\[BigDiagram1\]) and (\[BigDiagram2\]):
\[SurjectiveCor\] The canonical maps ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X) \to {\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$ and ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X({{\bar K}})) \to {\operatorname{Prin}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ are surjective.
It follows from Corollary \[SurjectiveCor\] that if $G$ is a graph, the group ${\operatorname{Prin}}(G)$ can be characterized as the image of ${\operatorname{Prin}}(X)$ under the specialization map from ${\operatorname{Div}}(X)$ to ${\operatorname{Div}}(G)$ for any regular arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/R$ whose special fiber has dual graph isomorphic to $G$. (Such an ${{\mathfrak X}}$ always exists by Corollary \[DeformationCor\] below.)
Another consequence of (\[BigDiagram2\]) is that there is a canonical isomorphism $$J({{\bar K}}) / J^0({{\bar K}}) \cong {\operatorname{Jac}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma),$$ so that the group ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ plays the role of the component group of the N[é]{}ron model in this situation, even though there is not a well-defined N[é]{}ron model for $J$ over ${{\bar K}}$ or ${{\tilde{K}}}$, since the valuations on these fields are not discrete. One can show using elementary methods that ${\operatorname{Jac}}_{\QQ}(\Gamma)$ is (non-canonically) isomorphic to $(\QQ/\ZZ)^g$ (compare with the discussion in [@SGA7 Expos[é]{} IX, §[11.8]{}]).
A result from the deformation theory of stable marked curves (written by Brian Conrad) {#DeformationTheorySection}
======================================================================================
Recall from §\[section:Notation\] that by an [*arithmetic surface*]{}, we mean a proper flat scheme of dimension 2 over a discrete valuation ring whose generic fiber is a smooth curve. In this appendix, we describe how one can realize an arbitrary graph $G$ as the dual graph of the special fiber of some regular arithmetic surface whose special fiber $C$ is a [*totally degenerate semistable curve*]{} (or [*Mumford curve*]{}), meaning that $C$ is semistable, every irreducible component of $C$ is isomorphic to the projective line over the residue field $k$, and all singularities of $C$ are $k$-rational.
We begin with the following simple lemma, whose proof is left to the reader:
\[DeformationLemma\] Let $G$ be a connected graph, and let $k$ be an infinite field. Then there exists a totally degenerate semistable curve $C/k$ whose dual graph is isomorphic to $G$.
The crux of the matter is the following theorem, whose proof is a standard application of the deformation theory of stable marked curves.
\[DeformationTheorem\] Let $C$ be a proper and geometrically connected semistable curve over a field $k$, and let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with residue field $k$. Assume that $k$ is infinite. Then there exists an arithmetic surface $\mathfrak{X}$ over $R$ with special fiber $C$ such that $\mathfrak{X}$ is a regular scheme.
Combining these two results, we obtain:
\[DeformationCor\] Let $R$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with field of fractions $K$ and infinite residue field $k$. For any connected graph $G$, there exists a regular arithmetic surface ${{\mathfrak X}}/ R$ whose generic fiber is a smooth, proper, and geometrically connected curve $X/K$, and whose special fiber is a totally degenerate semistable curve with dual graph isomorphic to $G$.
By Proposition 10.1.51 of [@Liu], the genus of $X$ coincides with the genus $g = |E(G)| - |V(G)| + 1$ of the graph $G$.
We work with a general residue field $k$ (and avoid assumptions on the field of rationality of the singularities) until near the end of the argument. Let $g = \dim {\rm{H}}^1(C,\mathscr{O}_C)$ denote the arithmetic genus of $C$. The structure theorem for ordinary double points [@FreitagKiehl III, §2] ensures that $C^{\rm{sing}}$ splits over a separable extension of $k$, so we can choose a finite Galois extension $k'/k$ so that the locus $C_{k'}^{\rm{sing}}$ of non-smooth points in $C_{k'}$ consists entirely of $k'$-rational points and every irreducible component of $C_{k'}$ is geometrically irreducible and has a $k'$-rational point. (If $C$ is a Mumford curve then we can take $k' = k$.) In particular, each smooth component in $C_{k'}$ of arithmetic genus 0 is isomorphic to $\mathbf{P}^1_{k'}$ and so admits at least three $k'$-rational points. We can then construct a ${\rm{Gal}}(k'/k)$-stable étale divisor $D' \subseteq C_{k'}^{\rm{sm}}$ whose support consists entirely of $k'$-rational points in the smooth locus such that for each component $X'$ of $C_{k'}$ isomorphic to $\mathbf{P}^1_{k'}$ we have $\#(X' \cap C_{k'}^{\rm{sing}}) + \#(X' \cap D') \ge 3$. In particular, if we choose an enumeration of $D'(k')$ then the pair $(C_{k'},D')$ is a stable $n$-pointed genus-$g$ curve, where $n = \#D'(k')$ and $2g-2 + n > 0$. Let $D \subseteq C^{\rm{sm}}$ be the étale divisor that descends $D'$. We let $R'$ be the local finite étale $R$-algebra with residue field $k'/k$.
The stack $\mathscr{M}_{g,n}$ classifying stable $n$-pointed genus-$g$ curves for any $g, n \ge 0$ such that $2g-2+n > 0$ is a proper smooth Deligne–Mumford stack over ${\operatorname{Spec}}\ZZ$.[^5] The existence of $\mathscr{M}_{g,n}$ as a smooth Deligne–Mumford stack ensures that $(C_{k'},D')$ admits a universal formal deformation $(\widehat{\mathscr{C}'}, \widehat{\mathscr{D}'})$ over a complete local noetherian $R'$-algebra $A'$ with residue field $k'$, and that $A'$ is a formal power series ring over $R'$. Moreover, there is a relatively ample line bundle canonically associated to any stable $n$-pointed genus-$g$ curve $(X, \{\sigma_1,
\dots, \sigma_n\}) \rightarrow S$ over a scheme $S$, namely the twist $\omega_{X/S}(\sum \sigma_i)$ of the relative dualizing sheaf of the curve by the étale divisor defined by the marked points. Hence, the universal formal deformation uniquely algebraizes to a pair $(\mathscr{C}', \mathscr{D}')$ over ${\operatorname{Spec}}A'$.
Since $(C_{k'},D') = k' \otimes_k (C,D)$, universality provides an action of the Galois group $\Gamma = {\rm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ on $A'$ and on $(\mathscr{C}', \mathscr{D}')$ covering the natural $\Gamma$-action on $(C_{k'},D')$ and on $R'$. The action by $\Gamma$ on $\mathscr{C}'$ is compatible with one on the canonically associated ample line bundle $\omega_{\mathscr{C}'/A'}(\mathscr{D}')$. Since $R \rightarrow R'$ is finite étale with Galois group $\Gamma$, the $\Gamma$-action on everything in sight (including the relatively ample line bundle) defines effective descent data: $A = (A')^{\Gamma}$ is a complete local noetherian $R$-algebra with residue field $k$ such that $R' \otimes_R A \rightarrow A'$ is an isomorphism, and $(\mathscr{C}', \mathscr{D}')$ canonically descends to a deformation $(\mathscr{C}, \mathscr{D})$ of $(C,D)$ over $A$. This can likewise be shown to be a universal deformation of $(C,D)$ in the category of complete local noetherian $R$-algebras with residue field $k$, but we do not need this fact.
What matters for our purposes is structural information about $A$ and the proper flat $A$-curve $\mathscr{C}$. By the functorial characterization of formal smoothness, $A$ is formally smooth over $R$ since the same holds for $A'$ over $R'$, so $A$ is a power series ring over $R$ in finitely many variables. We claim that the Zariski-open locus of smooth curves in $\mathscr{M}_{g,n}$ is dense, which is to say that every geometric point has a smooth deformation. Indeed, since Knudsen’s contraction and stabilization operations do nothing to smooth curves, this claim immediately reduces to the special cases $n = 0$ with $g \ge 2$, $g = n = 1$, and $g = 0, n = 3$. The final two cases are obvious and the first case was proved by Deligne and Mumford via deformation theory [@DeligneMumford 1.9]. It follows that the generic fiber of $\mathscr{C}'$ over $A'$ is a smooth curve, so the same holds for $\mathscr{C}$ over $A$. In other words, the Zariski-closed locus in $\mathscr{C}$ where $\Omega^1_{\mathscr{C}/A}$ is not invertible has its closed image in ${\operatorname{Spec}}(A)$ given by a closed subset ${\operatorname{Spec}}(A/I)$ for a unique nonzero radical ideal $I \subseteq A$. Since $A$ is a power series ring over $R$ and $I$ is a nonzero ideal, we can certainly find a local $R$-algebra map $\phi:A \rightarrow R$ in which $I$ has nonzero image. The pullback $\mathfrak{X}_{\phi}$ of $\mathscr{C}$ along $\phi$ is a proper flat semistable curve over $R$ deforming $C$ such that the generic fiber is smooth (as otherwise the map ${\operatorname{Spec}}(R) \rightarrow {\operatorname{Spec}}(A)$ would factor through ${\operatorname{Spec}}(A/I)$, a contradiction).
The only remaining problem is to show that if $\phi$ is chosen more carefully then $\mathfrak{X}_{\phi}$ is also regular. If $C$ is $k$-smooth then $\mathscr{C}$ is $A$-smooth, so $\mathfrak{X}_{\phi}$ is $R$-smooth (and in particular regular). Thus, we may assume that $C$ is not $k$-smooth. The main point is to use an understanding of the structure of $\mathscr{C}$ near each singular point $c \in C - C^{\rm{sm}}$. We noted at the outset that each finite extension $k(c)/k$ is separable, and if $R_c$ is the corresponding local finite étale extension of $R$ then the structure theory of ordinary double points [@FreitagKiehl III, §2] provides an $R_c$-algebra isomorphism $\mathscr{O}_{\mathscr{C},c}^{\rm{h}} \simeq
A_c[u,v]^{\rm{h}}/(uv - a_c)$ for some nonzero non-unit $a_c \in A_c$, where $A_c$ is the local finite étale extension of $A$ with residue field $k(c)/k$; we have $a_c \ne 0$ since $\mathscr{C}$ has smooth generic fiber. For $B = \ZZ[t,u,v]/(uv - t)$, the $B$-module $\wedge^2(\Omega^1_{B/\ZZ[t]})$ is $B/(u,v) = B/(t)$. Thus, by a formal computation at each $c$ we see that the annihilator ideal of $\wedge^2(\Omega^1_{\mathscr{C}/A})$ on $\mathscr{C}$ cuts out an $A$-finite closed subscheme of the non-smooth locus in $\mathscr{C}$ that is a pullback of a unique closed subscheme ${\operatorname{Spec}}(A/J) \subseteq {\operatorname{Spec}}(A)$. We made the initial choice of $k'/k$ large enough so that it splits each $k(c)/k$. Hence, the method of proof of [@DeligneMumford 1.5] and the discussion following that result show that for each singularity $c'$ in $C_{k'}$, the corresponding element $a_{c'} \in A'$ may be chosen so that the $a_{c'}$’s are part of a system of variables for $A'$ as a formal power series ring over $R'$. The ideal $J A'$ is the intersection of the ideals $(a_{c'})$. To summarize, $A$ is a formal power series ring over $R$ and we can choose the variables for $A'$ over $R'$ such that $JA'$ is generated by a product of such variables, one for each singularity on $C_{k'}$. In particular, the local interpretation of each $a_{c'}$ on $\mathscr{C}'$ shows that for a local $R'$-algebra map $\phi':A' \rightarrow R'$, the pullback $\mathfrak{X}'_{\phi'}$ of $\mathscr{C}'$ along $\phi'$ is regular if and only if $\phi'(a_{c'}) \in R'$ is a uniformizer for each $c'$. This condition on $\phi'$ is equivalent to saying that $\phi'(J A') \subseteq R'$ is a proper nonzero ideal with multiplicity equal to the number $\nu$ of geometric singularities on $C$.
Since $JA' = J \otimes_A A'$ is a principal nonzero proper ideal, and hence it is invertible as an $A'$-module, it follows that $J$ is principal as well, say $J = (\alpha)$ for some nonzero nonunit $\alpha \in A$. We seek an $R$-algebra map $\phi:A \rightarrow R$ such that $\phi(I) \ne 0$ and $\phi(\alpha) \in R$ is nonzero with order $\nu$, for then $\phi^{\ast}(\mathscr{C})$ will have smooth generic fiber (by our earlier discussion) and will become regular over $R'$, and so it will be regular since $R'$ is finite étale over $R$. The information we have about $\alpha \in A$ is that in the formal power series ring $A'$ over $R'$ we can choose the variables so that $\alpha$ is a product of $\nu$ of the variables. We are now reduced to the following problem in commutative algebra. Let $R \rightarrow R'$ be a local finite étale extension of discrete valuation rings, $A = R[\![x_1,\dots,x_N]\!]$, $I \subseteq A$ a nonzero ideal, and $\alpha \in A$ an element such that in $A' = R' \otimes_R A$ we can write $\alpha = x'_1 \cdots x'_{\nu}$ for some $1 \le \nu \le N$ and choice of $R'$-algebra isomorphism $A' \simeq R'[\![x'_1,\dots,x'_N]\!]$. Then we claim that there is an $R$-algebra map $\phi:A \rightarrow R$ such that ${\rm{ord}}_R(\phi(\alpha)) = \nu$ and $\phi(I) \ne 0$.
If we can choose $k' = k$, such as in the case when $C$ is a Mumford curve, then such a $\phi$ obviously exists. Hence, for the intended application to Corollary \[DeformationCor\], we are done. To prove the claim in general, consider the expansions $$x'_j = a'_{0j} + \sum_{i=1}^N a'_{ij} x_i + \dots$$ where $a'_{0j} \in \mathfrak{m}_{R'}$ and $(a'_{ij})_{1 \le i, j \le N}$ is invertible over $R'$. Let $\pi \in \mathfrak{m}_R$ be a uniformizer. We seek $\phi$ of the form $\phi(x_i) = t_i \pi$ for $t_i \in R$. The requirement on the $t_i$’s is that $(a'_{0j}/\pi) + \sum a'_{ij} t_i \in R'^{\times}$ for $1 \le i \le \nu$ and that $h(t_1 \pi, \dots, t_N \pi) \ne 0$ for some fixed nonzero power series $h \in I$. The unit conditions only depend on $t_i \bmod \mathfrak{m}_R$. Thus, once we find $t_i$ that satisfy these unit conditions, the remaining non-vanishing condition on the nonzero power series $h$ is trivial to satisfy by modifying the higher-order parts of the $t_i$’s appropriately. It remains to consider the unit conditions, which is a consequence of the trivial lemma below.
Let $k'/k$ be a finite extension of fields. For $1 \le \nu \le N$ let $\{H'_1, \dots, H'_{\nu}\}$ be a collection of independent hyperplanes in ${k'}^N$. If $k$ is infinite then for any $v'_1, \dots, v'_{\nu} \in {k'}^N$, the union of the affine-linear hyperplanes $v'_i + H'_i$ in ${k'}^N$ cannot contain $k^N$.
If this lemma is true for finite $k$ then Theorem \[DeformationTheorem\] is true without restriction on $k$. By a long induction argument that we omit, this lemma for a fixed finite field $k$ can be reduced to establishing an affirmative answer to the following question in the theory of subspace arrangements over $k$: if $V$ is a vector space of dimension $N \ge 1$ over a finite field $k$, and if $V_1, \dots, V_N$ are nonzero proper linear subspaces such that $V$ is a union of the translates $v_i + V_i$ for $v_1, \dots, v_N \in V$, is there some $1 \le d \le N$ for which some $d$-fold intersection $V_{i_1} \cap \dots \cap V_{i_d}$ has dimension at least $N-d+1$?
[^1]: I am very grateful to Marc Coppens for pointing out an error in an earlier version of this paper; his comments led to numerous improvements in the present version. I would also like to thank Serguei Norine for many enlightening conversations, my student Adam Tart for performing some very useful computer calculations, and Michael Kerber for stimulating discussions concerning tropical curves. I am also grateful to Kevin Buzzard, Bas Edixhoven, Xander Faber, and Ezra Miller for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to Brian Conrad for contributing Appendix \[DeformationTheorySection\].\
he author’s work was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0600027, and Brian Conrad’s work was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0600919.
[^2]: See [@MikhalkinICM] for an introduction to tropical geometry.
[^3]: Here we follow the sign conventions from [@BF]. In [@GathmannKerber], the divisor of $f$ is defined to be the negative of the one we define here.
[^4]: Unlike some other definitions in the literature, the definition of a tropical curve from [@GathmannKerber] allows vertices of valence 1 and 2, and requires that there is a “point at infinity” at the end of each unbounded edge.
[^5]: This is a standard fact: it is due to Deligne–Mumford [@DeligneMumford 5.2] if $n = 0$ (so $g \ge 2$), Deligne–Rapoport if $g = n = 1$ [@DeligneRapoport IV, 2.2], and is trivial if $g = 0, n = 3$ (in which case $(\mathbf{P}^1, \{0, 1, \infty\})$ is the only such object, so the stack is ${\operatorname{Spec}}\ZZ$). The general case follows from these cases by realizing $\mathscr{M}_{g,n}$ as the universal curve over $\mathscr{M}_{g,n-1}$ (due to Knudsen’s contraction and stabilization operations [@Knudsen2 2.7]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we collect the fundamental basic properties of jet-modules in algebraic geometry and related properties of differential operators. We claim no originality but we want to provide a reference work for own research and the research of other people.'
author:
- Stefan Günther
bibliography:
- 'BasicsDiffops.bib'
title: Basics of jet modules and algebraic linear differential operators
---
Notation and Conventions
========================
[\[rem:R1912\]]{} This is a slightly advanced introduction to the theory of jet modules in algebraic geometry. For the elementary facts see e.g. [@Vakil].
By $\mathbb N$ we denote the natural numbers, by $\mathbb N_0$ the set of nonnegative integers.
We use multi index notation: if $x_1,...,x_n$ is a set of variables, we denote $$\underline{x}^{\underline{m}}: x_1^{m_1}\cdot x_2^{m_2}\ldots x_n^{m_n}\quad \text{where}\quad \underline{m}:=(m_1,m_2,\ldots ,m_n)$$ is a multiindex of lenght $n$. By $\mid \underline{m}\mid$ we denote the number $m_1+...m_n$. The partial derivatives of a function $f(x_1,...,x_m)$ in the variables $x_i$ we denote by $\partial^{\mid m\mid}/\partial \underline{x}^{\underline{m}}(f(x_1,...,x_m))$.
Let $X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of schemes. By $\Omega^{(1)}(X/S)$ we denote the usual sheaf of Kähler differentials. We use this notation, because there exist higher Kähler differential modules $\Omega^{(n)}(X/S)$ see [@Guenther]. The direct sum $\bigoplus_{n\in \mathbb N_0}\Omega^{(n)}(X/S)$ is a graded sheaf of $\mathcal O_X$-algebras whose ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}_X$ is the well known space of relative arcs (arcs in fibre direction).
Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings. By $I_{A/k}$ we denote the ideal in the ring $A\otimes_kA$ which is the kernel of the multiplication map $\mu: A\otimes_kA\longrightarrow A$. By $p_i: A\longrightarrow A\otimes_kA, i=1,2$ we denote the maps $p_1: a\mapsto a\otimes 1$ and $p_2: a\mapsto 1\otimes a$ and likewise for the residue rings (jet algebras) $A\otimes_kA/I_{A/k}^{N+1}$.
Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings and let $M$ be an $A$-module. For each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$ we denote the $N^{th}$ jet-module of $M$ relative to $k$ by $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ which is by definition the module $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal J^N(M/k):=A\otimes_kM/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\cdot (A\otimes_kM)\quad \text{if} \quad N\in \mathbb N_0\quad \text{and}\\
\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M/k):=\widehat{A\otimes_kM}^{I_{A/k}},
\end{gathered}$$ which is the completed module with respect to the diagonal ideal $I_{A/k}$.\
If $M=A$, this is a ring, which has two $A$-algebra structures in the obvious way. $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ is an $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$-module in a canonical way.\
The derivation $$M\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k),\quad m\mapsto \overline{1\otimes m}$$ is denoted by $d^N_{M/k}$.\
Because of proven in section 2.1, it is called the universal derivation for the $A$-module $M$ relative to $k$.\
If $M=A$, for $a\in A$ we denote by $d^1a$ the element $\overline{1\otimes a}-\overline{a\otimes 1}\in \mathcal J^N(A/k)$. Thus $d^N_{A/k}(a)=a +d^1(a).$\
If $X\longrightarrow S$ is a morphism of schemes an $\mathcal F$ is a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module, we denote the $N^{th}$-jet module by $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ with universal derivation $$d^N_{\mathcal F/S}: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S).$$ Observe that in [@EGA]\[EGAIV,chapter 16.3-16.4, pp.14-27\], these are called the bundles of higher order principal parts.\
If $\mathcal F=\mathcal O_X$ we denote $$J^N(X/S):={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}_X\mathcal J^N(X/S)\stackrel{p_X}\longrightarrow X$$ the associated affine bundle over $X$ which is some kind of higher order relative tangent bundle.
Introduction
============
The calculus of jet-modules and jet bundles in algebraic geometry is basic for understanding linear partial differential operators and for a given extension of commutative rings $k\longrightarrow A$ and an $A$-module $M$, the $N^{th}$ jet module $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ provides infinitesimal information about the $A$-module $M$. If $M=A$, and $A$ is a local ring, essentially of finite type over a base field $k$, the $N^{th}$ jet-algebra $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ provides further information about the singularity $(A,\mathfrak{m}, k).$ This algebra is again a $k$-algebra, essentially of finite type over $k$, and, e.g., the Hilbert-Samuel polynom of this algebra gives higher order information about the singularity $(A,\mathfrak{m},k)$. So, studying jet modules can be very fruitful and in this paper we want to give basic elementary properties, e.g. generalizing properties of the classical module of Kähler differentials. We claim no originality but want to collect some basic facts that do not occur in the basic textbooks as [@EGA]\[EGAIV,chapter 16.3-16.4, pp.14-27\] in order to provide a reference for further own research and the research of other people.
Fundamentals of jet-modules and differential operators in algebraic geometry
============================================================================
Definition of a linear partial differential operator
----------------------------------------------------
Recall that if $k$ is a field and $\mathbb A^n_k$ is affine $n$-space over $k$, then a homogenous partial linear differential operator of order $N$, $$D: \bigoplus_{i=1}^m k[x_1,...,x_n]e_i\longrightarrow \bigoplus_{i=1}^mk[x_1,...,x_n]e_i$$ corresponds to a $k[x_1,...,x_n]$-linear map $$\widetilde{D}: (k[x_1,...,x_n][d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]/(d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n)^{N+1})^{\oplus m}\longrightarrow k[x_1,...,x_n]^{\oplus m}$$ under the natural correspondence $\widetilde{D}\mapsto \widetilde{D}\circ (d^N_{\mathbb A^n_k/k})^{\oplus m}$ where $d^N_{\mathbb A^N_k/k}$ is the $N$-truncated Taylor series expansion, $$k[x_1,...,x_n]\longrightarrow k[x_1,...,x_n][d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]/(d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n)^{N+1},$$ sending $x_i$ to $x_i+d^1x_i$. This is a standard calculation. The $k$-algebra $k[\underline{x}][\underline{d^1x}]/(\underline{d^1x}^{N+1})$ is the $N^{th}$ jet module $\mathcal J^N(k[\underline{x}]/k)$ of $k[\underline{x}]/k$ and is a $k[\underline{x}]$-algebra. The inverse limit $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(k[\underline{x}]/k):=\projlim_{n\in\mathbb N}\mathcal J^N(k[\underline{x}]/k)=k[x_1,...,x_n][[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]\\
\cong k[x_1,...,x_n]\widehat{\otimes}k[x_1,...,x_n]\end{gathered}$$ is the universal jetalgebra of $k[\underline{x}]$ where the last expression is the tensor product completed with respect to the ideal $I_{k[\underline{x}]/k}$ which is the kernel of the algebra multiplication map. Over $k[\underline{x}]$ each projective module is free, so the standard definition from the $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-case carries over to the algebraic case. For $k=\mathbb R,\mathbb C$ these are just the linear partial differential operators with polynomial coefficients. Via the above corresondence each partial differential operator corresponds to an $A$-linear map $$\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(A^{\oplus m}/k)\longrightarrow A^{\oplus m}\,\, (A=k[\underline{x}]).$$ Since the formation of the jet modules commutes with localization, they give rise to a coherent sheaf on $\mathbb A^n$ and we define the algebraic differential operators for a free $A=\Gamma(U,\mathcal O_{\mathbb A^n})$-module $A^{\oplus m}$ for $U\subset \mathbb A^n_k$ a Zariski open subset to be the $A$-linear homomorphisms $\Gamma(U, \mathcal J^N(k[\underline{x}]/k))^{\oplus m}\longrightarrow A^{\oplus m}$.\
In particular, if $U={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}k[\underline{x}]_{f}$ for some polynomial $f$, this definition gives linear partial differential operators with rational function coefficients $\frac{g}{f^n}$ .\
Supplements to the calculus of jet modules
------------------------------------------
[\[def:D1712\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings, let $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup \{\mathbb N\}$, $M$ be an $A$-module and $Q$ be a $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$-module. A filtered derivation $t_M: M\longrightarrow Q$ is an $A$-linear homomorphism where $Q$ is given the $A$-module structure via the second factor $A\longrightarrow A\otimes_kA/I_{A/k}^{N+1}$.\
The notation filtered derivation, introduced in [@Guenther], is used because for each $a\in A$, $m\in M$, $t(am)-am\in I_{A/k}\cdot Q$.
[\[lem:L45\]]{} Let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of rings, $M$ be a $B$-module, and $Q$ be a $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$-module and $t: M\longrightarrow Q$ be a $B$-linear map with respect to the second $B$-module structure on $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$, i.e., a filtered derivation. Then, there is a unique homomorphism of $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$-modules $$\phi:\mathcal J^N(M/A)\longrightarrow Q\quad \text{such that}\quad t=\phi\circ d^N_{M/A}.$$
We have $\mathcal J^N(B/A)=B\otimes_AB/\mathcal I_{B/A}^{N+1}$ and natural homomorphisms $p_1,p_2: B\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(B/A)$. Then, by definition $$\mathcal J^N(M/A)=M\otimes_{B,p_2}\mathcal J^N(B/A).$$ The statement reduces to the easy fact, that, given a homomorphism of rings $k\longrightarrow l,$ given a $k$-module $M_k$ and an $l$-module $M_l$, and a $k$-linear homomorphism $M_k\longrightarrow M_l$, there is a unique $l$-linear homomorphism $M_k\otimes_{k}l\longrightarrow M_l$ which follows by the adjunction of restriction and extension of scalars.
Fundamental properties of the jet-modules
-----------------------------------------
Recall e.g. from [@Guenther], that if $k\longrightarrow A$ is a $k$-algebra with presentation $$A\cong k[x_i| i\in I]/(f_j| j\in J),$$ then the $N^{th}$ jet algebra $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ possesses the presentation $$\mathcal J^N(A/k):= k[x_i, d^1x_i|i\in I]/ (I_{A/k}^{N+1}+(f_j, d^1f_j| j\in J)).$$ This can also be taken as the definition of the $N^{th}$-jet-algebra. One then has to show that this is independend of the choosen presentation for $A$. We have the following easy consequences.
[\[lem:L19125\]]{}(Base change 0) Let $k\longrightarrow A$ and $k\longrightarrow A'$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings. Then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$, there is an isomorphism $$\mathcal J^N(A\otimes_kA'/A')\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\otimes_AA'.$$
This follows from the fact, that if $A=k[x_i|i\in I]/(f_j|j\in J)$ is a presentation of $A/k$, then $$A\otimes_kA'=A'[x_i|i\in I]/(f_j|j\in J)$$ is a presentation for $A\otimes_kA'/A'$ and the corresponding presentation of the jet-algebras.\
This isomorphism can be made canonical by observing that $$A\otimes_kA'\stackrel{d^N_{A/k}\otimes_k{\ensuremath{\operatorname{id}}}_{A'}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\otimes_kA'\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\otimes_AA'$$ is a filtered module derivation which by the universal property of the jet-modules induces a canonical isomorphism $\mathcal J^N(A\otimes_kA'/A')\cong \mathcal J^N(A/k)\otimes_AA'.$
[\[cor:C19126\]]{} If $A$ is a finitely generated $k$-algebra, then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0$, $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ is a finitely generated $A$-algebra.
[\[prop:P20124\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of noetherian rings that makes $A$ a smooth, finite type $k$-algebra. Let $M$ be a finitely generated projective $A$-module. Then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0$, $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ is a projective $A$-module.
First, consider the case $M=A$. We prove the result by induction on $N\in \mathbb N_0$. For $N=0$, $\mathcal J^0(A/k)\cong A$ the result is trivially true. From the jet-bundle exact sequence $j^N_{A/k}$, $$0\longrightarrow I_{A/k}^N/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k)\longrightarrow 0,$$ suppose we know that $\mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k)$ is a projective $A$-module. Since $A$ is a smooth $k$-algebra, the diagonal ideal $I_{A/k}$ corresponds to the regular embedding $$X={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A\hookrightarrow X\times_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}k}X.$$ In this case, $$I_{A/k}^N/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\cong (I_{A/k}/I_{A/k}^2)^{\otimes^s N}\cong \Omega^{(1)}(A/k)^{\otimes^s N}$$ which is well known to be a projective $A$-module. The induction step is then complete by observing that an extension of projective $A$-modules is again a projective $A$-module.\
For the general case, if $M$ is a free $A$-module, the claim is true since taking jet-modules commute with taking direct sums.\
For arbitrary projective $M$, since by taking jet modules commute with Zariski localizations, choosing a Zariski-open covering ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A=\bigcup_{i\in I}{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A_i$ such that $M$ is free on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A_i$, we know that $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ is Zariski-locally a projective $A$-module, hence a projective $A$-module.
We now prove some fundamental properties.
[\[prop:POkt2916\]]{}(Exterior products I) Let $k\longrightarrow A$ and $k\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings. Then, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\gamma_{A,B}: \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(B/k)\cong \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A\otimes_kB/k).$$
This follows from the explicite presentations of the jet modules for a given presentation of $A$ and $B$, respectively (see [@Guenther]\[chapter 6.5, pp. 101-119\]).\
Choose $N\in \mathbb N_0$. If $$A=k[x_i| i\in I]/(f_j| j\in J)\quad \text{and}\quad B=k[y_k| k\in K]/(g_l| l\in L)$$ are presentations for $A$ and $B$, then $$A\otimes_kB= k[x_i, y_k\mid i\in I, k\in K]/(f_j, g_l\mid j\in J, l\in L)$$ is a presentation for $A\otimes_kB$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal J^N(k[x_i\mid i\in I]/(f_j\mid j\in J)/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^N(k[y_k\mid k\in K]/(g_l\mid l\in L)/k)
\cong \\
k[x_i, d^1x_i| i\in I]/((f_j, d^1f_j\mid j\in J)+ I_{A/k}^{N+1})\\
\otimes_k k[y_k, d^1y_k| k\in K]/((g_l, d^1g_l\mid l\in L)+I_{B/k}^{N+1})\quad \text{and} \\
\mathcal J^N(A\otimes_kB/k)\cong \\
k[x_i, y_k, d^1x_i, d^1y_k| i\in I, k\in K]/((f_j, d^1f_j, g_l, d^1g_l| k\in K, l\in L)+I_{A\otimes_kB/k}^{N+1})\end{gathered}$$ We have the identity $I_{A\otimes_kB/k}=(I_{A/k}+I_{B/k})$ which follows from the well known fact that the diagonal ideal is generated by all $1\otimes a-a\otimes 1=d^1a$. Thus $I_{A/k}$ is generated by all $1\otimes x_i-x_i\otimes 1$, $I_{B/k}$ is generated by all $1\otimes y_j-y_j\otimes 1$. Obviously, we have an inclusion $$(I_{A/k}^{N+1}+I_{B/k}^{N+1})\cdot (A\otimes_kB)\subseteq I_{A\otimes_kB}^{N+1}.$$ Conversely, there is an inlcusion $$I_{A\otimes_kB/k}^{2N+1}\subseteq (I_{A/k}^{N+1}+I_{B/k}^{N+1})\cdot (A\otimes_kB)$$ because $2N+1$-fold products of elements $x_i\otimes 1-1\otimes x_i$ and $y_j\otimes 1-1\otimes y_j$ must either contain an $N+1$ fold product of the $x_i\otimes 1-1\otimes x_i$ or an $N+1$ fold product of the $y_j\otimes 1-1\otimes y_j$.\
It follows, taking the projective limit over the natural homomorphisms $$\gamma_{A,B}^N:\mathcal J^N(A/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^N(B/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A\otimes_kB/k),$$ we get an isomorphism $$\gamma_{A,B}:\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(B/k)\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A\otimes_kB/k).$$
[\[lem:L19121\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings. Then the functor $$\mathcal J^N(-/k): (A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}})\longrightarrow (\mathcal J^N(A/k)-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}),\quad M\mapsto \mathcal J^N(M/k)$$ is right exact.
This follows from the functorial isomorphism $\mathcal J^N(M/k)\cong M\otimes_{A,p_2}\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ and the right exactness of the tensor product.
[\[cor:C19123\]]{} With the previous notation, if $$A^{\oplus J}\stackrel{\phi}\longrightarrow A^{\oplus I}\twoheadrightarrow M$$ is a presentation for the $A$-module $M$, with $\phi$ given by the matrix $(a_{ij})$, then $\mathcal J^N(M/k)$ is given by the presentation $$\mathcal J^N(A/k)^{\oplus J}\stackrel{\mathcal J^N(\phi/k)}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)^{\oplus I}\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k),$$ where $\mathcal J^N(\phi/k)$ is given by the matrix $(a_{ij}+d^1a_{ij})$.
This follows from the easy fact, that the functor $\mathcal J^N(-/k)$ commutes with direct sums.
[\[prop:POkt298\]]{} (Exterior Products II) Let $k\longrightarrow A$ and $k\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings. Let $M$ be an $A$-module and $N$ be a $B$-module. Then, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\gamma_{M,N}:\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(N/k)\cong \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M\otimes_kN/k).$$
The standard arguement shows that there is a canonical transformation of bi-functors $$\gamma_{M,N}: \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M\otimes_kN/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(N/k)$$ that comes from the fact the the tensor product $d^{\mathbb N}_{M/k}\otimes_kd^{\mathbb N}_{N/k}$ is a filtered derivation and the universal representing property of the jet-modules. If $M$ and $N$ are free $A$- and $B$-modules respectively, the fact that $\gamma_{M,N}$ is an isomorphism, follows from (Exterior products I) and the fact that the jet-modules commute with direct sums. Then both sides are right exact in each variable $M,N$ and choosing free presentations of $M$ and $N$ respectively, the claim follows by the five lemma.
[\[prop:P2913\]]{} (Base change I) Let $A\longrightarrow B,$ $A\longrightarrow A'$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings and $M$ be a $B$-module. Then, for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\beta_M:\mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AA'/A')\cong \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'.$$
Both sides are right exact functors from $B-\mbox{Mod}$ to $\mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AA')-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$. This follows from (Base change 0)( see ).\
There is an $A'$-linear map $$t^N: d^N_{M/A}\otimes_A\mbox{Id}_{A'}: M\otimes_AA'\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'$$ which is a filtered module-derivation. If $I_{B/A}$ is the diagonal ideal, we have that $$\begin{gathered}
t^N(b\cdot m\otimes a')-b\cdot m\otimes a'=d^N_M(bm)\otimes a'-bm\otimes a'\\
\in I_{B/A}\cdot \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'
\subseteq I_{B\otimes_AAÄ/A}\cdot (\mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'),\end{gathered}$$ which is the definition of a filtered module derivation. By the universal property of the jet modules, there is a functorial homomorphism (natural transformation) $$\beta_M: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AA'/A')\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'$$ of functors from $B-\mbox{Mod}$ to $\mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AA')-\text{Mod}$. If $M\cong B$, by (Base change 0) (see ), there is an isomorphism $$\beta_B: \mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AA')\cong \mathcal J^N(B/A)\otimes_AA'.$$ Since the jet-modules commute with direct sums, $\beta_M$ is an isomorphism for each free $B$-module $B^{\oplus I}$. If $M$ is arbitrary, choose a presentation $$B^{\oplus I}\longrightarrow B^{\oplus J}\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow 0$$ Since $\beta_{B^{\oplus I}}$ and $\beta_{B^{\oplus J}}$ are isomorphisms, $\beta_M$ is an isomorphism by the five-lemma.
[\[prop:POkt2914\]]{}(Base change II) Let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of rings, $M$ be a $B$-module and $N$ be an $A$-module. Then, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\alpha_N:\mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN\cong \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN.$$
Fixing the $B$-module $M$, both sides can be considered as functors from $A-\mbox{Mod}$ to $\mathcal J^N(B/A)-\mbox{Mod}$. For each $A$-module $N$, there is an $A$-linear map $$M\otimes_AN\stackrel{d^N_M\otimes_A\text{Id}_N}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN.$$ This is a filtered module derivation, i.e., if $I_{B/A}$ is the diagonal ideal, then $$\begin{gathered}
d^N(b\cdot (m\otimes n))-b\cdot (m\otimes n)=d^N_{M/k}(b\cdot m)\otimes n-b\cdot m\otimes n \in \\I_{B/A}\cdot (\mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN)
\subseteq I_{B\otimes_AA'}\cdot (\mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN,\end{gathered}$$ because $d^N_{M/A}$ is a module derivation. By the representing property of the jet-modules, there is a unique homomorphism of $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$-modules $$\alpha_N: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/A)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN.$$ This homomorphism is in fact a natural transformation of functors from $A-\text{Mod}$ to $\mathcal J^N(B/A)-\mbox{Mod}.$ Both functors are right exact functors. If $N=A^{\oplus I}$ is a free $A$-module, then both sides are isomorphic to $\mathcal J^N(M/A)^{\oplus I}$ because the jet-modules commute with direct sums.\
In the general case, choose a presentation $$A^{\oplus I}\longrightarrow A^{\oplus J}\longrightarrow N\longrightarrow 0.$$ We know that $\alpha_{A^{\oplus I}}$ and $\alpha_{A^{\oplus J}}$ are isomorphisms, so by the five lemma , it follows that $\alpha_N$ is an isomorphism.
[\[prop:PNov4\]]{}(Tensor Products)\
Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings and $M,N$ be two $A$-modules. Then, for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$ , there is a canonical functorial isomorphism $$\theta_{M,N}: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/k)\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k)\otimes_{\mathcal J^N(A/k)}\mathcal J^N(N/k),$$ in the sense that both sides are bi-functors to $\mathcal J^N(A/k)-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ and $\theta_{M,N}$ is a natural transformation of bifunctors that is for each object $(M,N)$ an isomorphism.
The arguement is standard. There is a canonical homomorphism $$\begin{gathered}
t^N_{M\otimes_AN}:\,\,M\otimes_AN\stackrel{d^K_M\otimes_Ad^K_N}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k)^{(2)}\otimes_A\mathcal J^N(N/k)^{(2)}\\
\twoheadrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k)\otimes_{\mathcal J^N(A/k)}\mathcal J^N(N/k),\end{gathered}$$ where the superscript $(-)^{(2)}$ indicates that the jet-modules are considered with respect to the second $A$-module structure. By the universal property of $\mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/k)$, there is a unique homomorphism of $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$-modules $$\theta_{M,N}: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k)\otimes_{\mathcal J^N(A/k)}\mathcal J^N(N/k).$$ That this is a natural transformation of bi-functors follows from the uniqueness of $\theta_{M,N}$.\
Now, if $M= A^{\oplus I}$ is free, then $\theta_{M,N}$ is an isomorphism (both sides are isomorphic to $\bigoplus_{i\in I}\mathcal J^N(N/k)$. Furthermore, both sides are right exact functors in the $M$-variable for fixed $N$, so the result follows by choosing a presentation $A^{\oplus I}\longrightarrow A^{\oplus J}\twoheadrightarrow M.$
Combining (Base change I) and (Base change II) we get
[\[prop:P2012\]]{}(Base change III) Let $A\longrightarrow B$ and $A\longrightarrow A'$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings, $M$ be a $B$-module and $N$ be an $A'$-module. Then, for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\},$ functorial in $N$, there are isomorphisms of $\mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AA'/A')$-modules $$\alpha_{M,N}: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/A')\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN.$$
The arguement is now standard. We fix the $B$-module $M$. One checks that $$d^N_{M/A}\otimes_A{\ensuremath{\operatorname{id}}}_{N}: M\otimes_AN\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN$$ is a filtered module dervation relative to $A'$, giving rise to a functorial homomorphism of $\mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AA')$-modules $$\alpha_N: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/A')\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN.$$ By (Base change II), $\alpha_{A'}$ is an isomorphism. It then follows $\alpha_N$ is an isomorphism for a free $A'$-module $N$, and $\alpha_N$ is then an isomorphism for each $N$ by taking free presentations and application of the five-lemma.
[\[lem:LOkt2920\]]{} Let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a smooth homomorphism (of finite type) of noetherian rings and $M$ be a projective $B$-module. If $$0\longrightarrow N_1\longrightarrow N\longrightarrow N_2\longrightarrow 0$$ is an exact sequence of $A$-modules, then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$, there is an exact sequence of $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$ modules $$(*)_M: 0\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN_1/A)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/A)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN_2/A)\longrightarrow 0.$$ Furhtermore, the exact sequence $(*)_M$ is functorial in $M$ i.e., $(*)_M$ is a functor from $A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ to the category of exact sequences in $\mathcal J^N(B/A)-Mod$.
Follows from (Base change III) and the functor properties of the jet-modules and the fact, that in this case $\mathcal J^N(M/A)$ is a projective $B$-module, hence a flat $A$-module. (see )
[\[prop:P20125\]]{} We have only proved the fundamental properties of the jet-modules (tensor products, base change ...) for $N\in \mathbb N_0$. But the result for $N=\mathbb N$ follows by taking projective limits of the isomorphisms obtained for $N\in \mathbb N_0$.
Because of lack of reference, we want to prove the following inocuous generalization of the formal inverse function theorem.
Let $A$ be a noethrian ring and let $C:= A[[y_1,...,y_n]]/(f_1,...,f_m)$ with $m\geq n$ be a formal power series ring such that some $(n\times n)$-minor has a determinant which is a unit in $A$. Then $C\cong K$.
Without loss of generality, let this be the left upper most minor . But then, in the power series ring $A[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]$, by the formal inverse function, theorem $d^1f_1,...,d^1f_n$ are formal coordinates and $$A[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_n)\cong A$$ and a fortiori $A[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)\cong A$. The proof in [@Bochner] in the introductory chapter given for the case where $A$ is a field carries over verbatim. One has to develop $d^1x_i$ into a formal power series in the $d^1f_j$, $$d^1x_i=\sum_{j=1}^nb_{ji}d^1x_i+\sum_{J}(\underline{d^1f})^J.$$ By the Cramer rule one determines the $b_{ji}$ and then, inductively one determines the $b_J, \mid J\mid \geq 2$.
[\[lem:L30111\]]{}( etale invariance of the jet modules). Let $k\longrightarrow A\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphism of finite type of noetherian rings with $A\longrightarrow B$ being etale. Let $M$ be an $A$-module. Then, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\alpha_M: \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AB/k)\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AB$$ which is a natural transformation of right exact functors from $(A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}})$ to $\mathcal J^N(B/k)-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$.
We first treat the case $M=A$. It suffices to show the claim for the full jet module. For finite $N\in \mathbb N_0$, the result follows by taking truncations.\
We choose a presentation $B=A[x_1,...,x_n]/(f_1,..., f_m)$. By elementary dimension theory, we must have $m\geq n$. We then have $$\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(B/k)=\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A/k)\otimes_AB\otimes_B B[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m),$$ by choosing an appropriate presentation of $A/k$. So it suffices to show, that $$B[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)\cong B$$ and we get $$\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(B/k)\cong \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(A/k)\otimes_AB.$$ We use the Jacobian criterion for smoothness. Considering the Jacobian matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} \partial^1/\partial^1x_1(f_1) & \partial^1/\partial^1x_2(f_1) & \ldots &\partial^1/\partial^1x_n(f_1)\\
\partial^1/\partial^1x_1(f_2) & \partial^1/\partial^1x_2(f_2) & \ldots & \partial^1/\partial^1x_n(f_2)\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots &\vdots \\
\partial^1/\partial^1x_1(f_m) & \partial^1/\partial^1x_2(f_m) & \ldots & \partial^1/\partial^1x_n(f_m)
\end{pmatrix}$$
We then have that the $n^{th}$ Fitting ideal of this matrix, generated by the $(n\times n)$-minors is equal to the unit ideal in $B$, because it is nonzero modulo each maximal ideal of $B$, and otherwise, if the fitting ideal where not the unit ideal, there would be a maximal ideal containing it, a contradiction.\
We want to consider the $n^{th}$-fitting ideal of the Jacobian matrix $\mathcal J(\underline{d^1f}/\underline{d^1x})$. To make sense of this, recall that by definition for the jet algebras for free polynomial algebras (see [@Guenther])\[chapter 6.5, pp. 116-119\], and simply by the fact that the universal derivation is a $k$-algebra homomorphism, $$\begin{gathered}
f_i+d^1f_i =f_i(x_1+d^1x_1,..., x_n+ d^1x_n)=\\
\sum_{I}\partial^{|I|}/\partial \underline{x}^I(f)\cdot \underline{d^1x}^I.
\end{gathered}$$ Observe that this sum is finite, since the $f_j$ are polynomials and considering the $B$-algebra $B[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)$ makes sense. So we can write $d^1f_i$ as a polynomial in the $d^1x_i$ with zero constant term and coefficients in $B$.\
By the above formula, if $I=(0,...,1,...,0)$, we get that the first partial derivative of $d^1f_i$ with respect to the free variable $d^1x_j$ is just $\partial^1/\partial^1x_j(f_i)\in B$. For an arbitrary multi-index $I$, this equality only holds up to a constant factor $c\in \mathbb N$. Thus, we can apply the Jacobian criterion for smoothness in order to conclude that $B[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)$ is etale over $B$, i.e., smooth of relative dimension zero.\
We consider the $n^{th}$ fitting ideal $\text{Fitt}^n$ of $\mathcal J(\underline{d^1f}/\underline{d^1x})$. The coefficients of the $n\times n$-minors lie actually in $B$. Let $\mathfrak{p}\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}(B)$ be given with $B_{\mathfrak{p}}/\mathfrak{p}\cdot B_{\mathfrak{p}} =K$ being the residue field. We consider the reduced ring $$K[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m).$$ The $n^{th}$ fitting ideal of the Jacobian $\mathcal J(\underline{d^1f}/\underline{d^1x})$ modulo $\mathfrak{p} $ is then the unit ideal in $K$ which precisely means that the determinant of some $n\times n$-minor must be nonzero. But then, the determinant of this minor is a unit in $B_{\mathfrak{p}}$ and there exists an open affine ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}C\subset {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$ such that this determinant is a unit in $A$. By the previous lemma, we conclude $$A[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)\cong A.$$ This holds for each prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}(B)$. Hence, there is a finite Zariski open affine covering ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B=\bigcup_{i=1}^n{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A_i$ such that $$A_i[[d^1x_1,...,d^1x_n]]/(d^1f_1,...,d^1f_m)\cong A_i$$ and the claim follows. This shows, that the canonical homomorphism $$\phi_M:\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M/k)\otimes_{A,p_1}B\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M\otimes_AB/B),$$ which is simply the map $$\widehat{A\otimes_kM}\otimes_{A,p_1}B\longrightarrow \widehat{B\otimes_kM}\longrightarrow \widehat{B\otimes_k(M\otimes_AB)}$$ is an isomorphism for $M=B$. Now, the proof is standard. $\phi_M$ is a natural transformation of right exact functors from $B-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ to $\mathcal J^N(B/k)-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$. The result follows for free $A$-modules $M$, since taking jet-modules commutes with taking direct sums and, choosing a free presentation for general $M$, the result follows by the five-lemma.
[\[cor:C19127\]]{} (invariance under Zariski- localization) Let $k$ be a noetherian ring and $k\longrightarrow A$ be $k$-algebra of finite type. Let $S\subset A$ be a multiplicatively closed subset. Then, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\mathcal J^N(A_S/k)\cong \mathcal J^N(A/k)_S,$$ where $S=S\otimes 1$ in $\mathcal J^N(A/k).$
[\[cor:C19128\]]{} If $(A,\mathfrak{m},\kappa)$ is a local ring that is a $k$-algebra essentially of finite type, then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0$, $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ is an $A$-algebra essentially of finite type.
Comparison with the $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-category
--------------------------------------------------
It is well known that for $\mathcal C^{\infty}$-manifolds and vector bundles on them, being a differential operator is a local property, which is in this category one way to define them. In this subsection we show that in the algebraic category, an analogous statement holds, if we use the etale topology on a smooth algebraic scheme $X$.
[\[prop:P5\]]{}Let $S$ be a noetherian scheme and $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$ be a smooth $S$- scheme of finite type of dimension $n$ over $S$ and $\mathcal E$ be a locally free coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module. Let $D: \mathcal E\longrightarrow \mathcal E$ be a homomorphism of etale sheaves of $\pi^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-modules. Suppose, that for each scheme point $x\in X$, there is an etale neighbourhood $p_x: U_x\longrightarrow X$ such that there is a trivialization $\phi_x: p_x^*\mathcal E\cong \mathcal O_{U_x}^{\oplus r}$ plus an etale surjective morphism $q_x: U_x\longrightarrow V_x\subseteq \mathbb A^n_S$. Then $V_x$ is Zariski- open in $\mathbb A^n_S$. Let $\Gamma(U_x,D): \mathcal O_{U_x}^{\oplus r}\longrightarrow \mathcal O_{U_x}^{\oplus r}$ be the section over $U_x$ of $D$ with respect to the trivialization of $\phi_x$ of $\mathcal E$ around $x\in X$. We say that $D$ is a classical linear partial differential operator if there is a partial differential operator $D_x: \mathcal O_{V_x}^{\oplus r}\longrightarrow \mathcal O_{V_x}^{\oplus r} $, that pulls back under $q_x$ to $\Gamma(U_x, D)$. Then, there is an $\mathcal O_X$-linear homomorphism $\widetilde{D}:\mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal E$ such that $D=\widetilde{D}\circ d^N_{\mathcal E/S}$, and conversely, every $D=\widetilde{D}\circ d^N_{\mathcal E/S}$ is of this form.\
Furthermore, every $\mathcal O_X$-linear homomorphism from $\Omega^{\leq N}(\mathcal E/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal E$ (see [@Guenther]) corresponds to a classical differential operator $\mathcal E\longrightarrow \mathcal E$.
Under these assumptions for each scheme point $x\in X$ the classical operator $D_x: \mathcal O_{V_x}^{\oplus r}\longrightarrow \mathcal O_{V_x}^{\oplus r}$ corresponds to a section $$\widetilde{D_x}'\in \Gamma(V_x, Hom_{V_x}(\mathcal J^{ N_x}(\oplus_{i=1}^r O_{V_x}/S), \oplus_{i=1}^r\mathcal O_{v_x})$$ for some $N_x\in \mathbb N$. Since the jet bundles are invariant under etale pull back () , for each $x\in X$ we get a the pulled back section $$\widetilde{D_x}\in \Gamma(U_x, Hom_{U_x}(\mathcal J^{N_x}(\mathcal E/S), \mathcal E)),$$ using the trivialization of $\mathcal E$ over $U_x$, such that $\widetilde{D_x}$ composed with $\Gamma(U_x,d^{ N_x}_{\mathcal E/S})$ is $\Gamma(U_x,D)$. I claim that the $\widetilde{D_x}$ glue to a global section of $DO^N_{X/S}(\mathcal E,\mathcal E)$ over $X$ for some $N\in \mathbb N.$ First since $X$ is quasicompact, we can find an etale finite subcovering $\{U_{x_i}\longrightarrow X,\quad i\in I\}$ with $I$ a finite set. So we can take as our $N$ the number $N=\max_{i\in I}N_{x_i}$. Now the global differential operators are a subalgebra of the $\pi^{-1}(\mathcal O_S)$ linear endomorphism algebra of $\mathcal E$. We know, that etale locally, the endomorphism $D$ is given by an $\mathcal O_X$-linear map $\widetilde{D_x}.$ On etale overlaps $U_x\times_XU_y$, $D$ is certainly given by an element of $\Gamma(U_{xy}, DO^N(\mathcal E), \mathcal E)$ But since each element in $\Gamma(U_{xy}, DO^N(\mathcal E,\mathcal E))$ determines uniquely an element in $Hom_{U_{xy}}(\mathcal J^{ N}(\mathcal E/S),\mathcal E)$ the two elements obtained by restrictions from $U_x$ and $U_y$ to $U_{xy}=U_x\times_XU_y$ must agree. Thus since $\mathcal J^{ N}(\mathcal E/S)$ and $\mathcal E$ are etale sheaves (since they are coherent on $X$), we get a global section in $DO^N(\mathcal E, \mathcal E)$ over $X$.\
The converse of the statement follows from the fact, that if $\pi_x:U_x\longrightarrow V_y$ is an etale morphism, then $$\pi_x^*DO^N(\mathcal O_{V_x}^{\oplus r}/S)\cong DO^N(\mathcal O_{U_x}^{\oplus r}/S),$$ which is a simple consequence of the etale pull back property of the jet-modules (). Thus each differential operator on $U_x$ is the pull back of a differential operator on $V_x$, so the local description of a globally defined differential operator on $\mathcal E/S$ is always satisfied.\
The last statement follows from the local description of differential operators in the $\Omega$-formalizm on $\mathbb A^n_k$ (see [@Guenther]\[chapter 6.4. Theorem 6.55,p.97, chapter 8, Corollary 8.11(2),p. 146\], namely locally on $\mathbb A^n_k$ they give classical partial linear differential operators, and the fact, that they form an etale sheaf .
[\[rem:R22125\]]{} In the same situation, we can prove in the same way, that if $\mathcal E_1$ and $\mathcal E_2$ are locally free sheaves on $X$, then each linear partial differential operator between $\mathcal E_1$ and $\mathcal E_2$ has either a description via the jet bundle or the etale local description.
The global case
---------------
By the etale invariance property of the jet-module (and hence invariance under Zariski-localizations), if $q: X\longrightarrow S$ is a morphism of finite type between noetherian schemes or noetherian algebraic spaces, if $\mathcal F$ is a coherent sheaf on $X$, if we choose affine Zariski-open covers of $X$ and $S$ , the locally defined jet-modules glue to a global jet-module $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$. Under the assumptions made, this is a coherent sheaf on $X$. This follows from the fact, that the localization isomorphisms are canonical (follows from the universal representing properties of the jet-modules) and hence, the cocycle conditions are satisfied).\
If $X$ and $S$ are noetherian algebraic spaces, one defines the jet sheaf first in the case, where the morphism is representable, i.e. we can find an etale cover $\{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A_i\longrightarrow S\}$ such that $X\times_S{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A_i$ is a scheme. Then, etale locally over $S$, the jet-modules are defined by the scheme case.\
If the morphism $q$ is not representable we can assume that $S={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ is a noetherian affine scheme. Then choose an etale cover $\{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B_j\longrightarrow X\}$ and the jet-modules $\mathcal J^N(M_j/A)$, where $\mathcal F\mid_{{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B_j}=\widetilde{M_j}$ glue to a globally defined jet sheaf $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$. All we need is the base change -and etale invariance property of the jet-modules. Also, the universal filtered derivations $$d^N_{M_j/A_i}: M_j\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M_j/A_i), i\in I, j\in J$$ glue to a universal derivation $$d^N_{\mathcal F/S}: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S).$$ Furthermore, for a fixed quasi coherent sheaf $\mathcal F$, the universal representing property of the pair $d^N_{\mathcal F/S},\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ for the moduli problem, sending a $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-module $\mathcal Q$ to the set of all filtered derivations $t: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal Q$ is satisfied, because the required homomorphism of $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-modules $\phi: \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal Q$ can be constructed etale-or Zariski-locally, and by the universal property in the affine case, these locally construced $\phi_i$ glue to a global $\phi$. If $\phi_1,\phi_2$ are two homomorphisms of $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-modules with $t=\phi_i\circ d^N_{\mathcal F/S}$, then they locally agree, hence by the sheaf property they agree globally. We have proved the following
[\[thm:T20127\]]{} Let $q: X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of finite type of noetherian schemes, or, more generally of neotherian algebraic spaces and let $\mathcal F$ be a quasi coherent sheaf on $X$. Then, for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup \{\mathbb N\},$ there is a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ plus a filtered derivation $$d^N_{\mathcal F/S}: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$$ with respect to the diagonal ideal sheaf $\mathcal I_{X/S}$ that represents the functor, sending a $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-module $\mathcal Q$ to the set of all filtered derivations $t: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal Q$ with respect to the diagonal ideal sheaf $\mathcal I_{X/S}$.
We thus make the following (basically standard) definition.
[\[def:D46\]]{} Let $X\longrightarrow S$ be an arbitrary morphism of finite type of noetherian schemes, or more generally of noetherian algebraic spaces and $\mathcal F_i, i=1,2$ be quasi coherent sheaves on $X$. Then, a differential operator of order $\leq N$ is an $\mathcal O_S$-linear map $D: \mathcal F_1\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2$ that can be factored as $$\mathcal F_1\stackrel{d^N_{\mathcal F/S}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S) \stackrel{\widetilde{D}}\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2,$$ where the homomorphism $\widetilde{D}$ is $\mathcal O_X$-linear, where $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$ is regarded with respect to the $\mathcal O_X$-module structure coming from the first tensor factor. A differential operator of order $N$ is a differential operator that is of order $\leq N$ but not of order $\leq N-1$.
Thus, in this situation, there is a 1-1 correspondence between differential operators $\mathcal F_1\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2$ relative to $S$ and $\mathcal O_X$-linear maps $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2$.
[\[prop:P2\]]{} (arbitrary push-forwards) Let $X\stackrel{f}\longrightarrow Y\stackrel{p}\longrightarrow S$ be morphisms of schemes and $\mathcal F_i, i=1,2$ be quasi coherent sheaves on $X$. Let $D: \mathcal F_1\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2$ be a differential operator relative to $S$. Then $f_*F_1\stackrel{f_*D}\longrightarrow f_*F_2$ is a differential operator between the quasi coherent sheaves $f_*F_i$ relative to $S$, where $f_*D$ is taken in the category of sheaves of $(\pi\circ f)^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-modules on $X$.
Let $D$ be given by $$\widetilde{D}\circ d^N_{\mathcal F_1/S}: \mathcal F_1\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2,$$ where the first map is $(\pi\circ f)^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-linear and $\widetilde{D}$ is $\mathcal O_X$-linear. Then $f_*d^N_{\mathcal F_1/S}$ is an $\pi^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-linear map from $f_*\mathcal F_1$ to $f_*\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)$ and $f_*\widetilde{D}$ is $f_*\mathcal O_X$, and thus $\mathcal O_Y$ linear via the structure homomorphism $\mathcal O_Y\longrightarrow f_*\mathcal O_X$.\
The morphism $f$ induces a morphism $$J^N(f/S): J^N(X/S)\longrightarrow J^N(Y/S),$$ where $J^N(X/S):={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}_X\mathcal J^N(X/S)$ with projection $p_{X}:J^N(X/S)\longrightarrow X$, such that $$p_{Y}\circ J^N(f/S)=f\circ p_X.$$ and thus we have a homomorphism of sheaves $\mathcal J^N(Y/S)\longrightarrow f_*\mathcal J^N(X/S)$.\
Hence we have that $f_*\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ is an $f_*\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-module and thus an $\mathcal J^N(Y/S)$-module.\
By , there is a unique homomorphism $$\phi: \mathcal J^N(f_*\mathcal F_1/S)\longrightarrow f_*\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)$$ such that $f_*d^N_{\mathcal F_1/S}=\phi\circ d^N_{f_*\mathcal F_1/S}$. The $\pi^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-linear map $f_*D$ can be written as $$f_*D: f_*\mathcal F_1\stackrel{d^N_{f_*\mathcal F_1/S}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(f_*\mathcal F_1/S)\stackrel{(f_*\widetilde{D}\circ \phi)}\longrightarrow f_*\mathcal F_2$$ and is a partial linear differential operator on $Y$ over $S$.
[\[rem:R30111\]]{} If $q: X\longrightarrow S$ is a morphism of noetherian schemes, $D: \mathcal E_1\longrightarrow \mathcal E_2$ is a differential operator relative to $S$ and $\mathcal F$ is a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_S$-module, it follows from the global version of that $D\otimes_{q^{-1}\mathcal O_S}\text{Id}_{\mathcal F}$ is a differential operator on $X$ relative to $S$.
[\[prop:P3\]]{} (etale pull back) Let $X\stackrel{f}\longrightarrow Y\stackrel{\pi}\longrightarrow S$ be morphisms of schemes where $f$ is etale. If $D:\mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal F$ is a differential operator on the quasi coherent $\mathcal O_Y$-module $\mathcal F$, then $f^*D: f^*\mathcal F\longrightarrow f^*\mathcal F$ is a differential operator on the quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module $f^*\mathcal F$.
This follows from the etale invariance property of the jet modules, i.e. $f^*\mathcal J_Y^N(\mathcal F/S)\cong \mathcal J^N_X(f^*\mathcal F/S)$ (.) Then, if $D$ is given as $D=\widetilde{D}\circ d^N_{\mathcal F/S}$, the homomorphism of sheaves of $(\pi^{-1}\circ f)(\mathcal O_S)$-modules $f^*D$, is given by $$f^*D: f^*\mathcal F\stackrel{f^*d^N_{\mathcal F/S}=d^N_{f^*\mathcal F/S}}\longrightarrow f^*\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)\cong \mathcal J^N(f^*\mathcal F/S)\stackrel{f^*\widetilde{D}}\longrightarrow f^*\mathcal F.$$
To avoid confusion, for each $N\in \mathbb N_0,$ the $\mathcal O_S$-module $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$ can be regarded as the structure sheaf of the higher tangent bundle $J^N(X/S)$. This is an $\mathcal O_X$-bi-module with respect to the two tensor factors, sloppily written as $\mathcal J^N(X/S)=\mathcal O_X\otimes_{\mathcal O_S}\mathcal O_X/\mathcal I_{X/S}^{N+1}$. Denote by $p_{1,X},p_{2,X}$ the two projections $J^N(X/S)\longrightarrow X$, where we defined in the introduction $p_{1,X}=p_X$. If the scheme $X$ under consideration is clear from the context, we drop the subscript $(-)_X$.\
To be more precise, there are two $\mathcal O_S$-linear homomorphisms $$\mathcal O_X\stackrel{p_1^{\sharp},p_2^{\sharp}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(X/S).$$ If locally ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A\subset S$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B\subset X$ are open affine subsets, ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$ mapping to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$, then $$\Gamma({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A, \mathcal J^{ N}(X/S))=B\otimes_AB/I_{B/A}^{N+1}$$ The two maps $p_1^{\sharp}, p_2^{\sharp}$ correspond to the natural maps $$B\longrightarrow B\otimes_AB\longrightarrow B\otimes_AB/I_{B/A}^{N+1},\quad b\mapsto b\otimes 1, 1\otimes b.$$ Both homomorphisms give $\mathcal J^{ N}(X/S)$ the structure of a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-algebra We have defined in the section Notation and Conventions $$J^{N}(X/S)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}_{X}p_{1,,X*}\mathcal J^{ N}(X/S)$$ with natural projection $p_{1,X}=p_X: J^{ N}(X/S)\longrightarrow X$ which is a morphism of schemes over $S$. There is a second morphism over $S$, $p_{2,X}: J^{ N}(X/S)\longrightarrow X$ whose structure homomorphism $$\mathcal O_X\longrightarrow p_{2,X,*}\mathcal J^N(X/S)$$ corresponds to the universal filtered derivation. This holds for all $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}.$\
This we want to make clear by the following
[\[lem:L46\]]{} Let $q:X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of schemes and $\mathcal Q$ be a $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-module for some $N\in \mathbb N_0$. Then $p_{1,*}\mathcal Q\cong p_{2,*}\mathcal Q$ as $q^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-modules.\
In particular, $$p_{X,1,*}\mathcal O_{J^N(X/S)}=p_{X,2,*}\mathcal O_{J^N(X/S)}=\mathcal J^N(X/S).$$
The morphisms $p_1$ and $p_2$ are affine and finite and on the underlying scheme points a topological isomorphism $\mid J^N(X/S)\mid \cong \mid X\mid$. Let ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B\subset X$ and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A\subset S$ be open affine subschemes with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$ mapping to ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$. Then $$p_1^{-1}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B)=p_2^{-1}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}(B\otimes_AB/I_{B/A}^{N+1}).$$ Then by definition of push forward of a sheaf, the claim follows.
[\[rem:R47\]]{} If $\mathcal Q$ is an $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-module, the sheaf $p_{1,*}\mathcal Q=p_{2,*}\mathcal Q$ simply regarded as a sheaf of $q^{-1}\mathcal O_S$-modules on $X$, possesses two $\mathcal O_X$-module structures. Restricting to an open affine ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B\subset X$, if $\mathcal Q$ corresponds to the $B\otimes_AB/I_{B/A}^{N+1}$-module $M$ , this is simply the $A$-module $M$, and the two $\mathcal O_X$-module structures on $M$ correspond to the two $B$-algebra structures on $\mathcal J^N(B/A)$.
[\[lem:L10\]]{} With notation as above, suppose that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{supp}}}(\mathcal F)=Y\subsetneq X$ with $\mathcal I_Y=\text{ann}(\mathcal F)$. Then, if there is a differential operator $\mathcal F\stackrel{D_Y}\longrightarrow \mathcal F$ on $Y$, i.e., $\mathcal F$ regarded as a sheaf on $Y$, then too on $\mathcal F$ regarded as a sheaf on $X$.
By assumption, there is some $N\in \mathbb N$ plus an $\mathcal O_Y$-linear map $\widetilde{D_Y}:\mathcal J^N_Y(\mathcal F/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal F$. By looking at the local description of the jet-modules, there is always an $\mathcal O_X$-linear surjection $p_{XY}:\mathcal J^N_X(\mathcal F/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N_Y(\mathcal F/k)$ (which is locally of the form $$(\overline{A\otimes_k M}\twoheadrightarrow \overline{(A/I_Y)\otimes_kM)}$$ which is $(A,p_1)$-linear. Composing with $p_{XY}$, we get $\widetilde{D_X}=\widetilde{D_Y}\circ p_{XY}: \mathcal J_X^N(\mathcal F/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal F$, that, composed with $d^N_{X, \mathcal F/k}$, gives the differential operator over $X$, $D_X: \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal F$.
In order to study the behavior of a differential operator with respect to the natural torsion filtration on a coherent sheaf, we prove the following
[\[lem:L12\]]{} Let $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of algebraic schemes and $\mathcal F$ be a quasi coherent sheaf on $X$ and $\mathcal F'\subset \mathcal F$ be a coherent subsheaf. For each $N\in \mathbb N,$ let $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F'/S)'$ be the subsheaf of $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ which is the image under the natural homomorphism $\mathcal J^N(F'/S)\stackrel{\mathcal J^N(i/S)}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(F/S)$, where $i: \mathcal F'\hookrightarrow \mathcal F$ is the inclusion. We have on $X$ $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F'/S)')\supseteq \text{ann}(\mathcal F')^{N+1}\otimes_{\mathcal O_S}\mathcal O_X,$$ where we regard $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F'/S)$ as a coherent sheaf on $J^N(X/S)$. Thus, if $\dim(\mathcal F')\leq d$, then also $\dim(\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F'/S)')\,\leq d$.
The question is local, so let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of finitely generated $k$-algebras and let $M$ be an $A$- module. I claim that $\text{ann}(M)^{N+1}\otimes_AB\subseteq \text{ann}(\mathcal J^N(M/A))$. We have $$\mathcal J^N(M/A)=B\otimes_AM/I_{B/A}^{N+1}\cdot (B\otimes_AM).$$ Let $\mathfrak{a}=\text{ann}(M)$ and $a\in \mathfrak{a}$. By definition, we know, that $\mathcal J^N(M/A)$ is annihilated by $B\otimes \mathfrak{a}$. We have $a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\in I_{B/A}$ and for all $m\in M$,
$$0=(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a)^{N+1}\cdot 1\otimes m=(a^{N+1}\otimes 1+ (1\otimes a)\cdot \omega)\cdot 1\otimes m$$ and it follows $(a\otimes 1)^{N+1}\cdot 1\otimes m =0\,\,\forall m\in M \,\,\text{and}\, a\in \mathfrak{a}$. Thus $$\text{ann}(M)^{N+1}\otimes_AB\subseteq {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(M/A)).$$ If now $M'\subset M$ corresponds over ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$ to $\mathcal F'\subset \mathcal F$ and $\mathfrak{a}'=\text{ann}(M)'$§ then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(M'/A)\supseteq \mathfrak{a'}^{N+1}\otimes_AB$ and so the image $\mathcal J^N(F'/S)'\subseteq \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F/S)$ is also (locally over $X$ annihilated by $\mathfrak{a'}^{N+1}\otimes_AB$. Now the statement about the dimension follows from the fact that if $\dim(\mathcal O_X/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal F'))\leq d$, then also $$\begin{gathered}
d \geq \dim(\mathcal F')=\dim(\mathcal O_X/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal F')^{N+1})\geq \\
\dim(\mathcal O_{J^N(X/S)}/{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F'/S))')=\dim(\mathcal J^N(F'/S)').
\end{gathered}$$
We have the following important
[\[cor:C11\]]{} Let $\pi:X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of algebraic schemes and $\mathcal E$ be a coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module. Let $T^i\mathcal E, i=0,...,\dim(\mathcal E)$ be the torsion filtration of $\mathcal E$ and for some $N\in \mathbb N$ and $D: \mathcal E\longrightarrow \mathcal E$ be a differential operator relative to $S$ of order $\leq N$. Then, $D$ respects the torsion filtration of $\mathcal E$, i.e. $D(T^i(\mathcal E))\subseteq T^i\mathcal E.$
The question is local so let be as above $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of rings and $M$ be a $B$ module and $D: M\longrightarrow M$ be a differential operator of order $\leq N$. Let $M'\subset M$ be a submodule of $M$ of dimension $\leq d$. Let $I=\text{ann}(M')$. Then by the previous proposition $I^{N+1}\otimes B\subseteq \text{ann}(\mathcal J^N(M'/A)$. The differential operator $D$ restricted to $M'$ factors over $\mathcal J^N(M'/A)'\subset \mathcal J^N(M/A)$. Let $\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(M/A)\longrightarrow M$ be the $B$-linear map corresponding to $D$. Then the image of $\mathcal J^N(M'/A)$ in $\mathcal J^N(M/A)$ is likewise annihilated by $I^{N+1}\otimes B$ and so is $\widetilde{D}(\mathcal J^N(M'/A))\subset M$. Thus, the image of $M'$ under $D$ in $M$ is contained in a submodule annihilated by $I^{N+1}$. Since $\dim(M')\leq d$ $\dim(B\cdot D(M'))\leq d.$ $T^d(M)$ is the maximal submodule of $M$ of dimension $\leq d$ and we have proved that $\dim(B\cdot D(T^d(M))\leq d$ which implies the claim.
Let $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$ be a smooth morphism of finite type of noetherian schemes and $\mathcal E$ be a coherent sheaf on $X$. Let $\mathcal J^{(N)}(\mathcal E/S)=I_{X/S}\cdot \mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S)$ so in particular $\mathcal J^{(N)}(X/S)=I_{X/S}/I_{X/S}^{N+1}$. There is a short exact sequence $$(*)\,\,0\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{(N)}(\mathcal E/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal E\longrightarrow 0.$$ For a smooth morphism, it is well known that $I_{X/S}^N/I_{X/S}^{N+1}\cong \Omega^{(1)}(X/S)^{\otimes^sN}$.
[\[lem:L33\]]{} With notation as above, the homomorphism $$I_{X/S}^N/I_{X/S}^{N+1}\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S),$$ coming from the $\mathcal J^N(X/S )$-module structure of $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S)$ descends to a $\mathcal O_X$-linear map, $$I_{X/S}^N/I_{X/S}^{N+1}\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\mathcal E\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S).$$
This follows from the exact sequence (\*) and the fact that $I_{X/S}^N/I_{X/S}^{N+1}\otimes I_{X/S}\cdot \mathcal J^N(X/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal E/S)$ is the zero map.
We now state here the following basic fact about jet-modules in the global case.
[\[prop: P4\]]{} Let $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of finite type of noetherian schemes.
1. for each $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup\{\mathbb N\}$, let $\mathcal J^{N}(-/S)$ be the functor from quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-modules to quasi coherent $\mathcal J^{ N}(X/S)$-modules, sending $\mathcal F$ to $\mathcal J^{ N}(\mathcal F/S)$. Then, this functor is right exact and there is a canonical natural isomorphism $\mathcal J^{ N}(-/S)\stackrel{\cong}\longrightarrow p_2^*(-).$
2. If $\pi:X\longrightarrow S$ is flat, then $\mathcal J^{N}(-/S)$ is an exact functor.
3. If $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$ is a smooth morphism of noetherian schemes, then for each $N\in \mathbb N_0$, the functor $\mathcal J^N(-/S)$, sending quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-modules to quasi coherent $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$-modules, is exact and equal to $(p^N_2)^*$.
<!-- -->
1. This follows from the local definition of the jet-modules. Here, of coarse, $p_2: J^N(X/S)\longrightarrow X$ is the finite affine morphism which corresponds to the second $\mathcal O_X$-module structure.
2. This immediately follows from (1).
3. This follows from the fact, that for $X/S$ smooth, the $N^{th}$-jet algebra $\mathcal J^N(X/S)$ is a projective, hence flat $\mathcal O_X$-module (see ). So the assertion follows from (2).
[\[prop:P6\]]{}(Exact sequence I) Let $\pi:X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of finite type between noetherian schemes and $Y\subset X$ be a closed subscheme and $\mathcal F$ be a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_Y$-module. Let $\mathcal I_Y$ be the defining ideal sheaf of $Y$. Then for all $N\in \mathbb N\cup \{\infty\}$ there is an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow (\mathcal I_Y)\cdot \mathcal J^N_X(\mathcal F/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal J_X^N(\mathcal F/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N_Y(\mathcal F/S)\longrightarrow 0.$$ Here multiplication with $\mathcal I_Y$ is via the first $\mathcal O_X$-module structure.
This is a local question , so let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of rings, $I\subset B$ be an ideal and $M$ be a $B/I$-module. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal J_{B/A}^N(M/A)=B\otimes_AM/I_{B/A}^{N+1}\cdot (B\otimes_AM)\quad \text{and}\\
\mathcal J_{(B/I)/A}(M/A)=(B/I)\otimes_AM/I_{(B/I)/A}^{N+1}\cdot (B/I\otimes_AM).\end{gathered}$$ $\overline{B\otimes_AM}$ is already a $B\otimes_A(B/I)$ module, so tensoring with $B/I$via the first $B$-module structure, we obviously get $\overline{B/I\otimes_AM}$ which is $\mathcal J_{(B/I)/A}(M/A)$.
[\[prop:P66\]]{} (Exact sequence II) Let as above $\pi: X\longrightarrow S$be a morphism of finite type between noetherian schemes and $Y\hookrightarrow X$ be a closed subscheme with defining ideal sheaf $\mathcal I_Y$. Let $\mathcal F$ be a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_Y$-module. Then for all $N\in \mathbb N_0\cup \{\mathbb N\}$ there is an exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow \mathcal I_Y\cdot \mathcal J^{N}_X(\mathcal F/S)\mid_Y\longrightarrow \mathcal J_X^N(\mathcal F/S)\mid_Y\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N_Y(\mathcal F\mid_Y/S)\longrightarrow 0,$$ where multiplication with $\mathcal I_Y$ is via the second $\mathcal O_X$-module structure on the jet bundle.
The question is again local, so let $A\longrightarrow B$ be a homomorphism of rings and $M$ be a $B$-module and $I\subset B$ be the ideal corresponding to $Y\subset X$. The module $\mathcal J^N_{Y/S}(F|_Y/S)$ then corresponds to the module $\overline{(B/I)\otimes_A(M/IM)}$ (modulo the ideal $I_{(B/I)/A}^{N+1}$) and the jet bundle $\mathcal J^N_X(\mathcal F/S)\mid_Y$ corresponds to the module $\overline{B/I\otimes_AM}$ so tensoring with $B/I$ via the second $B$-module structure we get $\overline{B/I\otimes M/IM}$ which was the claim.
[\[prop:P7\]]{}(First cotangential sequence)\
Let $E\stackrel{i}\hookrightarrow X\stackrel{\pi}\longrightarrow S$ be morphisms of finite type of noetherian schemes such that $i$ is a closed immersion. Let $\mathcal F$ be a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_X$-module. Then there is and exact sequence $$(*_1)\quad \mathcal I_E\cdot \mathcal F/\mathcal I_E^{2}\cdot \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal J_X^{(1)}(\mathcal F/S)\mid_E\longrightarrow \mathcal J_E^{(1)}(\mathcal F\mid_E/S)\longrightarrow 0.$$ If $\pi$ and $\pi\circ i$ are smooth and $\mathcal F$ is locally free, the sequence $(*_1)$ is exact on the left.\
In this case, the first module is isomorphic to $\mathcal I_E/\mathcal I_E^{2}\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\mathcal F$.\
These exact sequences are functorial in $\mathcal F\in \text{QCoh}(X)$.
In view of the exact sequence II, it is enough to construct a functorial homomorphism $$\phi: \mathcal I_E\cdot \mathcal F/\mathcal I_E^2\cdot \mathcal F \longrightarrow \mathcal I_E\cdot \mathcal J^{(1)}(\mathcal F/S)\mid_E.$$ The question is local, so let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of commutative rings, $I\subset A$ be an ideal, and $M$ be an $A$-module. We have to construct an $A$-linear homomorphism $$\psi_M: IM/I^2M\longrightarrow (A/I)\otimes_k M/(I_{A/k}^2\cdot ((A/I)\otimes_kM)),$$ which is functorial in $M$, i.e., is a natural transformation from $A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ to $A-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$. Let $f\in I, m\in M$ be given. We let $\psi_M(fm):=\overline{1\otimes fm}$. This is obviously additive. Secondly, since $0=(f\otimes 1-1\otimes f)^2= f^2\otimes 1 +2f\otimes f+1\otimes f^2=1\otimes f^2$, it follows that $I^2M$ maps to zero. We have to show that this is $A$-linear. So for $a\in A$ we have to show that $$\psi_M(afm)=\overline{1\otimes afm}=\overline{a\otimes fm}\quad \forall a\in A, f\in I, m\in M.$$ Now,$\mathcal J^1(M/k)$ is an $\mathcal J^1(A/k)=A\oplus \Omega^{(1)}(A/k)$-module. There is the standard $A$-linear homomorphism $I/I^2\longrightarrow \Omega^{(1)}(A/k)\otimes_AA/I$ which is in our notation the homomorphism $\psi_A$ with $\psi_A(f)=\overline{1\otimes f-f\otimes 1}=\overline{1\otimes f}$. Thus we have in $\mathcal J^1(A/k)\otimes_AA/I$ the identity $\overline{1\otimes af}=\overline{a\otimes f}$. Then from the $\mathcal J^1(A/k)$-module structure of $\mathcal J^1(M/k)$ it follows that $\overline{1\otimes afm}=\overline{a\otimes fm}$ which is the $A$-linearity of the map $\psi_M$.\
Thus we have in any case an exact sequence $$\mathcal I_E\cdot \mathcal F/\mathcal I_E^2\cdot \mathcal F\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{(1)}_{X/S}(\mathcal F/S)\mid_E\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{(1)}_{E/S}(\mathcal F\mid_E/S)\longrightarrow 0.$$
So let now $\pi$ and $\pi\circ i$ be smooth. From the standard cotangential sequence, the claim is true for $\mathcal F\cong \mathcal O_X$. Since the assertion is local, the claim is true for locally free $\mathcal O_X$-modules in which case $$\mathcal I_E/\mathcal I_E^2\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\mathcal F\cong \mathcal I_E\cdot \mathcal F/\mathcal I_E^2\cdot \mathcal F.$$ Both sides are right exact functors from $\mathcal O_X$-modules to $\mathcal O_E$-modules, so the claim follows by taking locally a free presentation and the five lemma.
[\[prop:P8\]]{} (Second cotangential sequence))\
Let $X\stackrel{f}\longrightarrow Y\stackrel{g}\longrightarrow Z$ be morphisms of finite type of noetherian schemes and $\mathcal E$ be a quasi coherent $\mathcal O_Y$-module. Then there is an exact sequence $$(*_2)\quad f^*\mathcal J^{(1)}(\mathcal E/Z)\stackrel{\alpha_{\mathcal E}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{(1)}(f^*\mathcal E/Z)\stackrel{\beta_{\mathcal E}}\longrightarrow f^*\mathcal E\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}\mathcal J^{(1)}(X/Y)\longrightarrow 0.$$ If $f$ and $g$ are smooth and $\mathcal E$ is locally free, then the left hand map is injective.\
These sequences are functorial in $\mathcal E\in \text{QCoh}(Y).$
1. Construction of the exact sequence\
The question is local so, let $X={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$, $Y={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$ $Z={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}C$ and let $\mathcal E$ correspond to the $B$-module $M$. The generalized second cotangential sequence is then a subsequence (the trivial direct summand $f^*\mathcal E$ deleted) of the following sequence $$\begin{gathered}
C\otimes_{B,p_1}\overline{B\otimes_AM}=\overline{C\otimes_AM}\longrightarrow \overline{C\otimes_A(C\otimes_BM)}\\
\longrightarrow \overline{C\otimes_B(C\otimes_BM)} =(C\otimes_BM)\otimes_B\overline{B\otimes_BC},\longrightarrow 0\end{gathered}$$ where the last identity comes from the fact that $$\mathcal J^N(B/A)\otimes_AM\cong \mathcal J^N(B\otimes_AM/A)$$ which is a special case of base change for jet modules. Since the homomorphisms of the sequence are canonical, these glue to the sequence $(*_2)$. Observe that in $\mathcal J^1(M/k)$, $\mathcal J^{(1)}(M/k)$ sits as a direct summand. Observe furthermore, that each three terms in the sequence $(*_2)$ are functors from $\mathcal O_Y-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ to $\mathcal O_X-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ that are all right exact and $\alpha_{\mathcal E}$ and $\beta_{\mathcal E}$ are natural transformations of functors from $\mathcal O_Y-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$ to $\mathcal O_X-{\ensuremath{\operatorname{Mod}}}$.
2. Exactness\
If $\mathcal E\cong \mathcal O_Y$ this is the standard cotangential exact sequence. For arbitrary locally free $\mathcal E$ the question is local , so we may assume that $X ={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A,Y={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B,Z={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}C $ are affine such that $\mathcal E$ is free on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B$. Then from the standard cotangential sequence for the situation $${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}C$$ and taking direct sums, we know that the sequence is locally exact, hence globally exact.\
For arbitrary coherent $\mathcal E$, we only need to show that the sequence is locally exact, since this is a statement about sheaves. If $\Gamma({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}B,\mathcal E)=M$ choose a presentation $$B^{\oplus I}\longrightarrow B^{\oplus J}\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow 0.$$ Then the second cotangential sequence for $M$ is the cokernel of the homomorphism of the second cotangential exact sequence for $A^{\oplus I}$ to $A^{\oplus J}$. (all three terms are right exact functors from $\mathcal O_Y-\text{Mod}$ to $\mathcal O_X-\text{Mod}$. Since the cokernel functor is right exact, the claim follows.\
If $f$ and $g$ are smooth and $\mathcal E$ is locally free, this reduces locally to $\mathcal E\cong \mathcal O_Y$ where this is the standard second cotangential exact sequence.
[\[lem:L360\]]{} Let $q: X\longrightarrow S$ be a morphism of finite type of noetherian schemes where $X$ possesses an ample invertible sheaf and $D: \mathcal F_1 \longrightarrow \mathcal F_2$ be a differential operator of order $\leq N$ relative to $S$ for some $N\in \mathbb N_0$ between quasi coherent sheaves $\mathcal F_1$ and $\mathcal F_2$, Then, there is a filtration $F^{\bullet}\mathcal F_1$ and a filtration $\mathcal F^{\bullet}(\mathcal F_2)$ such that $F^j(\mathcal F_i), i=1,2$ is coherent and $D(\mathcal F^j_1)\subseteq \mathcal F^j_2$, where $j\in J$ and $J$ is the directed index set of the filtration.
Under the assumptions made, each quasi-coherent sheaf $\mathcal E$ is the direct limit of its coherent subsheaves $\mathcal E^i\subset \mathcal E $. Write $D$ as $$\mathcal F_1\stackrel{d^N_{\mathcal F_1}}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)\stackrel{\widetilde{D}}\longrightarrow \mathcal F_2.$$ if $\mathcal F^j_1\subset \mathcal F_1$ is a coherent subsheaf, then $d^N_{\mathcal F_1}(\mathcal F^j_1)\subset \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)$ is contained in the image of the canonical homomorphism $\mathcal J^N(\mathcal F^j_1/S)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(\mathcal F_1/S)$ since $$\mathcal F^j_1\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(O_X/S)\cdot d^N_{\mathcal F_1}(\mathcal F_1^j)$$ is a filtered module derivation and the homomorphism exists by the universal property of the jet-modules (see ). It follows that $D(\mathcal F^j_1)$ is contained in the coherent subsheaf $$\mathcal F_2^j:=\widetilde{D}(\mathcal J^N(X/S)\cdot d^N_{\mathcal F_1}(\mathcal F^j_1))\subset \mathcal F_2.$$ Thus we can write $D$ as the filtered direct limit of differential operators $D_j: \mathcal F^j_1\longrightarrow \mathcal F^j_2$ for some directed index set $J$.
Basic properties of differential operators
------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we collect the basic properties of linear algebraic differential operators which directly follow from the corresponding basic properties of the jet-modules.
[\[lem:L295\]]{} Let $A\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphisms of rings, $M_1,M_2$ be $B$-modules $N$ be an $A$-module, and $D: M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ be a differential operator relative to $A$. Then, $D\otimes_A\text{id}_N: M_1\otimes_AN\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_AN$ is a differential operator of $B$-modules relative to $A$.
This follows from the properties of the jet modules $\mathcal J^N(M_1\otimes_AN/A)\cong \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN$ (see ). The operator $D$ is given by a $B$-linear map $\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(M_1/A)\longrightarrow M_2$, so we get a $B$-linear map $$\widetilde{D}\otimes_A\text{id}_N: \mathcal J^N(M_1/A)\otimes_AN=\mathcal J^N(M_1\otimes_AN/A),\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_AN$$ where the $B$-module structures are given by the first tensor factor.
We can generalize the previous lemma slightly to
[\[prop:P2910\]]{}(Base change 0) Let $ A\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings, $D: M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ be a differential operator between $B$-modules relative to $A$. Let $A\longrightarrow A'$ be homomorphism of commutative rings. Then $D\otimes_A\text{id}_{A'}: M_1\otimes_AA'\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_A{A'}$ is a differential operator on $B\otimes_AA'$-modules relative to $A'$.
This follows from the base change properties of the jet-modules : we have an isomorphism $$\mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AA'\cong \mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AA'/A')$$ see (Base change I for jet- modules).\
$D$ corresponds to a $B$-linear map $\widetilde{D}:\mathcal J^N(M_1/A)\longrightarrow M_2$. We get a $B\otimes_AA'$-linear map $$\widetilde{D}\otimes_A\mbox{Id}_{A'}: \mathcal J^N(M_1\otimes_AA'/A')\cong \mathcal J^N(M_1/A)\otimes_AA'\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_AA'$$ and the claim follows.
[\[prop:P19129\]]{}(Base change I) Let $A\longrightarrow B$ and $A\longrightarrow A'$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings and $N$ be an $A'$-module. Given a differential operator $D: M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ of $B$-modules relative to $A$, the $A'$-linear map $$D\otimes_A{\ensuremath{\operatorname{id}}}_N: M_1\otimes_AN\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_AN$$ is a differential operator of $B\otimes_AA'$-modules
This follows in the standard way from the identity $\mathcal J^N(M\otimes_AN/A')\cong \mathcal J^N(M/A)\otimes_AN$ (see , Base change III).
[\[prop:POkt297\]]{}(exterior products) Let $k
\longrightarrow A$ and $k\longrightarrow B$ be homomorphisms of commutative rings, $D: M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ and $E: N_1\longrightarrow N_2$ be differential operators between $A$-modules $M_1,M_2$ and $B$-modules $N_1,N_2$ respectively. Then, the tensor product over $k$: $$D\otimes_kE: M_1\otimes_kN_1\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_kN_2$$ is a differential operator between the $A\otimes_kB$-modules $M_1\otimes_kN_1$ and $M_2\otimes_kN_2$.
This follows from the properties of the jet-modules (exterior products II), namely $$\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(N/k)\cong \mathcal J^{\mathbb N}(M\otimes_kN/k).$$ If for some $N\in \mathbb N_0 $ there is an $A$-linear map $\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(M_1/k)\longrightarrow M_1$ and a $B$-linear map $\widetilde{E}: \mathcal J^N(N_1/k)\longrightarrow N_2$, for some large $N'>>N$, there is an $A\otimes_KB$-linear map $$\mathcal J^{N'}(M_1\otimes_kN_1/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M_1/k)\otimes_k\mathcal J^N(N_1/k)\stackrel{\widetilde{D}\otimes_k\widetilde{E}}\longrightarrow M_2\otimes_kN_2.$$ The proof in the opposite direction is the same, one has only to bear in mind that the order of the differential operators may change.
[\[lem:L105\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of rings and $M_1, M_2, N_1,N_2,\,$ be $A$-modules with differential operators $D_i: M_i\longrightarrow N_i, i=1,2$ and let $\phi_i: M_i\longrightarrow N_i, i=1,2$ be $A$-linear maps commuting with the $D_i$.\
Then, the $k$-linear maps induced by $D_i$, $$\text{ker}(\phi_1)\longrightarrow \text{ker}(\phi_2)\quad \text{and}\quad \text{coker}(\phi_1)\longrightarrow \text{coker}(\phi_2)$$ are differential operators relative to $k$. Also an arbitrary direct sum $$\bigoplus_{i\in I}{D_i}: \bigoplus_{i\in I}M_i\longrightarrow \bigoplus_{i\in I}N_i$$ is a differential operator for an arbitrary index set $I$ and differential operators $D_i: M_i\longrightarrow N_i$.
The last statement follows from the fact, that the jet-modules commute with direct sums.\
For the first statement, observe, that, more generally, if $D: G\longrightarrow F$ is a differential operator relative to $k$ and $G_1\subset G$ and $F_1\subset F$ are $A$-sub-modules with $D(G_1)\subset F_1$, then the restriction of $D$ to $G_1$ is a differential operator relative to $k$.\
Namely, consider the $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$- module $\mathcal J^N(A/k)\cdot d^N_{G/k}(G_1)\subset \mathcal J^N(G/k)$.\
Obviously, the restriction of $d^N_{G/k}$ to $G_1$ gives a module derivation $$t_{G_1/k}: G_1\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\cdot d^N_{G/k}(G_1).$$ By the universal property, ther exists a $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$-linear homomorphism $$\phi: \mathcal J^N(G_1/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\cdot d^N_{G/k}(G_1),\quad \text{such that}\quad t_{G_1/k}=\phi\circ d^N_{G_1/S}.$$ If $\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(G/k)\longrightarrow F$ corresponds to $D$, I claim that $$\widetilde{D}(\mathcal J^N(A/k)\cdot d^N_{G/k}(G_1))\subset F_1.$$ Indeed, $\widetilde{D}$ is $A$-linear with respect to the first $A$-module structure of $\mathcal J^N(G/k)$. The quantity $d^N_{G/k}(G_1)$ is an $A$-submodule with respect to the second $A$-module structure of $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$. Thus, $\mathcal J^N(A/k)\cdot d^N_{G/k}(G_1)= A\cdot^{(1)}d^N_{G/k}(G_1)$ the superscript $(-)^{(1)}$ indicates that we take the $A$-module generated by $d^N_{G/k}(G_1)$ with respect to the first module structure. But this is then an $A$-bi-submodule, (since the bi-module structure is commutative), or, equivalently a $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$-submodule of $\mathcal J^N(G/k)$. Since $\widetilde{D}$ is $A$-linear with respect to the first $A$-module structure, the claim follows.\
Now, the statement for the cokernel.\
Let $\pi_G: G\twoheadrightarrow G_2$ and $\pi_F: F\twoheadrightarrow F_2$ be $A$-linear surjective maps such that the given differential operator $D: G\longrightarrow F$ descends to a $k$-linear map $D_2: G_2\longrightarrow F_2$. The claim is that $D_2$ is a differential operator of $A$-modules relative to $k$. Let $G_1$ and $F_1$ be the kernels of $\pi_G$ and $\pi_F$ respectively, with inclusions $i_G$ and $i_F$.\
By the first case, the induced map $D_1: G_1\longrightarrow F_1$ is a differential operator relative to $k$. By the right exactness of the jet-module-functor we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal J^N(G_2/k)\cong \mathcal J^N(G/G_1/k)\cong \mathcal J^N(G/k)/\text{im}(\mathcal J^N(i_G/k)( \mathcal J^N(G_1/k)))\end{gathered}$$ We know, that $D_1$ factors over a map $$\widetilde{D_1}: \text{im}(\mathcal J^N(i_G//k))(\mathcal J^N(G_1/k)))\longrightarrow F_1.$$ We can form the quotient map $$\widetilde{D_2}: \mathcal J^N(G_2/k)\cong\mathcal J^N(G/k)/\text{im}(\mathcal J^N(i_G/k))(\mathcal J^N(G_1/k))\longrightarrow F/F_1\cong F_2.$$ Then, obviously, $D_2$ factors over $\widetilde{D_2}$ since the quotient map has to factor over the quotient module of the modules over which the first two maps factor.\
This shows that $D_2: G_2\longrightarrow F_2$ is a differential operator relative to $k$. The case of the map induced on cokernels is a special case of this.
Existence of differential operators in the affine case
------------------------------------------------------
We want to investigate the question, under which conditions $DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\subsetneq DO^{N+1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)$, where $k\longrightarrow A$ is a homomorphism of commutative rings $M_1,M_2$ are $A$-modules. We start with a proposition.
[\[prop:P11171\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of noetherian rings and $M_1,M_2$ be finitely generated $A$-modules.
1. Let ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_2)=I$. Given any $A$-linear map $\widetilde{D}: \mathcal J^N(M_1/k)\longrightarrow M_2$ for some $N\in \mathbb N_0$, there is some $K\in \mathbb N$ such that $\widetilde{D}$ factors over $\widetilde{D'}: \mathcal J^N((M_1/I^K\cdot M_1)/k)\longrightarrow M_2$.
2. Let now ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_1)=I$. Then there is some $K\in \mathbb N$ such that the image of $\widetilde{D}$ is a submodule annihilated by $I^K$.
Denote by $I_{A/k}$ the diagonal ideal, generated by all elements $(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a)$.
1. Obviously the kernel of $\widetilde{D}$ contains $I\cdot \mathcal J^N(M_1/k)=\overline{I\otimes_kM_1}$. We show that the ideal $\overline{I\otimes_kA}$ contains $\overline{A\otimes_k I^K}$ for some $K\in \mathbb N$.\
We know that $I$ is finitely generated, $I=(f_1,...,f_k)$. In $\mathcal J^N(A/k)$ we have $I_{A/k}^{N+1}=0$ containing the elements $$(f_i\otimes 1-1\otimes f_i)^{N+1}= f_i\otimes \omega +1\otimes f_i^{N+1}\quad \text{and}$$ $1\otimes f_i^{N+1}\in \overline{I\otimes_kA}$.\
It follows that there exists some $K\in \mathbb N$ such that $\overline{I\otimes_kA}$ contains $\overline{A\otimes_kI^K}$ (one can take $K=(N+1)\cdot k$.)\
Then, $\overline{I\otimes_kM}$ contains $\overline{A\otimes_kM/I^K\cdot A\otimes M}$. Thus, the $A$-linear map $\widetilde{D}$ factors through $$\overline{A\otimes M_1/ A\otimes I^K\cdot M_1}=\mathcal J^N((M_1/I^KM_1)/k).$$
2. By the same arguement, if ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_1)=I$, there is $K\in \mathbb N$ such that ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(M_1/k))$ contains $\overline{I^K\otimes A}$. Then, since $\overline{A\otimes I}$ is contained in the annihilator of $\mathcal J^N(M_1/k)=\overline{A\otimes_kM}$, we have $$\overline{I^K\otimes A}\subseteq \overline{A\otimes I}\subset {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(\mathcal J^N(M/k)).$$ Since $\widetilde{D}$ is $A$-linear, the result follows.
We prove the following basic
[\[thm:T101\]]{} Let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of finite type of noetherian rings of characteristic zero of relative dimension (fibre dimension) $\geq 1$ and $M_1,M_2$ be finitely generated $A$-modules. Then, the inclusion $$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\subsetneq DO_{A/k}^{N+1}(M_1,M_2)$$ is for all $N\geq 0$ strict in the following cases:
1. $M_1=M_2$, or more generally ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_1)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_2)=I$ and $\dim({\ensuremath{\operatorname{supp}}}(M_1))$ has fibre dimension greater than zero over $k$.
2. $M_1,M_2$ are nontorsion modules on $A$.
3. The module $M_1$ is nontorsion and $M_2$ is a torsion module with $V({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_2))=V(I)$ having fibre dimension greater than zero over $k$.
<!-- -->
1. The first case is easily reduced to the case (2). By , there is a surjection $$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\twoheadrightarrow DO^N_{(A/I)/k}(M_1,M_2)$$ which induces a surjection $$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\twoheadrightarrow DO^N_{(A/I)/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{(A/I)/k}(M_1,M_2).$$
2. First, we treat for reasons of intuition the case where $A$ is an integral $k$-algebra with $k$ being a field and $M_1,M_2$ being torsion free, or more generally nontorsion $A$-modules.\
If $M_i\cong A^{\oplus r_i}$ is free, $$DO^N(M_1,M_2)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_A(\mathcal J^N(A/k)^{\oplus r_1}, A^{\oplus r_2})=DO^N(A,A)^{\oplus r_1\cdot r_2}$$ and we are reduced to the case $r_1=r_2=1$. We have the standard exact sequence $$j^N(A/k):0\longrightarrow \mathcal I_{\Delta}^N/\mathcal I_{\Delta}^{N+1}\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(A/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k)\longrightarrow 0$$ Let $X_{ns}\subset X={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ be the set of nonsingular points, which is a nonempty Zariski-open subset. Over $X_{ns}$, the $A$-modules $\mathcal J^N(A/k),\\
\mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k)$ are projective of different ranks, since, considering the exact sequence $j^N(A/k)$ we know that $I_{A/k}^N/I_{A/k}^{N+1}$ is isomorphic to the $N^{th}$ symmetric power of the relative cotangential sheaf. This is nonzero because the relative dimension of $A/k$ was assumed to be greater than one. Thus, the duals $DO^N(A/k)$ and $DO^{N-1}(A/k)$ have over $X_{ns}$ different ranks. It follows that the inclusion $DO^{N-1}(A/k)\subsetneq DO^N(A/k)$ is strict, since the inclusion of the corresponding Zariski- sheaves on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ is strict.\
This settles the free and projective case.\
If $M_1$ and $M_2$ are any nontorsion modules , there is an open subset $U\subset {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are free and $DO_{U/k}^N(M_1,M_2)/DO_{U/k}^{N-1}(M_1,M_2)$ is nonzero. Since\
$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)$ is finitely generated and coherent, it follows that this module is nonzero.\
We now treat the general nontorsion case. So let $k\longrightarrow A$ be a homomorphism of noetherian rings which makes $A$ a finitely generated $k$-algebra and let $M_1,M_2$ be nontorsion modules on $A$. Let $\eta_i, i=1,...,l$ be the generic points of $A$. We want to show that the $A$-module\
$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)$ is nonzero. To this aim, it suffices to show that this module is nonzero at the generic points of $A$, which reduces by the localization properties of the jet modules to the case, where $(A,\mathfrak{m}, \kappa)$ is an Artinian $k$-algebra, essentially of finite type over $k$ such that the resiude field $\kappa$ has transcendence degree $\geq 1$ over $k$. First, we show that $l(\mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k))< l(\mathcal J^N(A/k))$ for each $N\geq 1$, where $l(-)$ denotes the length function. By the standard jet-module sequence and the additivity of the lenght function, we only have to show that the $A$-module $I_{A/k}^N/I_{A/k}^{N+1}$ is nonzero. Let $A\twoheadrightarrow \kappa$ be the canonical surjection. There is a surjection $I_{A/k}\twoheadrightarrow I_{\kappa/k}$ which induces surjections $$I_{A/k}^N/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\twoheadrightarrow I_{\kappa/k}^N/I_{\kappa/k}^{N+1}\quad \forall n\in \mathbb N.$$ The last module is equal to $\Omega^{(1)}(\kappa/k)^{\otimes^s N}$ since we work in characteristic zero and this module is nonzero, since $\text{trdeg}(\kappa/k)$ is greater or equal to one. The case for general $M_1$ is basically the same. There is a surjection $$I_{A/k}^N\cdot M/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\cdot M\twoheadrightarrow I_{\kappa/k}^N\cdot \overline{M}/I_{\kappa/k}^{N+1}\cdot \overline{M},$$ where $\overline{M}:=M\otimes_A\kappa$. Since $\kappa$ is a field, $\overline{M}$ is free, and the last quantity is isomorphic to $\Omega^{(1)}(\kappa/k)^{\otimes^s N}\otimes_{\kappa}\overline{M}$ which is also nonzero.\
Thus for each $A$-module $M$ and each $N\in \mathbb N$, we have strict inequality $l(\mathcal J^{N-1}(M/k)) <l(\mathcal J^N(M/k))$ coming from the exact sequence of nonzero $A$-modules $$j^N_{A/k}(M): 0\longrightarrow I_{A/k}^N\cdot M/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\cdot M\longrightarrow \mathcal J^N(M/k)\longrightarrow \mathcal J^{N-1}(A/k)\longrightarrow 0.$$ By [@Eisenbud]\[chapter 18, Proposition 18.4, p. 454\], for given $A$-modules $N_1,N_2$, the minimal number $r$ such that $Ext^1_A(N_1,N_2)\neq 0$ is given by $$r=\text{depth}({\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(N_1),N_2).$$ The ideal ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(N_1)$ is contained in the maximal ideal, unless $N_1=0$ which we want to exclude, and, the maximal ideal consists of zero divisors, since $A$ was assumed to be Artinian. Thus the depth is always equal to zero. Consequently, taking ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_A(-,M_2)$ of the exact sequence $j^N_{A/k}(M_1)$, we get an exact sequence $$\begin{gathered}
do^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2): 0\longrightarrow DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\longrightarrow DO^{N}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\\
\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_A(I_{A/k}^N\cdot M_1/I_{A/k}^{N+1}\cdot M_1,M_2)\longrightarrow 0,\end{gathered}$$ where surjectivity on the right comes from the vanishing of the $Ext^1$ and the last $A$-module is nonzero by what has been just said. Thus, the quotient module $$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)$$ is nonzero. The general case where $A/k$ is an arbitrary finite type $k$-algebra follows from the fact, that the last quotient is a coherent sheaf on ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ which is nonzero at the generic points of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Spec}}}A$ and thus nonzero.
3. Next, if $M_2$ is a torsion module with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_2)=I$, by the previous proposition , for each $N\in \mathbb N$ there is $K_2=K(N)\in \mathbb N$ such that $\widetilde{D}$ factors over $\mathcal J^N((M_1/I^{K_2}\cdot M_1)/k)\longrightarrow M_2$.\
But then, $D:M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ factors through a differential operator $ D': M_1/I^{K_2}\cdot M_1\longrightarrow M_2.$ Thus, we have shown that for fixed $M_1,M_2$ with ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Ann}}}(M_2)=I$ and $M_1$ being a nontorsion module, for each $N\in \mathbb N$ there is a surjection $$DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\twoheadrightarrow DO^N_{(A/I^{K(N)}A)/k}((M_1/I^{K(N)}\cdot M_1), M_2).$$ Observe, that if $D: M_1\longrightarrow M_2$ factors over $M_1/I^K\cdot M_1$, then it certainly factors over $M_1/I^L\cdot M_1$ for each $L\geq K$. Putting $K=\max(K(N),K(N-1))$, we get a surjection $$\begin{gathered}
DO^N_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{A/k}(M_1,M_2)\twoheadrightarrow \\
DO^N_{(A/I^K)/k}((M_1/I^KM_1),M_2)/DO^{N-1}_{(A/I^K)/k}(M_1/I^KM_1, M_2).
\end{gathered}$$ Fixing $N\in \mathbb N_0$, we know by case (2), that the module on the left hand side is nonzero and the claim follows.
[\[rem:R14111\]]{} Observe, that, if $A/k$ is a finitely generated Artinian $k$-algebra, there is an $N\in \mathbb N$ such that $I_{\Delta}^N=0$ in $A\otimes_kA$ and so $\mathcal J^M(A/k)=A\otimes_kA$ for $M\geq N$. In particular $DO^M(A,A)={\ensuremath{\operatorname{Hom}}}_A(A\otimes_kA,A)$ and the statement is not true.
*E-Mail-adress:*[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The low-energy threshold and the large detector size of Precision IceCube Next Generation Upgrade (PINGU) can make the study on neutrino oscillations with a planet-scale baseline possible. In this task, we consider the configuration that neutrinos are produced at CERN and detected in the PINGU detector, as a benchmark. We discuss its sensitivity of measuring the size of non-standard interactions (NSIs) in matter, which can be described by the parameter $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ ($\alpha$ and $\beta$ are flavors of neutrinos). We find that the CERN-PINGU configuration improves $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\equiv\epsilon_{\mu\mu}-\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ and $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$ significantly compared to the next-generation accelerator neutrino experiments. Most of degeneracy problems in the precision measurements can be resolved, except the one for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\sim-0.035$. Moreover, we point out that this configuration can also be used to detect the CP violation brought by NSIs. Finally, we compare the physics potential in this configuration to that for DUNE, T2HK and P2O, and find that the CERN-PINGU configuration can significantly improve the sensitivity to NSIs.'
author:
- 'Wei-Jie Feng'
- Jian Tang
- 'Tse-Chun Wang'
- 'Yi-Xing Zhou'
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: 'Non-standard interactions versus planet-scale neutrino oscillations'
---
Introduction
============
Since confirming this phenomenon of neutrino oscillations in $1998$ [@Kajita:1998bw], we nearly complete the knowledge of this flavour-changing behaviour, which can be described by six oscillation parameters including three mixing angles $ \theta_{12} $, $ \theta_{13} $ and $ \theta_{23} $, two mass-square differences $ \Delta m_{21}^2 $and $\Delta m_{31}^2$, and one Dirac CP violating phase $ \delta$ with solar, atmospheric, accelerator and reactor neutrino data [@Esteban:2018azc; @deSalas:2018bym; @Capozzi:2018ubv]. The rest of problems in neutrino oscillations are if $\theta_{23}$ is larger or smaller than $45^\circ$, which the sign of $\Delta m_{31}^2$ is, if CP is violated and what its value $\delta$ is. These problems are expected to be resolved in the next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments, *e.g.* DUNE, T2HK, JUNO, etc. The neutrino oscillation reflects the fact that neutrinos are massive, which conflicts with the massless-neutrino prediction in the standard model (SM). This phenomenon is obviously a key to the door of physics beyond SM (BSM), and reveals that SM is not a complete theory.
Far away in Antarctica, Precision IceCube Next Generation Upgrade (PINGU), an extension of the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, was proposed. In this proposal, the lower energy threshold and the $6$-million-ton detector are sketched [@TheIceCube-Gen2:2016cap]. Goals of PINGU are to detect atmospheric neutrinos [@choubey2014bounds; @winter2013neutrino], supernova neutrinos [@pingu2014letter] and the indirect signal of dark matter (by detecting the self annihilation of WIMP-like dark matter [@koskinen2011icecube]). Moreover, the configuration that PINGU receives neutrino beams from accelerators in the northern hemisphere inspired by CERN to Frejus and J-PARC to HyperKamiokande has been considered and discussed [@Tang2012].
As we believe that SM is not a complete theory, effects from some exotic interactions are widely discussed, for example, non-standard interactions (NSIs) [@Ohlsson:2012kf; @Miranda:2015dra; @Farzan:2017xzy; @Esteban:2018ppq; @Dev:2019anc], neutrino decays [@Acker:1991ej; @Acker:1993sz; @Tang:2018rer], nonunitarity [@PhysRevD.22.2227; @Miranda:2018yym]. NSIs are interactions evolving at least one neutrinos and other SM fermions by mediating BSM particles [@wolfenstein1978neutrino; @Guzzo:1991hi]. NSIs may take place in three different parts of neutrino oscillations: at the source, at the detector, and in matter (or NSI matter effects). We describe the size of NSIs by the parameter $\epsilon^{ff'}_{\alpha\beta}$, which is the fraction of the strength of coupling for the NSI to the Fermi constant ($\nu_\alpha+f\rightarrow\nu_\beta+f'$). For those taking place in matter, we use the notation $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, as in these interactions $f=f'$. In recent studies, the Large-Mixing-Angle dark solution (LMA-Dark solution) for NSIs allows that NSI matter effects have a strong impact on neutrino oscillations. This solution predicts $ \epsilon_{ee} \simeq -3 $ [@Miranda:2015dra; @Esteban:2018ppq]. One of upcoming long baseline accelerator neutrino experiments Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) [@Acciarri:2015uup; @Abi:2018dnh] is expected to have some sensitivity to NSIs in matter. Impacts of NSI matter effects on the precision measurement of oscillation parameters and the expected constraints on NSI parameters for DUNE are widely studied [@Coloma:2015kiu; @Masud:2015xva; @Liao:2016hsa; @Agarwalla:2016fkh; @Masud:2016gcl; @Forero:2016cmb; @Masud:2016bvp; @Ge:2016dlx; @Huitu:2016bmb; @Ghosh:2017ged; @Flores:2018kwk; @Masud:2018pig; @Capozzi:2019iqn; @Ghoshal:2019pab]. The combined results for $\sin^22\theta_{13}$ and NSIs by Daya Bay and T2K experiments were given in Ref. [@Girardi:2014kca]. The current global fits can provide constraints at $95\%$ C.L. on NSI parameters with COHERENT data [@Esteban:2018ppq]: $$\begin{aligned}
-0.008 \leqslant \varepsilon_{ee}^u \leqslant 0.618\\
-0.111 \leqslant \varepsilon_{\mu\mu}^u \leqslant 0.402\\
-0.110 \leqslant \varepsilon_{\tau\tau}^u \leqslant 0.404\\
-0.006 \leqslant \varepsilon _{e\mu}^u \leqslant 0.049\\
-0.248 \leqslant \varepsilon_{e\tau}^u \leqslant 0.116\\
-0.012 \leqslant \varepsilon_{\mu\tau}^u \leqslant 0.009.
\end{aligned}$$ Some possible theoretical models are also proposed to realize sizeable NSIs in matter [@Farzan:2015doa; @Farzan:2015hkd; @Farzan:2016wym; @Forero:2016ghr; @Babu:2019mfe].
NSIs in matter can be detected by accelerator neutrino oscillation experiments with non-negligible matter effects. In this paper, we study the planet-scale neutrino oscillations to measure the size of NSI matter effects, by revisiting the configuration of sending a neutrino beam from an accelerator facility in the northern hemisphere such as CERN to a detector in the south pole like PINGU. The CERN-PINGU configuration has a baseline of $11810$ km. The difference of this configuration from observatories of atmospheric neutrinos is about neutrino fluxes, which come from a specific direction with the well-controlled timing structure in the CERN-PINGU configuration. As a result, smaller systematic errors and the higher ratio of signals over backgrounds are expected. This super long baseline has four advantages for $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ measurements as follows.
1. The neutrino energy ($3$ GeV - $20$ GeV) is higher than current and future neutrino oscillation experiments. Therefore, larger matter effects are expected, and the detection of $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ is achievable.
2. As neutrinos propagate in a longer baseline, NSI matter effects are expected to be more important. With the help of this 11810 km baseline, the value of NSI parameters can be measured with higher accuracy.
3. If neutrinos propagate through the core with a larger matter density, the effect of NSI in matter will be greater. As a result, the matter density, which can reach $11$ g/cm$^3$, makes this configuration special and promising for the measurement of $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$.
4. It is necessary to mention that though the statistics is lower as the baseline is much longer, this drawback can be compensated by the million-ton detector as PINGU.
This paper is arranged as follows. We will firstly demonstrate the neutrino oscillation probability with NSI matter effects, before presenting the simulation details. In the following, we will show the constraints on $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ and constraint contours between any two of NSI parameters for the CERN-PINGU configuration. Moreover, we will discuss how this configuration can exclude the CP conserved scenario once the phase of $ \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} $ is non-zero ($ \alpha\ne\beta $). Finally, we will summarize our results, and provide our conclusion.
Neutrino Oscillation Physics with NSIs
======================================
In this section, we briefly introduce how neutrino oscillation probabilities are modified by NSIs in matter. These new interactions are neutral-current-like interactions $\nu_\alpha+f\rightarrow\nu_\beta+f$, and can be described by the operator, [@wolfenstein1978neutrino; @GROSSMAN1995141; @BEREZHIANI2002207],: $$\label{equ:LNSI}
\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{NSI}}=-2 \sqrt{2} G_{F} \varepsilon_{\alpha \beta}^{f}\left(\overline{\nu_{\alpha}} \gamma^{\mu} P_{L} \nu_{\beta}\right)\left(\overline{f} \gamma_{\mu} P_{C} f^{\prime}\right)$$ where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant. We note that the total size of NSI matter effects is the sum of those for NSIs with electrons, neutrons and protons: $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}\equiv \epsilon^e_{\alpha\beta}+\epsilon^n_{\alpha\beta}+\epsilon^p_{\alpha\beta}$.
Neutrino oscillations are governed by coherent evolution of quantum states $$\label{equ:shro}
{\textrm{i}}\frac{{\textrm{d}}}{{\textrm{d}}t}
\begin{bmatrix}
\nu_e \\ \nu_\mu \\ \nu_\tau
\end{bmatrix}
=H
\begin{bmatrix}
\nu_e \\ \nu_\mu \\ \nu_\tau
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Explicitly, the evolution of the neutrino flavor state is determined by the Hamiltonian: $$\label{equ:ham}
\begin{array}{l}
H_\nu = H_{\mathrm{vac}} + H_{\mathrm{mat}}~~~~~~~~~\text{for}~\nu,\\
H_{\bar{\nu}}= [H_{\mathrm{vac}} - H_{\mathrm{mat}}]^*~~~~~~\text{for}~\bar{\nu},
\end{array}$$ where $ H_{\mathrm{vac}} $ is the Hamiltonian in vacuum. $ H_{\mathrm{mat}} $ corresponds to the matter, and is written by $$\label{equ:Hmat}
H_{\mathrm{mat}} = \sqrt{2}G_FN_e
\begin{bmatrix}
1+\epsilon_{ee} &\epsilon_{e\mu} &\epsilon_{e\tau}\\
\epsilon^{*}_{e\mu} & \epsilon_{\mu\mu} & \epsilon_{\mu\tau}\\
\epsilon^{*}_{e\tau} & \epsilon^{*}_{\mu\tau} & \epsilon_{\tau\tau}\\
\end{bmatrix}$$ where $ N_e $ is the number density of electron. The constant term $\sqrt{2}G_F N_e$ in the $ ee $ component refers to the standard matter effect [@wolfenstein1978neutrino]. It is obvious in Eqs. (\[equ:shro\]) and (\[equ:Hmat\]) that one of the diagonal terms can be absorbed by an overall phase in neutrino states. Therefore, we define $\tilde{\epsilon}_{ee}\equiv\epsilon_{ee}-\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\equiv\epsilon_{\mu\mu}-\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ without a loss of generality.
Analytical approximation {#Sec:analytical_prob}
------------------------
The main probabilities for the CERN-PINGU configuration to measure the effect of NSIs are via $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ and $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ and their CP-conjugate channels, because of the difficulty of the $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ detection. Taking $\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2}\sim |\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|\sim s^2_{13}$ as the first order of perturbation $\xi$, the approximation equations for the probability, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:Pmumu}
P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)&=P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)+\delta P_{\text{NSI}} (\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) \nonumber\\
&= P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)-A\epsilon_{\mu\tau}\cos\phi_{\mu\tau} \nonumber\\
& \times\left(\sin^32\theta_{23}\frac{L}{2E}\sin2\Delta_{31}\right. \nonumber\\
&\left.+4\sin2\theta_{23}\cos^22\theta_{23}\frac{1}{\Delta m_{31}^2}\sin^2\Delta_{31}\right)\nonumber\\
& +A\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}c^2_{23}s^2_{23}\left(c_{23}^2-s^2_{23}\right)\nonumber\\
& \times\left(\frac{L}{E}\sin2\Delta_{31}-\frac{8}{\Delta m_{31}^2}\sin^2\Delta_{31}\right)\nonumber\\
& +\mathcal{O}(\xi^2),\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:Pmue}
P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)&=P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)+\delta P_{\text{NSI}}(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)\nonumber\\
& =P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)+8s_{13}|\epsilon_{e\mu}|s_{23}\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2-A}\sin\Delta_{31}^A\nonumber\\
& \times\left(s_{23}^2\frac{A}{\Delta m_{31}^2-A}\cos(\delta+\phi_{e\mu})\sin\Delta^A_{31}\right.\nonumber\\
& \left.+c^2_{23}\sin\frac{AL}{4E}\cos(\delta+\phi_{e\mu}-\Delta_{31})\right)\nonumber\\
& +8s_{13}|\epsilon_{e\tau}|c_{23}s_{23}^2\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2-A}\sin\Delta^A_{31}\nonumber\\
& \times\left(\frac{A}{\Delta m_{31}^2-A}\cos(\delta+\phi_{e\tau})\sin\Delta^A_{31}\right. \nonumber\\
& \left.-\sin\frac{AL}{4E}\cos(\delta+\phi_{e\tau}-\Delta_{31})\right)\nonumber\\
& +\mathcal{O}(\xi^2),\end{aligned}$$
where $P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ and $P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ are the probability for $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e$ channels without NSIs, respectively. And the notations $\Delta_{31}$ and $\Delta^A_{31}$ are defined as $$\Delta_{31}\equiv\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2L}{4E},~\text{and}~\Delta m_{31}^A\equiv\frac{\Delta m_{31}^2-A}{4E}\times L,$$ with $A\equiv 2\sqrt{2}G_FN_eE$. For antineutrino modes, the factors $A$ and $\delta$ are replaced by $-A$ and $-\delta$, respectively. These equations are consistent with Ref. [@Wang:2018dwk; @Kikuchi:2008vq]. The impact of NSIs is proportional to $A$. As a result, the increase of matter density enhances the measurement capacity of NSIs. In the configuration of CERN-PINGU, the matter density can reach up to $11$ g/cm$^3$, which is roughly three-time larger than the average matte density for DUNE ($\sim3$ g/cm$^3$). Moreover, we notice that in $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$, one term for $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ are proportional to $L$, of which for the CERN-PINGU configuration is about nine-time longer than the baseline for DUNE $1300$ km. We can expect the larger improvement in the measurement for these two NSI parameters from DUNE by the CERN-PINGU configuration. The same dependence on $L$ is also seen for $\epsilon_{e\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{e\tau}$ in the appearance channel. However, they are higher order terms than $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$.
The impact of $\phi_{e\mu}$ or $\phi_{e\tau}$ on $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ depends on the value of $\delta$ and $\Delta_{31}$. This dependence is not seen for $\phi_{\mu\tau}$ in $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$. As a result, the impact of $\delta$ and $\Delta m^2_{31}$ is larger in the measurement of $\phi_{e\mu}$ or $\phi_{e\tau}$. Also, $\epsilon_{e\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{e\tau}$ are the higher order than $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$. Therefore, we can expect it is easier to detect the CP violation by $\phi_{\mu\tau}$, and even measure its size.
To sum up, we expect that the NSI measurement by the CERN-PINGU configuration can be better than what DUNE can achieve, because of the larger matter density. Though the matter density for this configuration is not overwhelmingly larger than that for DUNE. But the nine-time longer baseline can largely improve the measurement for $\epsilon_{e\tau}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ by the disappearance channels.
Probabilities by numerical calculations {#sec:numerical_P}
---------------------------------------
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](m2e_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](am2e_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](m2m_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](am2m_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](m2t_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) in the case with standard matter effects and in the case with nonzeoro $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km. The values are used according to the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. All phases are set to be $0$.[]{data-label="fig:prob"}](am2t_combine.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
Fig. \[fig:prob\] shows probabilities in each of channels in the case only including standard matter effects, and for those with a non-zero $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$, of which the value is used according to the $1\sigma$ bound of the current global fit result [@Esteban:2018ppq]. These probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of neutrino energy ($3$ GeV - $20$ GeV) with the baseline of $11810$ km. We obtain that the behavior of probabilities for non-zero $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ or $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ in some channels is very different from that without NSI matter effects. For example, when $L/E=2700$ \[km$/$GeV\], $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ is about $0.8$ in the case with non-zero $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$, while it is around $0.2$ for the standard case. We also see that the probability of the $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ disappearance channel approaches the maximum at $L/E=2500$ \[km$/$GeV\] in the non-zero case of $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$, while this probability is around zero in the framework of standard neutrino oscillations.
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2e_em.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2m_em.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2e_et.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2m_et.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2e_mt.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The neutrino oscillation probabilities $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e) $ (left panels), $ P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu) $ (right panels) for phases $ \phi_{e\mu} $ (pink), $ \phi_{e\tau} $ (light blue) and $ \phi_{\mu\tau} $ (light-magenta) varying over $ (-180^\circ, 180^\circ] $. For the band with non-zero $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is fixed at $0.05$. The probabilities are shown as functions of $L/E$ \[km/GeV\] in the range of $3<E/\text{GeV}<20$ with the baseline of $11810$ km.[]{data-label="fig:prob_phase"}](phi_band_m2m_mt.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
The probabilities with possible values of $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:prob\_phase\]. We vary each phase $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ from $-180^\circ$ to $180^\circ$, and fix the value of $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ at $0.05$. Two probabilities $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ and $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ are shown, because events in the other channels are less than these two. We find the variation of the probability is the most dramatic for $\phi_{\mu\tau}$. What follows is that for $\phi_{e\tau}$, while the smallest one is for $\phi_{e\mu}$. We see the same result in the other channels.
The $\theta_{23}$-$\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ degeneracy {#sec:degeneracy}
--------------------------------------------------------
There is a degeneracy between $\theta_{23}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$. This degeneracy can be easier to be understood by further taking $\delta\theta_{23}\equiv\theta_{23}-45^\circ$ as a perturbation at the first order $\mathcal{O}(\xi)$. For the disappearance channel, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pmumu_dtheta45}
P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)=&P_0(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)-|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|\cos\phi_{\mu\tau}\frac{AL}{2E}\sin2\Delta_{31}\nonumber\\
& -2\delta\theta_{23}\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu} A
\times\left(\frac{L}{E}\sin2\Delta_{31}\right.
\nonumber\\ & \left.
-\frac{8}{\Delta m_{31}^2}\sin^2\Delta_{31}\right)+\mathcal{O}(\xi^2)\end{aligned}$$ This is obvious that there is a degeneracy between $\delta \theta_{23}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$. In our work, $\delta\theta_{23}\sim0.08$ for the true value $\theta_{23}=49.7^\circ$. This degeneracy has also been studied in Ref. [@Coloma:2015kiu; @Coloma:2011rq; @Kikuchi:2008vq; @Friedland:2004ah; @Friedland:2006pi]. The degeneracy between $\tilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ and $\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ that is from the higher order terms has been also studied in Ref. [@Coloma:2015kiu; @Chaves:2018sih].
Simulation details
==================
We adopt General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator [@HUBER2005195; @HUBER2007432] with the PINGU simulation package.
For the production, we assume $\mu$ decays driving the production of neutrinos: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:sb}
\pi^-&\rightarrow \mu^- + \nu_{\mu},\\
\pi^+&\rightarrow \mu^+ + \bar{\nu}_{\mu}.\end{aligned}$$ We set the run time of $5$ years for neutrino and antineutrino modes (total run time is $10$ years) with 1$\times 10^{20}$ protons on target (POTs) per year. The energy of protons is assumed 120 GeV and the power is 708 kW.
To include NSI matter effects, we adopt the GLoBES extension package mentioned in Refs. [@Kopp:2006wp; @PhysRevD.76.013001; @PhysRevD.77.013007; @PhysRevD.97.035018]. [We adopt the PREM onion shell model of the earth for the matter density profile [@stacey_1977; @Dziewonski:1981xy][, which is shown in Appendix \[App:matter\_density\].]{}]{} The matter density can reach 11 g$/$cm$^3$.
Disappearance channels appearance channels
------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
$ \nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e $
$ \bar{\nu}_\mu \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e $
$ \nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau $
$ \bar{\nu}_\mu \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_\tau $
: Disappearance and appearance channels considered in this experiment.
\[tab:channel\]
All oscillation channels are listed in [[Table]{} \[tab:channel\]]{}. We consider the intrinsic $ \nu_e $ and $ \bar{\nu}_e $ backgrounds in the beam and the atmospheric neutrino backgrounds. We note that Water Cherenkov neutrino detector cannot make a distinction between neutrinos and antineutrinos. Therefore, for the electron-flavor channels, we analyse the combination of $\nu_e$ and $\bar{\nu}_e$ spectra. [Because of the difficulty of $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ detection, we adopt a relative conserved assumption for detection efficiency for $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$.]{}
![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](m2e.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](am2e.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](m2m.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](am2m.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](m2t.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"} ![The spectra for $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_e)$ (upper-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_e)$ (upper-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\mu)$ (central-left), $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\mu)$ (central-right), $P(\nu_\mu\rightarrow\nu_\tau)$ (lower-left), and $P(\bar{\nu}_\mu\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_\tau)$ (lower-right) with (purple) and without (orange) the standard matter effects. [The $\nu_\tau$ and $\bar{\nu}_\tau$ spectra shown here are optimistic without considering the detection difficulty.]{}[]{data-label="fig:spectra"}](am2t.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\linewidth"}\
The expected spectra are shown in Fig. \[fig:spectra\]. We compare the case with standard matter effects to that in vacuum, for demonstrating the advantage of the CERN-PINGU configuration to collect matter effects through such a long baseline $11810$ km. Assumed the normal mass ordering, events are much less in the $\bar{\nu}$ mode. We see that matter effects make great impacts on the spectra in the $\nu_e$ appearance and $\nu_\mu$ and $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ disappearance channels for the lower neutrino energy.
parameter true/central value 1$\sigma$ width
-------------------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------
$\theta_{12}$/$ ^\circ $ 33.82 2%
$\theta_{13}$/$ ^\circ $ 8.61 2%
$\theta_{23}$/$ ^\circ $ 49.7 2%
$ \Delta m_{21}^2 $/$ 10^{-5}\mathrm{eV} $ 7.38 2%
$ \Delta m_{31}^2 $/$ 10^{-3}\mathrm{eV} $ 2.525 1%
$ \delta_{\mathrm{CP}} $/$ ^\circ $ 217 10%
$ \widetilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ 0 0.939
$ \widetilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ 0 0.7695
$ |\epsilon_{e\mu}|$ 0 0.165
$ |\epsilon_{e\tau}|$ 0 0.546
$ |\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ 0 0.0315
$ \phi_{e\mu}$ 0 no restriction
$ \phi_{e\tau}$ 0 no restriction
$ \phi_{\mu\tau}$ 0 no restriction
: The central value and the width of the prior for standard neutrino oscillation and NSI parameters used throughout our simulation. We note that the central values are as same as the true values, except for the case in which the true values are specified. These values are used according to current global fit results [@Esteban:2018azc; @Esteban:2018ppq].
\[tab:params\]
Values used for oscillation and NSI parameters through this paper are listed in [[Table]{} \[tab:params\]]{}. These values are taken from current global-fit results [@Esteban:2018azc; @Esteban:2018ppq]. The normal mass ordering is assumed. We neglect NSIs at the source and detector, and marginalise over all parameters, including standard oscillation parameters, the matter density and eight parameters for NSIs in matter ($\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ is subtracted by an overall phase of neutrino states) unless we showed them in the plot.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section, our simulation results will be presented. In Sec. \[sec:constraint\], we will firstly show the expected constraints on $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ for the CERN-PINGU configuration. In the following section, we will discuss the sensitivity of CPV in NSIs. In more details, what will be studied further is how much the hypothesis $\phi_{\alpha\beta}=0$ and $\pi$ can be excluded by this configuration, once CP is violated because of non-zero of $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$.
Constraints on NSI parameters {#sec:constraint}
-----------------------------
![$\Delta\chi^2$ value against $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\alpha\alpha}$ (left) and $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ (right). The three dashed lines represent the values at 68%, 90% and 95% C.L. The central values and priors of neutrino mixing parameters are taken from Table \[tab:params\]. []{data-label="fig:1D"}](con_1d_ee_mm.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![$\Delta\chi^2$ value against $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\alpha\alpha}$ (left) and $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ (right). The three dashed lines represent the values at 68%, 90% and 95% C.L. The central values and priors of neutrino mixing parameters are taken from Table \[tab:params\]. []{data-label="fig:1D"}](con_1d_em_et_mt.pdf "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
The $\Delta\chi^2$ values against to each NSI parameter are shown in Fig. \[fig:1D\]. The size of the $1\sigma$ uncertainty for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ is about $0.03$. For the $\mu\mu$ component, the $1\sigma$ error is about $-0.01<\epsilon_{\mu\mu}<0.01$. We find out a degeneracy around $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}=-0.035$ with $\Delta\chi^2\gtrsim4$. For the off-diagonal terms, bounds at $1\sigma$ C.L. are at $|\epsilon_{e\mu}|\sim0.03$, $|\epsilon_{e\tau}|\sim0.04$, and $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|\sim0.015$, respectively. [We reach the conclusion that constraints on $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ and $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ are better than the others, which is consistent with the conclusion of Secs. \[Sec:analytical\_prob\] and \[sec:numerical\_P\].]{} We review the $1\sigma$ uncertainties in the current global fit result, which are shown in Table \[tab:params\]. We see the weak constraint at $1\sigma$ C.L. on the diagonal terms $\tilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$, whose sizes are almost $\mathcal{O}(1)$. As for the off-diagonal terms, we have better understandings in the global fit. The size of $1\sigma$ uncertainty is smaller than $0.1$, especially the $1\sigma$ uncertainty for $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$ is $0.0315$. We find that the CERN-PINGU configuration can improve sensitivities of NSIs at $1\sigma$ C.L. by at least $50\%$ of the current global fit result. As the uncertainty for $\widetilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ is greatly improved, we have the interest on the exclusion ability of the LMA-dark solution. Though the result is not shown here, we have checked that the LMA-dark solution can be excluded by more than $ 5\sigma$ C.L., without any prior for $\theta_{12}$ and $\epsilon_{ee}$.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:2D\], we show the allowed region at $68\%$, $90\%$, $95\%$ confidence level (C.L.) on the projected plan spanned by two of NSI parameters. [Though we do not see strong correlations in these results, a degeneracy for $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\sim-0.035$ can be seen for contours of $90\%$ and $95\%$ C.L. As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:degeneracy\], this degeneracy is caused with the mixing angle $\theta_{23}$. Mentioned in Ref. [@Coloma:2015kiu], this degeneracy can be removed by including T2HK data.]{} Obviously, the degeneracy between $\tilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ and $\epsilon_{\tau e}$ and the one around $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}=0.5$ for DUNE, are excluded.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:phase\], we present allowed regions on the plane spanned by the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ and the phase $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ for off-diagonal elements $\epsilon_{e\mu}$, $\epsilon_{e\tau}$, and $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$ at $68\%$, $90\%$ and $95\%$ C.L.. We see a strong correlation between the absolute value and the phase in these three panels. For the hypothesis with $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ near $\pm90^\circ$, the bound on the absolute value $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ is the worst. This behavior also applies to all off-diagonal elements. $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ will be improved by more than an order of magnitude. Compared with sensitivities of NSIs at DUNE, our proposal will improve results by at least a factor of three. Of course, the phase of NSI parameters will play an important role here.
CP violations of NSI {#sec:cpv}
--------------------
We further discuss how the CERN-PINGU configuration can exclude the CP-conserved scenario where $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ is neither $0$ nor $180^\circ$. We study the CPV sensitivity, which is defined $$\label{eq:NSI_CPV}
\begin{array}{l}
\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi^{true}_{\alpha\beta})\equiv \min \{\Delta\chi^2(\phi_{\alpha\beta}=0),\\
\hspace{3.2cm}\Delta\chi^2(\phi_{\alpha\beta}=\pi)\},
\end{array}$$ where $\phi^{true}_{\alpha\beta}$ is the true value for $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$, and $\Delta\chi^2(\phi_{\alpha\beta}=0)$ and $\Delta\chi^2(\phi_{\alpha\beta}=180^\circ)$ are the $\Delta\chi^2$ value for the hypothesis $\phi_{\alpha\beta}=0$ and $180^\circ$ respectively. This definition is same as how we study the sensitivity of CP violation where $\delta_\text{CP}$ is not $0$ or $180^\circ$.
![The $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}$ value against to the phase for the $e\mu$ (purple), $e\tau$ (green), and $\mu\tau$ (orange) components. For the studied component, the true absolute value is $0.05$ (solid) and $0.01$ (dashed), while the other NSIs are switched off.[]{data-label="fig:CPV"}](cpv_dchi2_conbine.pdf){width="0.9\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:CPV\], we study the value of $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}$ for three phases: $\phi_{e\mu}$, $\phi_{e\tau}$ and $\phi_{\mu\tau}$ in the range between $-180^\circ$ and $180^\circ$. For $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{\alpha\beta})$, we fix the absolute value of the other two off-diagonal terms at $0$, as we focus on the CP violation by one specific $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$. Studying $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{\alpha\beta})$ values, we set the true value of $|\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}|$ to be $0.05$ (solid) and $0.01$ (dashed). We focus on the case with the absolute value fixed at $0.05$. We see that the CPV sensitivity for $\phi_{\mu\tau}$ is the best. In about $81\%$ of possible $\phi_{\mu\tau}$ this configuration can exclude the CP-conserved scenario with the significance better than $95\%$ C.L.. $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{e\tau})$ is slightly better than $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{e\mu})$. For $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{e\tau})$ ($\Delta\chi^2_{CP}(\phi_{e\mu})$) larger than the value for $95\%$ C.L., it covers $75\%$ ($63\%$) of all possible phases. With the absolute value of $0.01$, the sensitivity is worse, especially for $\phi_{e\mu}$ and $\phi_{e\tau}$, of which $\Delta\chi^2_{CP}$ is smaller than $3.5$. For $\epsilon_{\mu\tau}$, phases with the sensitivity larger than $90\%$ C.L. cover about $75\%$ of all possible phases. We note that the result shown in Fig. \[fig:CPV\] is consistent with what we see in Fig. \[fig:prob\_phase\]. Our simulation result is based on the assumption that we focus on one specific off-diagonal element. Though not shown here, we find that once we also marginalize over absolute values and phases of the other off-diagonal terms, the sensitivity is much worse.
Comparison with the other experiments
-------------------------------------
parameter CERN-PINGU DUNE [@Acciarri:2015uup] T2HK [@Hyper-Kamiokande:2016dsw] P2O [@Choubey:2019nlz; @Akindinov:2019flp]
---------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
$ \widetilde{\epsilon}_{ee}$ $\left[-0.0163, 0.0390\right]$ $\left[-1.0025, 1.146\right]$ $\left[-2.2069, 2.2934\right]$ $\left[-0.1944, 0.1633\right]$
$ \widetilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}$ $\left[-0.0075, 0.0067\right]$ $\left[-0.0753, 0.0769\right]$ $\left[-0.2530, 0.2588\right]$ $\left[-0.0409, 0.0328\right]$
$ |\epsilon_{e\mu}|$ $\left[0, 0.0291\right]$ $\left[0, 0.1018\right]$ $\left[0.4062\right]$ $\left[0, 0.0346\right]$
$ |\epsilon_{e\tau}|$ $\left[0, 0.0389\right]$ $\left[0, 0.1938\right]$ $\left[0, 0.2624\right]$ $\left[0,0.039\right]$
$ |\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ $\left[0, 0.0148\right]$ $\left[0, 0.2012\right]$ $\left[0, 0.9136\right]$ $\left[0, 0.0719\right]$
POTs $10\times 10^{20}$ $8.82\times10^{21}$ $2.7\times 10^{22}$ $2.4\times10^{20}$
Energy range \[GeV\] $3$-$20$ $0.5$-$8$ $0.1$-$1.2$ $2$-$12$
Baseline \[km\] $11810$ $1300$ $295$ $2595$
Target material ice liquid argon pure water sea water
Detector size \[kton\] $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$ $40$ $186$ $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$
\[tab:compare\]
In Table \[tab:compare\], we compare the CERN-PINGU configuration with the other future accelerator neutrino oscillation experiments, DUNE, T2HK, and the Protvino-ORCA experiment (P2O), with the simulation details about these configuration. For all of them, we use the PREM onion shell model of the earth for the matter density [@stacey_1977; @Dziewonski:1981xy], and include the prior that presents the constraint with the global and COHERENCE [@Esteban:2018ppq]. Taking the same fluxes, effective masses, our $\nu$-mode simulation for P2O reproduces the event spectra in [@Choubey:2019nlz; @Akindinov:2019flp]. However, because the spectra for $\bar{\nu}$ are not shown in this reference, we use the same detection efficiency for $\bar{\nu}$ same as those for $\nu$. The other assumption for detection is used the same as what we use for PINGU. We find that the CERN-PINGU configuration performs the best among all, and that T2HK is the worst one to measure NSI parameters. The constraints of the CERN-PINGU configuration is smaller than DUNE by at least a factor of $0.1$. We need to point it out that for this result, DUNE requests0 more POTs than that for the CERN-PINGU configuration, by a factor of $\sim10$. The physics capability of P2O to measure NSI parameters, is the closet one to the CERN-PINGU configuration. The measurements of $|\epsilon_{e\mu}|$ and $|\epsilon_{e\tau}|$ for the CERN-PINGU configuration are slightly better than those for P2O. The constraint of $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ by the CERN-PINGU configuration can be $20\%$ of the result by P2O. Finally, the measurement of the diagonal terms for the CERN-PINGU configuration can be improved by one order of magnitude, than that for P2O.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
With the interest on the planet-scale neutrino oscillations, we have considered the configuration that neutrinos are generated at CERN, and detected in the PINGU detector (CERN-PINGU), as an extended study of Ref. [@Tang2012]. We have analyzed how such a configuration can measure the size of non-standard interactions (NSIs) in matter. Three advantages of this configuration are as follows: (1) the energy range $3$ GeV-$20$ GeV enhancing effects of NSIs, (2) the $11810$-km baseline cumulating these effects, and (3) the high matter density $11$ g/cm$^3$ making the impact of NSIs on neutrino oscillations more significant.
We have adopted the GLoBES library with an extension package to simulate the CERN-PINGU configuration for the neutrino oscillation with NSI matter effects. We have studied the predicted uncertainty of NSI parameters $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$. We have found that this configuration measures $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\equiv\epsilon_{\mu\mu}-\epsilon_{\tau\tau}$ and $|\epsilon_{\mu\tau}|$ better than the others. Most of degeneracy problems for DUNE on $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ measurements are resolved, except the one around $\tilde{\epsilon}_{\mu\mu}\sim-0.035$. We have investigated strong correlations between the absolute value and the phase for all off-diagonal terms, which can also be seen in the recent work with regards to NSI-parameter measurements for DUNE. As phases $\phi_{\alpha\beta}$ play important roles, we have extended our study on the sensitivity of CP violation in NSIs. We have found that with the absolute value of $0.05$ the sensitivity can be better than $95\%$ C.L. in the CERN - PINGU configuration, which shows this configuration can be used to measure the CP violation caused by NSIs. [Compared to other experiments, DUNE, T2HK, and P2O, we find that the CERN-PINGU configuration can significantly improve the constraints of NSI parameters, except the measurements of $\epsilon_{e\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{e\tau}$, for which the CERN-PINGU configuration performs slightly better than P2O.]{}
This study should not be limited at the CERN-PINGU configuration. Our conclusion on the improvement of $\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}$ measurements could be applied for any experiments with the neutrino source or detector that satisfies three requirements: the proper energy range, a planet-scale baseline, and the high matter density. As PINGU is under consideration, we can put more focus on looking for possible sources, such as accelerator neutrinos produced by future proton drivers as super proton-proton collider (SPPC) [@CEPC-SPPCStudyGroup:2015esa], and the point source of astrophysical neutrinos [@Aartsen:2019mbc].
This work is supported in part by the grant National Natural Science Fundation of China under Grant No. 11505301 and No. 1188124024. JT appreciate ICTP’s hospitality and discussions during the workshop PANE2018. Wei-Jie Feng and Yi-Xing Zhou are supported in part by Innovation Training Program for bachelor students at School of Physics in SYSU.
![The matter density profile used in GLoBES simulation for the CERN-PINGU configuration. The x-axis is the distance from the source toward the detector.[]{data-label="fig:density"}](dens.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The matter density profile for CERN-PINGU {#App:matter_density}
=========================================
Fig. \[fig:density\], the matter density profile used in GLoBES simulation for the CERN-PINGU configuration. The x-axis is the distance from the source toward the detector. As we can see, the density can achieve up to $10.84$ g/cm$^3$ from the oscillation distance $3500$ km to $8000$ km.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Logistic regression is a common classification method in supervised learning. Surprisingly, there are very few solutions for performing logistic regression with missing values in the covariates. We suggest a complete approach based on a stochastic approximation version of the EM algorithm to do statistical inference with missing values including the estimation of the parameters and their variance, derivation of confidence intervals and a model selection procedure. We also tackle the problem of prediction for new observations (on a test set) with missing covariate data. The methodology is computationally efficient, and its good coverage and variable selection properties are demonstrated in a simulation study where we contrast its performances to other methods. For instance, the popular approach of multiple imputation by chained equations can lead to estimates that exhibit meaningfully greater biases than the proposed approach. We then illustrate the method on a dataset of severely traumatized patients from Paris hospitals to predict the occurrence of hemorrhagic shock, a leading cause of early preventable death in severe trauma cases. The aim is to consolidate the current red flag procedure, a binary alert identifying patients with a high risk of severe hemorrhage. The methodology is implemented in the R package misaem.'
address:
- 'Inria XPOP and CMAP, École Polytechnique, France'
- 'Hôpital Beaujon, APHP, France'
author:
- Wei Jiang
- Julie Josse
- Marc Lavielle
- TraumaBase Group
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Logistic Regression with Missing Covariates – Parameter Estimation, Model Selection and Prediction within a Joint-Modeling Framework'
---
incomplete data ,observed likelihood ,Metropolis-Hastings ,public health
Introduction {#sectionintro}
============
Missing data exist in almost all areas of empirical research. There are various reasons why missing data may occur, including survey non-response, unavailability of measurements, and lost data. One popular approach to handle missing values consists in modifying an estimation process so that it can be applied to incomplete data. For example, one can use the EM algorithm [@dempster1977] to obtain the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) despite missing values, accompanied by a supplemented EM algorithm (SEM) [@sem] or Louis’ formula [@louis] for their variance. This strategy is valid under missing at random (MAR) mechanisms [@little_rubin; @MAR], in which the missingness of data is independent of the missing values, given the observed data. Even though this approach is perfectly suited to specific inference problems with missing values, there are few solutions or implementations available, even for simple models such as logistic regression, the focus of this paper. One explanation is that the expectation step of the EM algorithm often involves unfeasible computations. In the framework of generalized linear models @ibrahim1999_MonteCarlo [@compare_glm], suggested to use a Monte Carlo EM (MCEM) algorithm [@mcemWeiTanner; @EMMcLachlan], replacing the integral by its empirical sum using Monte Carlo sampling. @ibrahim1999_MonteCarlo also estimated the variance using a Monte Carlo version of Louis’ formula by Gibbs sampling with an adaptive rejection sampling scheme [@gilks1992adarej]. However, their approach is computationally expensive and they considered an implementation only for monotone patterns of missing values, or for missing values only in two variables in a dataset.
SAEM uses a stochastic approximation procedure to estimate the conditional expectation of the complete-data likelihood, instead of generating a large number of Monte Carlo samples which lead to an undeniable computational advantage over MCEM as illustrated in the simulation studies. In addition, it allows for model selection using criterion based on a penalized version of the observed-data likelihood. This latter characteristic is very useful in practice, as few methods are available to select a model when there are missing values. For example, @missaic [@missaic2] suggested an approximation of AIC, while @gic_af defined generalized information criteria and in the framework of imputation @mirl proposed to combine penalized regression techniques with multiple imputation and stability selection. Besides aiming at maximizing the MLE for observed data, @chow1979look [@fung1989] studied the linear discriminant function for logistic regression, using pairs of observed values in columns to calculate the covariance matrix. Note that another solution is to use Laplace approximation to compute integrals, however, this approximation linearizes the likelihood function by differentiation whereas SAEM performs exactly the inference.
This paper proceeds as follows: In Section \[sectionmot\] we describe the motivation for this work, the TraumaBase[^1] project based on a French multicenter prospective Trauma Registry. Section \[sectionnote\] presents the assumptions and notation used throughout this paper. In Section \[sectionsaem\], we derive an algorithm SAEM to obtain the maximum likelihood estimate of parameters in an logistic regression model for continuous covariate data, under the MAR mechanism and a general pattern of missing data. Following the estimation of parameters, we present how to estimate the Fisher information matrix using a Monte Carlo version of Louis’ formula. Section \[sectionmodselect\] describes the model selection scheme based on a Bayesian information criterion (BIC) with missing values. In addition, we propose an approach to perform prediction for a new iobservation with missing values. Section \[sectionsimu\] presents a simulation study where the proposed approach is compared to alternative methods such as multiple imputation [@mi], which may suffer from greater biases than the proposed approach and under-coverage. In Section \[sectiontrauma\], we apply the newly developed approach to predict the occurrence of hemorrhagic shock in patients with blunt trauma to the TraumaBase dataset, where it is crucial to efficiently manage missing data because the percentage of missing data varies from 0 to 60% depending on the variables. Compared to the predictions made by emergency doctors, the results are improved with SAEM. Finally, Section \[sectiondisc\] concludes this work and provides a discussion.
Our contribution is to provide users the ability to perform logistic regression with missing values within a joint-modeling methodological framework that combines computational efficiency and a sound theoretical foundation. The methodology presented in this article is implemented as an R [@softR] package *misaem* [@misaem], available in CRAN. The code to reproduce all the experiment is also provided in GitHub [@github].
Medical emergency {#sectionmot}
=================
Our work is motivated by a collaboration with the TraumaBase group at APHP (Public Assistance - Hospitals of Paris), which is dedicated to the management of severely traumatized patients.
Major trauma refers to injuries that endanger a person’s life or functional integrity. The WHO has recently shown that major trauma - road accidents, interpersonal violence, falls, etc. - are a worldwide public health challenge and a major source of mortality (first cause in the age group 16-45) and disability (2nd cause) in the world [@20171260]. The two leading causes of death are hemorrhagic shock and traumatic brain injury.
The path of a traumatized patient takes place in several stages: from the accident site where he is taken care of by the ambulance to the transfer to intensive care unit for immediate interventions and finally comprehensive care at the hospital. Using a pre hospital patient’s records, we aim to establish models to predict the risk of severe hemorrhage to prepare an appropriate response upon arrival at the trauma center; e.g., massive transfusion protocol and/or immediate haemostatic procedures. Due to the highly stressful and multi-player environments involved, evidence suggests that patient management – even in mature trauma systems – often exceeds acceptable time frames [@hamada2014evaluation]. In addition, discrepancies may be observed between the diagnoses made by emergency doctors in the ambulance, and those made when the patient arrives at the trauma center [@Hamada2015EuropeanTG]. These discrepancies can result in poor outcomes such as inadequate hemorrhage control or delayed transfusion.
To improve decision-making and patient care, 15 French trauma centers have collaborated to collect detailed high-quality clinical data from the accident scene, to the hospital. The resulting database, TraumaBase, is a multicenter prospective trauma registry that is continually updated and now has data from more than 7,000 trauma cases. The granularity of collected data (with more than 250 variables) makes this dataset unique in Europe. However, the data from multiple sources, are highly heterogeneous, and are often missing, which makes modeling challenging. In this paper, we focus on performing logistic regression with missing values to help propose an innovative response to the public health challenge of major trauma.
Assumptions and notation {#sectionnote}
========================
Let $(\by,\bx)$ be the observed data with $\by=(y_i , 1\leq i \leq n)$ an $n$-vector of binary responses coded with $\{0, 1\}$ and $\bx= (x_{ij}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq p)$ a $n\times p$ matrix of covariates, where $x_{ij}$ takes its values in $\mathbb{R}$. The logistic regression model for binary classification can be written as: $$\label{regmodel}
{\mathbb{P}\left(y_i=1|\bx_i;\bbeta\right)}=
\frac{\exp(\beta_0 + \sum_{j=1}^p \beta_j x_{ij})}
{ 1+\exp(\beta_0 + \sum_{j=1}^p \beta_j x_{ij}) },
\quad i=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $x_{i1},\ldots, x_{ip}$ are the covariates for individual $i$ and $\beta_0,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_p$ unknown parameters. We adopt a probabilistic framework by assuming that $\bx_i = (x_{i1},\ldots, x_{ip})$ is normally distributed: $$\bx_i \iid \mathcal{N}_p(\mu,\Sigma), \quad i=1,\cdots,n.$$ Let $\theta=(\mu, \Sigma, \bbeta)$ be the set of parameters of the model. Then, the log-likelihood for the complete data can be written as: $$\begin{split}
\llike(\theta;\bx,\by) & =\sum_{i=1}^n \llike(\theta;\bx_i,y_i) \\
&=\sum_{i=1}^n \Big( \log ({\texttt{p}}(y_i|\bx_i;\bbeta))+\log ({\texttt{p}}(\bx_i;\mu,\Sigma)) \Big).
\end{split}$$
Our main goal is to estimate the vector of parameters $\bbeta=(\beta_j,0\leq j \leq p)$ when missing values exist in the design matrix, i.e., in the matrix $\bx$. For each individual $i$, we note $\xiobs$ the elements of $\bx_{i}$ that are observed and $\ximis$ those that are missing. We also decompose the matrix of covariates as $\bx = (\xobs,\xmis)$, keeping in mind that the missing elements may differ from one individual to another.
For each individual $i$, we define the missing data indicator vector $M_i=(M_{ij}, 1 \leq j \leq p)$, with $M_{ij}=1$ if $x_{ij}$ is missing and $M_{ij}=0$ otherwise. The matrix $M=(M_i, 1\leq i \leq n)$ then defines the missing data pattern. The missing data mechanism is characterized by the conditional distribution of $M$ given $x$ and $y$, with parameter $\phi$, i.e., ${\texttt{p}}(M_i|\bx_i,y_i,\phi).$ Throughout this paper, we assume a missing at random (MAR) mechanism which implies that the missing values mechanism can therefore be ignored [@little_rubin] and the maximum likelihood estimate of $\theta$ can be obtained by maximizing $\llike(\theta ; y,\xobs)$. A reminder of these concepts is given in $\ref{ann:ignorable}$.
Parameter estimation by SAEM {#sectionsaem}
============================
The EM and MCEM algorithms
--------------------------
We aim to estimate the parameter $\theta$ of the logistic regression model by maximizing the observed log-likelihood $\llike(\theta;\xobs, \by)$. Let us start with the classical EM formulation for obtaining the maximum likelihood estimator from incomplete data. Given some initial value $\theta_0$, iteration $k$ updates $\theta_{k-1}$ to $\theta_k$ with the following two steps:
- **E-step:** Evaluate the quantity $$\label{eq::estep}
\begin{split}
Q_{k}(\theta)&=\mathbb{E}[\llike(\theta;\bx,\by)|\xobs,\by;\theta_{k-1}]\\
&=\int \llike(\theta;\bx,\by) {\texttt{p}}(\xmis|\xobs,\by;\theta_{k-1})d\xmis.
\end{split}$$
- **M-step:** Update the estimation of $\theta$: $\theta_k = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\theta}Q_{k}(\theta).$
Since the expectation (\[eq::estep\]) in the E-step for the logistic regression model has no explicit expression, MCEM [@mcemWeiTanner; @ibrahim1999_MonteCarlo] can be used. The E-step of MCEM generates several samples of missing data from the target distribution ${\texttt{p}}(\xmis|\xobs,\by;\theta_{k-1})$ and replaces the expectation of the complete log-likelihood by an empirical mean. However, an accurate Monte Carlo approximation of the E-step may require a significant computational effort, as illustrated in the Section \[sectionsimu\].
The SAEM algorithm
------------------
To achieve improved computational efficiency, we suggest deriving a SAEM algorithm [@lavielle:hal-01122873] which replaces the E-step (\[eq::estep\]) by a stochastic approximation. Starting from an initial guess $\theta_0$, the $k$th iteration consists of three steps:
- **Simulation:** For $i=1,2,\cdots,n$, draw $\ximis^{(k)}$ from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::target}
{\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs,\by_i;\theta_{k-1}).\end{aligned}$$
- **Stochastic approximation:** Update the function $Q$ according to $$\label{eq::sa}
Q_{k}(\theta)=Q_{k-1}(\theta)+\gamma_k\left(\llike(\theta ;\xobs,\xmis^{(k)},\by)-Q_{k-1}(\theta)\right),$$ where $(\gamma_k)$ is a non-increasing sequence of positive number.
- **Maximization:** Update the estimation of $\theta$: $$\theta_k = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\theta}Q_{k}(\theta).$$
The choice of the sequence $(\gamma_k)$ in (\[eq::sa\]) is important for ensuring the almost sure convergence of SAEM to a maximum of the observed likelihood [@convergence_saem]. We will see in Section \[sectionsimu\] that, in our case, very good convergence is obtained using $\gamma_k=1$ during the first iterations, followed by a sequence that decreases as $1/k$.
Metropolis-Hastings sampling
----------------------------
In the logistic regression case, the unobserved data cannot in general be drawn exactly from the conditional distribution , which depends on an integral that is not calculable in closed form. One solution is to use a Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm, which consists of constructing a Markov chain that has the target distribution as its stationary distribution. The states of the chain after $S$ iterations are then used as a sample from the target distribution. To define a proposal distribution for MH algorithm, we observe that the target distribution can be factorized as follows: $${\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs,\by_i;\theta)\propto {\texttt{p}}(y_{i}|\bx_{i};\bbeta){\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs;\mu,\Sigma).$$ We select the proposal distribution as the second term ${\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs,\mu,\Sigma)$, which is normally distributed: $$\label{functiong}
\ximis|\xiobs \sim \mathcal{N}_p(\mu_i,\Sigma_i),$$ where $$\begin{split}
\mu_i&=\mu_{i, {\rm mis}}+\Sigma_{i,{\rm mis,obs}}\Sigma_{i,{\rm obs,obs}}^{-1}(\xiobs-\mu_{i, {\rm obs}}),\\
\Sigma_i&=\Sigma_{i,{\rm mis,mis}} -\Sigma_{i,{\rm mis,obs}} \Sigma_{i,{\rm obs,obs}}^{-1}\Sigma_{i,{\rm obs,mis}},
\end{split}$$ with $\mu_{i, {\rm mis}}$ (resp. $\mu_{i, {\rm obs}}$) the missing (resp. observed) elements of $\mu$ for individual $i$. The covariance matrix $\Sigma$ is decomposed in the same way. The MH algorithm is described further in \[ann:mh\].
Observed Fisher information {#sectionfish}
---------------------------
After computing the MLE $\thml$ with SAEM, we estimate its variance. To do so, we can use the observed Fisher information matrix (FIM): $
\mathcal{I}(\theta) = -\frac{\partial^2 \llike(\theta;\xobs,\by)}{\partial \theta \partial \theta^T}. $ According to Louis’ formula [@louis], we have: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{I}(\theta) = &-\mathbb{E}\left(\frac{\partial^2 \llike(\theta;\bx,\by)}{\partial \theta \partial \theta^T}\big|\xobs,\by;\theta \right) \\
&- \mathbb{E}\left(\frac{\partial \llike(\theta;\bx,\by)}{\partial \theta} \frac{\partial \llike(\theta;\bx,\by)^T}{\partial \theta}\big|\xobs,\by;\theta \right)\\
&+\mathbb{E}\left(\frac{\partial \llike(\theta;\bx,\by)}{\partial \theta} |\xobs,\by;\theta \right)\mathbb{E}\left(\frac{\partial \llike(\theta;\bx,\by)}{\partial \theta} |\xobs,\by;\theta \right)^T.
\end{split}$$ The observed FIM can therefore be expressed in terms of conditional expectations, which can also be approximated using a Monte Carlo procedure. More precisely, given $S$ samples $(\ximis^{(s)}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq s \leq S)$ of the missing data drawn from the conditional distribution (\[eq::target\]), the observed FIM can be estimated as $\hat{\mathcal{I}}_S(\hat{\theta})= \sum_{i=1}^n -(D_{i}+G_i-\Delta_i \Delta_i^T),$ where $$\begin{split}
\Delta_i &= \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S \frac{\partial \llike(\hat{\theta};\ximis^{(s)},\xiobs,y_i)}{\partial \theta},\\
D_i &= \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S \frac{\partial^2 \llike(\hat{\theta}; \ximis^{(s)},\xiobs,y_i)}{\partial \theta\partial \theta^T},\\
G_i &= \frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^S \left(\frac{\partial \llike(\hat{\theta};\ximis^{(s)},\xiobs,y_i)}{\partial \theta}\right) \left( \frac{\partial \llike(\hat{\theta};\ximis^{(s)},\xiobs,y_i)}{\partial \theta} \right)^T.\\
\end{split}$$ Here, the gradient and the Hessian matrix can be computed in closed form. The procedure for calculating the observed information matrix is described in \[ann:var\].
Model selection and prediction {#sectionmodselect}
==============================
Information criteria
--------------------
In order to compare different possible covariate models, we can consider penalized likelihood criteria such as the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). For a given model ${\cal M}$ and an estimated parameter $\hat{\theta}_{\cal M}$, BIC is defined as: $$\begin{split}
{\rm BIC}({\cal M}) &= -2\llike(\hat{\theta}_{\cal M}; \xobs,\by) +
\log(n)d({\cal M}),
\end{split}$$ where $d({\cal M})$ is the number of estimated parameters in a model ${\cal M}$. The distribution of the complete set of covariates $(x_{ij}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq p)$ does not depend on the regression model used for modeling the binary outcomes $(y_i, 1 \leq i \leq n)$: we assume the same normal distribution ${\cal N}_p(\mu,\Sigma)$ for all regression models. Thus, the difference between models between the number $d({\cal M})$ of estimated parameters is equivalent to the difference between the number of non-zero coefficients in $\beta_{\cal M}$. Note that, contrary to the suggested approach, the existing methods @missaic [@missaic2] use an approximation of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) without estimating the observed likelihood.
Observed log-likelihood {#subsectionoll}
-----------------------
For a given model and parameter $\theta$, the observed log-likelihood is, by definition: $$\llike({\theta}; \xobs,\by) = \sum_{i=1}^n \log \left({\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs;\theta) \right).$$ With missing data, the density ${\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs;\theta)$ cannot in general be computed in closed form. We suggest to approximate it using an importance sampling Monte Carlo approach. Let $g_i$ be the density function of the normal distribution defined in . Then, $$\begin{split}
{\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs;\theta)
&= \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs|\ximis;\theta){\texttt{p}}(\ximis;\theta) d\ximis \\
&= \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs|\ximis;\theta)\frac{{\texttt{p}}(\ximis;\theta)}{g_i(\ximis)} g_i(\ximis) d\ximis \\
&= \mathbb{E}_{g_i} \left({\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs|\ximis;\theta)\frac{{\texttt{p}}(\ximis;\theta)}{g_i(\ximis)}\right).
\end{split}$$ Consequently, if we draw $M$ samples from the proposal distribution (\[functiong\]): $$\ximis^{(s)} \iid {\cal N}(\mu_i,\Sigma_i), \quad m=1,2,\cdots,S,$$ we can estimate ${\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs;\theta)$ by: $$\hat{\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs;\theta) = \frac{1}{S}\sum_{m=1}^S {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs|\ximis^{(s)};\theta)\frac{{\texttt{p}}(\ximis^{(s)};\theta)}{g_i(\ximis^{(s)})},$$ and derive an estimate of the observed log-likelihood $\llike({\theta}; \xobs,\by)$.
Prediction on test set with missing values {#sectionpredna}
-------------------------------------------
In supervised learning, after fitting a model using a training set, a natural step is to evaluate the prediction performance, which can be done with a test set. Assuming $\bx=(\xobs,\xmis)$ an observation in the test set, we want to predict the binary response $y$. One important point is that test set also contains missing values, since the training set and the test set have the same distribution (*i.e.*, the distribution of covariates and the distribution of missingness). Therefore, we can’t directly apply the fitted model (which uses $p$ coefficients) to predict $y$ from an incomplete observation of the test $\bx$.\
Our framework offers a natural way to tackle this issue by marginalizing over the distribution of missing data given the observed ones. More precisely, with $S$ Monte Carlo samples $$(\xmis^{(s)}, 1 \leq s \leq S) \sim {\texttt{p}}(\xmis|\xobs),$$ we estimate directly the response by maximum a posteriori $$\begin{split}
\hat{y} = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y} {\texttt{p}}(y|\xobs)
&= \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y} \int {\texttt{p}}(y|\bx) {\texttt{p}}(\xmis|\xobs) d \xmis\\
&= \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y} \mathbb{E}_{{\texttt{p}}_{\xmis|\xobs}} {\texttt{p}}(y|\bx)\\
&= \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{y} \sum_{s=1}^S {\texttt{p}}\left(y|\xobs,\xmis^{(s)} \right).
\end{split}$$ Note that in the literature there are not many solutions to deal with the missing values in the test set. In Subsection \[subsection:pred\], we compare the suggested approach to some methods used in practice based on imputation of the test set.
Simulation study {#sectionsimu}
================
Simulation settings {#subsection:simu}
-------------------
We first generated a design matrix $\bx$ of size $n=1000$ $\times$ $p=5$ by drawing each observation from a multivariate normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(\mu, \Sigma)$. Then, we generated the response according to the logistic regression model . We considered as the true parameter values: $\bbeta = (-0.2, 0.5, -0.3, 1, 0, -0.6)$, $\mu = (1,2,3,4,5)$, $\Sigma = \text{diag}(\sigma)C \text{diag}(\sigma$), where the $\sigma$ is the vector of standard deviations $\sigma=(1,2,3,4,5)$, and $C$ the correlation matrix $$\label{eq:C}
C = \begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0.8 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0.8 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0.3 & 0.6\\
0 & 0 & 0.3 & 1 & 0.7\\
0 & 0 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 1\\
\end{bmatrix}\,.$$ Before generating missing values, we performed classical logistic regression on the complete dataset, the results (ROC curve) are provided in \[ann:orig\]. Then we randomly introduced 10% missing values in the covariates first with a missing completely at random (MCAR) mechanism where each entry has the same probability to be observed.
The behavior of SAEM {#subsect::saem}
--------------------
The algorithm was initialized with the parameters obtained after mean imputation, i.e., where missing value in a variable are replaced by the unconditional mean calculated from the the available cases and the logistic regression is applied on the completed data. For the non-increasing sequence $(\gamma_k)$ in the Stochastic Approximation step of SAEM, we chose $\gamma_k = 1$ during the first $k_1$ iterations in order to converge quickly to a neighborhood of the MLE, and from $k_1$ iterations on, we set $\gamma_k = (k - k_1)^{-\tau}$ to assist the almost sure convergence of SAEM. In order to study the effect of the sequence of stepsizes $(\gamma_k)$, we fixed the value of $k_1=50$ and used $\tau=(0.6 , \ 0.8, \ 1)$ during the next 450 iterations. Representative plots of the convergence of SAEM for the coefficient $\beta_1$, obtained from four simulated data sets, are shown in Figure \[fig:convergence\]. For larger $\tau$, SAEM converged faster, and with less fluctuation. For a given simulation, the three sequences of estimates converged to the same solution, but using $\tau=1$ yielded the fastest convergence, and showed less fluctuation. We therefore use $\tau=1$ in the following.
Comparison with other methods {#subsect::simucomp}
-----------------------------
We ran $1000$ simulations and compared SAEM to several other existing methods, initially in terms of estimation errors of the parameters. We mainly focused on *i)* the complete case (CC) method, i.e., all rows containing at least one unobserved data value were removed, *ii)* multiple imputation by chained equations (mice) with Rubin’s combining rules [@mice]. More precisely, missing values are imputed successively by drawing from conditional distribution. We use the default arguments of the function implemented in R, i.e., conditional models based on regression models are used for quantitative variables and on logistic regression models are used for binary variables and uncertainty of the parameters is reflected within a Bayesian framework. More details are in @mice. Finally, we used the dataset without missing values (no NA) as a reference, with parameters estimated with the Newton-Raphson algorithm. We varied the number of observations $n=200, 1000$ and $10\,000$, the missing value mechanism MCAR and MAR, the percentage of missing values $10\%$ and $30\%$, as well as the correlation structure either using $C$ given by (\[eq:C\]) or an orthogonal design.
Figure \[n\_bias\] (top) displays the distribution of the estimates of $\beta_3$, for $n=1000$ and $n=10\,000$ under MCAR mechanism and the correlation between covariates is given by (\[eq:C\]). Results of simulation with $n=200$ are presented in supplementary materials [@supp]. This plot is representative of the results obtained with the other components of $\beta$. As expected, larger samples yielded less variability. Moreover, we observe that in both cases, the estimation obtained by mice could be biased, whereas SAEM provided unbiased estimates with small variances. Figure \[n\_bias\] (bottom) represents the empirical distribution of the estimated standard error of $\hat\beta_3$. For SAEM it was calculated using the observed Fisher information as described in Section \[sectionfish\]. With a larger $n$, not only the estimated standard errors, but also variance of estimation, clearly decreased for all of the methods. In the case where $n=1000$, SAEM and mice slightly overestimated the standard error, while CC underestimated it, on average. Globally, SAEM led to the best result, since compared with its competitor mice, it had a similar estimation of the standard error on average, but with much less variance.
Table \[coverage\] shows the coverage of the confidence interval for all parameters and inside the parentheses is the average length of corresponding confidence interval. We had expected coverage at the nominal 95% level. The simulation margin of error corresponding to coverage results is 1.35%. SAEM reached from 94.3% to 95.4% coverage, while mice struggled for certain parameters: the coverage rates for a few estimates are $89.6\%$ or $86.5\%$, which are significantly below the nominal level. Even though CC showed reasonable results in terms of coverage, the width of its confidence interval was still too large. Simulation with smaller sample size had the same results, for example, coverages for $n=200$ are presented in supplementary materials [@supp].
Lastly, Table \[compmicrobenchmark\] highlights large differences between the methods in terms of execution time. In fact we also implemented MCEM algorithm [@ibrahim1999_MonteCarlo] using adaptive rejection sampling. Even with a very small sample size $n=200$, MCEM took on average 5 minutes for one simulation; while multiple imputation took less than 1 second per simulation, and SAEM less than 10 seconds, which remains reasonable. However, the bias and standard error for the estimation of SAEM and MCEM were quite similar, as presented in supplementary materials [@supp]. Due to this computational difficulty, we didn’t perform MCEM to compare with others in the experiments with larger sample sizes.
The results obtained, when the covariates were independent, are also presented. Figure \[fig:cor\] (right) shows the results of estimation in the case with orthogonal design. SAEM was a little biased since it estimated non-zero terms for the covariance, but it stills outperformed CC and mice.
Extended simulations
--------------------
#### Missing at Random mechanisms.
We first simulated a binary vector $\eta = (\eta_1, \eta_2, \cdots, \eta_p)$ of dimension $n \times p$ from Bernoulli distribution, where $\eta_{ij} = 0$ indicates that the corresponding $x_{ij}$ will be missing while $1$ indicates observed. Then the probability of having missing data on one variable is calculated by a logistic regression function. For example in our case $p=5$ and the realizations of $\eta$ (the pattern) $(1,0,1,0,0)$, the probability that covariates $(x_2, x_4, x_5)$ can be missing, depends only on $x_1$ and $x_3$ with a logistic regression model. The weights in the linear combination impact the proportion of missingness. We introduced 10% of missing values in the covariates according to the MAR mechanisms. The results presented in \[ann:mar\] highlight that as expected they are similar to the ones obtained under MCAR and the parameters are estimated without bias.
#### Robustness to the Gaussian assumption for covariates.
First we generated a design matrix of size $n=1000$ $\times$ $p=5$ by drawing each observation from a multivariate Student distribution $t_v(\mu, \Sigma)$ with degree of freedom $v=5$ or $v=20$, and $(\mu, \Sigma)$ the same as those in Normal distribution in Subsection \[subsection:simu\]. Then, we considered the Gaussian mixture model case by generating half of the samples from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_1, \Sigma)$ and the other half from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_2, \Sigma)$, where $\mu_1 = (1,2,3,4,5)$ and $\mu_2=(1,1,1,1,1)$, and the same $\Sigma$ as previously. Then, we generated the response according to the same logistic regression model as described in Subsection \[subsection:simu\] and considered either MCAR or MAR mechanisms.
Figure \[fig:st\] illustrates the estimation bias of the parameter $\beta_3$ and \[ann:miscoverage\] shows the coverage for all parameters and inside the parentheses is the average length of corresponding confidence interval. This experiment shows that the estimation bias for regression coefficient with the proposed method even based on normal assumption, is robust to such a model misspecification. Indeed, the bias may increase when covariates don’t follow exactly a normal distribution, but the increase is negligible compared to the bias of imputation based methods. We also observe only a small undercoverage compared to mice, and a more reasonable length of confidence interval compared to CC.
#### Varying the percentage of missing values
When the percentage of missing values increases, the variability of the results increases but the methods still provide satisfactory results as illustrated in supplementary materials [@supp].
#### Varying the separability of the classes
When the classes are very separated SAEM can exibit a biais and large variance as illustrated in supplementary materials [@supp]. However, the logistic regression without missing values also encounters difficulties.
In summary, not only did these simulations allow us to verify that SAEM leads to estimators with limited bias, but also they ensured that we made correct inferences by taking into account the additional variance due to missing data.
Model selection
---------------
To look at the capabilities of the method in terms of model selection, we considered the same simulation scenarios as in Section \[subsection:simu\], with some parameters set to zero. We now describe the results for the case where all parameters in $\beta$ are zero except $\beta_0=-0.2$, $\beta_1=0.5$, $\beta_3=1$ and $\beta_5=-0.6$. We compared the $BIC_{obs}$ based on the observed log-likelihood, as described in Section \[sectionmodselect\], to that based on the complete cases $BIC_{cc}$ and that obtained from the the original complete data $BIC_{orig}$.
Table \[ms1\] shows, with or without correlation between covariates, the percentage of cases where each criterion selects the true model (C), overfits (O) – i.e., selects more variables than there were – or underfits (U) – i.e., selects less variables than there were. In the case where the variables were correlated, the correlation matrix was the same as in Section \[subsection:simu\]. These results are representative of those obtained with other simulation schemes.
Risk of severe hemorrhage for TraumaBase {#sectiontrauma}
========================================
The aim of our work is to accelerate and simplify the detection of patients presenting in hemorrhagic shock due to blunt trauma to speed up the management of this most preventable cause of death in major trauma. An optimized organization is essential to control blood loss as quickly as possible and to reduce mortality.
Details on the dataset {#subsection:dataset}
----------------------
This study has used the data collected from a trauma registry (TraumaBase$^{\tiny{\textregistered}}$) shared between six trauma centers within the Ile de France region (Paris area) in France. These centers have joined TraumaBase progressively between January 2011 and June 2015. Since then, data collection is exhaustive and covers the whole administrative area around Paris. The structure of the database integrates algorithm for consistency and coherence, and the data monitoring is performed by a central administrator. Sociodemographic, clinical, biological and therapeutic data (from the prehospital phase to the discharge if hospital) are systematically recorded for all trauma patients, and all patients transported in the trauma rooms of the participating centers are included in the registry. As a result, there were 7495 individuals in the trauma data that we investigated, collected from January 2011 to March 2016, with age ranged from 12 to 96. The study group decided to focus on patients with blunt trauma to be able to compare to the existing prediction rules. Patients with pre-hospital cardiac arrest and missing pre-hospital data were excluded. After this selection, 6384 patients remained in the data set. Based on clinical experience, 16 influential quantitative measurements were included. Detailed descriptions of these measurements and their histograms are shown in \[ann:trauma\]. These variables were chosen because they were all available to the pre-hospital team, and therefore could be used in real situations.
There was strong collinearity between variables, as can be seen in the variables PCA factor map (obtained by running an EM-PCA algorithm [@missMDA] which performs PCA with missing values) in Figure \[pca\], in particular between the minimum systolic (PAS.min) and diastolic blood pressure (PAD.min). Based on expert advice, the recoded variables, SD.min and SD.SMUR ($\text{SD.min}=\text{PAS.min} -\text{PAD.min}$; $\text{SD.SMUR}=\text{PAS.SMUR} -\text{PAD.SMUR}$) were used since they have more clinical significance [@redflag]. Thus, we had 14 variables to predict hemorrhagic shock.
Figure \[pct\_miss\] shows the percentage of missingness per variable, varying from 0 to 60%, which demonstrates the importance of taking appropriate account of missing data. Even though, there may be many reasons why missingness occurred, in the end, considering them all to be MAR remains a plausible assumption. For instance, FC.SMUR (heart rate) and SD.SMUR (the difference between blood pressure measured when the ambulance arrives at the accident site) contain many missing values because doctors collected these data during transportation. However, many other medical institutes and scientific publications used measurement on arrival at the accident scene. Consequently, doctors decided to record these measures as well but after the TraumaBase was set up.
We first applied SAEM for logistic regression with all 14 predictors and for the whole dataset. The estimation obtained by SAEM was of the same order of magnitude as that obtained by multiple imputation. Next, we used the model selection procedure described in Section \[sectionmodselect\]. There were two observations leading to a very small value of the log-likelihood. Upon closer inspection, we found that for patient number $3302$, the BMI was obtained using an incorrect calculation, and for patient number $1144$, the weight (200 kg) and height (100 cm) values were likely to be incorrect. Hence, the observed log-likelihood allowed us to discover undetected outliers. On the observations’ map of PCA, as shown in Figure \[pca\_ind\], patient number 3302 (circled in blue) is one of such outliers.
Predictive performances {#subsection:pred}
-----------------------
We divided the dataset into training and test sets. The training set contained a random selection of 70% of observations, and the test set contained the remaining 30%. In the training set, we selected a model with the suggested BIC with missing values, and used forward selection resulting in a model with 8 variables. The estimates of parameters and their standard errors are shown in Table \[table:est\].
The TraumaBase medical team indicated to us that the signs of the coefficients were in agreement with their a priori ideas: all the others things being equal *a)* Older people are more likely to have a hemorrhagic shock; *b)* A low Glasgow score implies little or no motor response, which often is the case for hemorrhagic shock patients; *c)* One typical sign of hemorrhagic shock is rapid heart rate; *d)* The more a patient bleeds, the lower their Hemocue is, and the more blood must be transfused. Eventually, it is more likely they will end up in hemorrhagic shock; *e)* Therapy involving two types of volume expanders, cristalloides and colloides, can be conducted to treat hemorrhagic shock. If extremely low difference between blood pressure is observed, its cause may be low stroke volume, as is usually the case in hemorrhagic shock.
Next, we assessed the prediction quality on the test set with usual metrics based on the confusion matrix (false positive rate, false negative rate, etc.). We need to ensure that the cost of a false negative is much more than that of a false positive, as non-recognition of a potential hemorrhagic shock leads to a higher risk of patient mortality. We define the validation error on test set as: $$\label{eq::cost}
\begin{split}
l(\hat{y},y) = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n w_0 {\mathbbm{1}}_{\{y_i =1, \hat{y}_i=0\}}+ w_1 {\mathbbm{1}}_{\{y_i =0, \hat{y}_i=1\}}
\end{split}$$ where $w_0$ and $w_1$ are user defined weight for the cost of false negative and false positive respectively, s.t.,$w_0+w_1=1$. Therefore, we can choose a threshold for logistic regression by given the value for $w_0$ and $w_1$. For instance, we chose $\frac{w_0}{w_1} = 5$, i.e., the false negative was 5 times costly than the false positive. The cost function was chosen in agreement with the experts. The confusion matrix of the predictive performance on the test set is shown in Table \[table:conf\]. The associated ROC curve is shown in Figure \[fig:ROC\], and the AUC is 0.8487.
[c >[****]{}r @c @c @l]{} & & &\
& & 1 & 0\
& 1 & [ ]{} & [ ]{}\
& 0 & [ ]{} & [ ]{}\
\
{width="100.00000%"} \[fig:ROC\]
Comparison with other approaches
--------------------------------
Finally we compared the proposed method to other approaches. such as single imputation by PCA (impPCA) [@missMDA], imputation by Random Forest (missForest) [@missforest], as well as mean imputation (impMean). Meanwhile, we compared logistic regression model with other prediction models, such as Random Forest (predRF) and SVM (predSVM), both applied on the imputed dataset by Random Forest [@missforest]. We also considered multiple imputation by chained equation (mice): we applied logistic regression with a classical forward selection method, with BIC on each imputed data set. However, note that there is no straightforward solution for combining multiple imputation and variable selection; we followed the empirical approach suggested in @model_select_mice, where they kept the variables selected in each imputed dataset to define the final model. We also considered three rules used by the doctors to predict the hemorrhagic shock *i)* Doctors’ prediction (doctor): the decision was recorded in the TraumaBase. It determines whether the doctor considered the patient to be at risk of hemorrhagic shock. *ii)* Assessment of Blood Consumption score (ABC): it is an examination usually performed when the patient arrives at the trauma center. As such, the score is not exactly prehospital but can be computed very early once the patient is hospitalized. *iii)* Trauma Associated Severe Hemorrhage score (TASH): this score was also designed for hemorrhage detection, but at a later stage since it uses some values that are only available after laboratory tests or radiography.
![Empirical distribution of prediction errors of different methods over 15 replications for the TraumaBase data.[]{data-label="box::error"}](image/SAMU_new_boxplot.jpg){width="90.00000%"}
Figure \[box::error\] compares the methods in terms of their validation error (\[eq::cost\]). The splitting of data (into training and test sets) was repeated 15 times and we fixed the threshold such that the cost of false negative is 5 times that of false positive, i.e, $\frac{w_0}{w_1}=5$. , while all the imputation methods performed similarly even the naive mean imputation. In addition, other prediction methods (Random Forest and SVM) did not result in a smaller error on the test sets than the logistic regression models. Lastly the rules used by the doctors, even the ones using more information than prehospital data, were not as competitive as SAEM. \[ann:tbl\] gives the details with classical measures (AUC, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and precision) to compare the predictive performance of the methods. The suggested approach resulted in good performance on average, and in particular, had an advantage in terms of the sensitivity, i.e., it rarely misdiagnosed the hemorrhagic shock patients, which is relevant to clinical needs of emergency doctors.
![Average prediction errors of different methods, as function of the cost importance $\{\frac{w_0}{w_1} \mid \frac{w_0}{w_1}>1 \}$, over 15 replications for the TraumaBase data.[]{data-label="line::error"}](image/SAMU_new_line.jpg){width="90.00000%"}
More generally, without defining a specific threshold, we observed in Figure \[line::error\] the average predictive loss over 15 replications as function of the cost importance $\{\frac{w_0}{w_1} \mid \frac{w_0}{w_1}>1 \}$ for all the methods. Obviously, we had the same performance evaluation as before, as SAEM had smaller error on the test sets with the respect to the choice of $\frac{w_0}{w_1}$, especially when we emphasized more on the cost of false negative. Note that the curves of doctors’ rules and ABC increase as a function of the cost importance $\frac{w_0}{w_1} $, which means that, the rules of doctors are more conservative than SAEM, which can be problematic in this application.
Note that even if the proposed methodology is based on the assumption of normally distributed covariates, the performance of the proposed methodology is better than the prediction made by the widely used medical criterion, in terms of prediction error. Some discussions on the normal assumption are provided in \[ann:trauma\].
In summary, the logistic regression methodology with missing values, from estimation to selection, as well as prediction on a test sample with missing data, is theoretically well founded. Based on the TraumaBase application and comparison with other methods, we have demonstrated that the proposed approach has the ability to outperform existing popular methods dealing with missing data.
Discussion {#sectiondisc}
==========
In this paper, we have developed a comprehensive joint-modeling framework for logistic regression with missing values. The experiments indicate that the proposed method is computationally efficient, and can be easily implemented. In addition, compared with multiple imputation – especially in the case with correlation between variables – estimation using SAEM is less biased than other methods and generally leads to interval-estimate coverage that is close to the nominal level. Based on the proposed algorithm, model selection by BIC with missing data can be performed in a natural way. In view of the results reported in this article, we have been invited by emergency-room doctors in one of the centers that contributes to the TraumaBase dataset to implement the missing-data methodology outlined here in a prospective study to evaluate its performance in real time in a clinical setting. Paths for possible future research include further developing the method to handle quantitative and categorical data. This paper focused on making inference with missing values but we have suggested a method to predict from a test set with missing values. More work can be done in the direction of supervised learning with missing values, especially to suggest variance of prediction. Extensions of the methods of @schafer2000inference could be studied. In addition, in the TraumaBase dataset, we can reasonably expect to have both MAR and missing not at random (MNAR) values. MNAR means that missingness is related to the missing values themselves, therefore, the correct treatment would require incorporating models for the missing data mechanisms. As a final note, the proposed method may be quite useful in the causal inference framework, especially for propensity score analysis, which estimates the effect of a treatment, policy, or other intervention. Indeed, inverse probability weighting methods (IPW) are often performed with logistic regression, and the proposed method offers a potential solution for times where there are missing values in the covariates. The method is implemented in the R package *misaem*.
Appendix {#app}
========
Missing mechanism {#ann:ignorable}
-----------------
Missing completely at random (MCAR) means that there is no relationship between the missingness of the data and any values, observed or missing. In other words, MCAR means: $$\label{mcar}
{\texttt{p}}(M_i|y,\bx_i, \phi)={\texttt{p}}(M_i|\phi)$$ Missing at Random (MAR), means that the probability to have missing values may depend on the observed data, but not on the missing data. We must carefully define what this means in our case by decomposing the data $x_i$ into a subset $\xa_i$ of data that “can be missing”, and a subset $\xb_i$ of data that “cannot be missing”, i.e. that are always observed. Then, the observed data $\xiobs$ necessarily includes the data that can be observed $\xb_i$, while the data that can be missing $\xa_i$ includes the missing data $\ximis$. Thus, MAR assumption implies that, for all individual $i$, $$\label{mar}
\begin{split}
{\texttt{p}}(M_i | y_i,\bx_i; \phi) &= {\texttt{p}}(M_i | y_i,\xb_i; \phi) \\ &= {\texttt{p}}(M_i | y_i,\xiobs; \phi)
\end{split}$$
MAR assumption implies that, the observed likelihood can be maximize and the distribution of $M$ can be ignored [@little_rubin]. Indeed, $$\begin{split}
\like(\theta,\phi ; y,\xobs,M)&= {\texttt{p}}(y,\xobs,M ; \theta,\phi) \\
&=\prod_{i=1}^n {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\xiobs,M_i ; \theta,\phi)\\
& = \prod_{i=1}^n \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\bx_i,M_i ; \theta,\phi)d\ximis\\
& = \prod_{i=1}^n \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\bx_i;\theta) {\texttt{p}}(M_i|\by_i,\bx_i;\phi)d\ximis\\
& = \prod_{i=1}^n \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\bx_i;\theta) {\texttt{p}}(M_i|\by_i,\xiobs;\phi)d\ximis\\
& = \prod_{i=1}^n {\texttt{p}}(M_i|\by_i,\xiobs;\phi) \times \prod_{i=1}^n \int {\texttt{p}}(y_i,\bx_i;\theta)d\ximis\\
&= {\texttt{p}}(M|y,\xobs;\phi) \times {\texttt{p}}(y,\xobs; \theta) \\
&= {\texttt{p}}(M|y,\xb;\phi) \times {\texttt{p}}(y,\xobs; \theta) \\
\end{split}$$ Therefore, to estimate $\theta$, we aim at maximizing $\like(\theta; y,\xobs)={\texttt{p}}(y,\xobs; \theta)$.
Metropolis-Hastings sampling {#ann:mh}
----------------------------
During the iterations of SAEM, the Metropolis-Hastings sampling is performed as Algorithm \[alg1\], with the target distribution $f(\ximis)={\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs,\by_i;\theta)$ and the proposal distribution $g(\ximis)={\texttt{p}}(\ximis|\xiobs;\mu,\Sigma)$.
An initial samples $\ximis^{(0)}\sim g(\ximis)$; Generate $\ximis^{(s)}\sim g(\ximis)$; Generate $u \sim \mathcal{U}[0,1]$; Calculate the ratio $w= \frac{f(\ximis^{(s)})/g(\ximis^{(s)})}{f(\ximis^{(s-1)})/g(\ximis^{(s-1)})}$;
Accept $\ximis^{(s)}$; $\ximis^{(s)} \leftarrow \ximis^{(s-1)}$; $(\ximis^{(s)}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq s \leq S)$.
Calculation of observed information matrix {#ann:var}
------------------------------------------
Procedure \[ag2\] shows how we calculate the observed information matrix.
After drawing MH samples $(\ximis^{(s)}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq s \leq S)$ for unobserved data $(\ximis, 1\leq i \leq n)$, we have imputed observations, noted as $(\bz_i^{(s)}, 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq s \leq S)$, where $\bz_{ij}^{(s)} = \xiobs, \text{ if } x_{ij} \text{ is observed}; \text{ else } \bz_{ij}^{(s)} =\ximis^{(s)}$. Calculate the gradient:\
$\nabla f_{is}=\frac{\partial \llike(\theta;\xiobs,\ximis^{(s)},y_i)}{\partial\bbeta}=
\bz_i^{(s)}\left(y_i-\frac{\exp(\hat{\beta}_0 + \sum_{j=1}^p \hat{\beta}_j\bz_{ij}^{(s)})}{1+\exp(\hat{\beta}_0 +\sum_{j=1}^p \hat{\beta}_j\bz_{ij}^{(s)})}\right)$; Calculate the Hessian matrix:\
$H_{is}=\frac{\partial^2 \llike(\theta;\xiobs,\ximis^{(s)},y_i)}{\partial \bbeta \partial \bbeta^T}=
-\bz_i^{(s)}{\bz_i^{(s)}}^T \frac{\exp(\hat{\beta}_0 +\sum_{j=1}^p \hat{\beta}_j\bz_{ij}^{(s)})}{\left(1+\exp(\hat{\beta}_0 +\sum_{j=1}^p \hat{\beta}_j\bz_{ij}^{(s)})\right)^2}$; $\Delta_i \leftarrow \frac{1}{s}[(s-1)\Delta_i+\nabla f_{is}]$; $D_i \leftarrow \frac{1}{s}[(s-1)D_i+H_{is}]$; $G_i \leftarrow \frac{1}{s}[(s-1)G_i+\nabla f_{is}\nabla f_{is}^T]$; $\hat{\mathcal{I}}_S(\hat{\bbeta})\leftarrow\hat{\mathcal{I}}_S(\hat{\bbeta}) -(D_{i}+G_i-\Delta_i \Delta_i^T)$; $\hat{\mathcal{I}}_S(\hat{\bbeta})$.
Logistic regression on simulated complete dataset {#ann:orig}
-------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:rocorig\] shows the ROC curve on a simulated complete dataset. The corresponding AUC (for training set) is 0.8976.
Simulation results for Missing at Random data {#ann:mar}
---------------------------------------------
We consider a Missing at Random mechanism to generate data. Figure \[fig:mary\] shows that the biases were very similar to the ones obtained under a MCAR mechanism and the parameters were estimated without bias.
![\[fig:mary\]Empirical distribution of the bias of $\hat{\beta}_3$ obtained under MAR mechanism, with $n=1000$ and 10% of missing values.](image/roc_orig.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
Simulation results for model misspecification: the coverage {#ann:miscoverage}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Table \[mis:coverage\] shows the coverage for all parameters and inside the parentheses is the average length of corresponding confidence interval.
Definition of the variables of the TraumaBase data set {#ann:trauma}
------------------------------------------------------
In this Subsection, we give the detailed explanations for the selected quantitative variables:
- $Age$: Age.
- $Poids$: Weight.
- $Taille$: Height.
- $BMI$: Body Mass index, $BMI = \frac{Weight \text{ in } kg}{(Height \text{ in } m)^2}$
- $Glasgow$: Glasgow Coma Scale .
- $Glasgow.moteur$: Glasgow Coma Scale motor component.
- $PAS.min$: The minimum systolic blood pressure.
- $PAD.min$: The minimum diastolic blood pressure.
- $FC.max$: The maximum number of heart rate (or pulse) per unit time (usually a minute).
- $PAS.SMUR$: Systolic blood pressure at arrival of ambulance.
- $PAD.SMUR$: Diastolic blood pressure at arrival of ambulance.
- $FC.SMUR$: Heart rate at arrival of ambulance.
- $Hemocue.init$: Capillary Hemoglobin concentration.
- $SpO2.min$: Oxygen saturation.
- $Remplissage.total.colloides$ (or $RT.colloides$): Fluid expansion colloids.
- $Remplissage.total.cristalloides$ (or $RT.cristalloides$): Fluid expansion cristalloids.
- $SD.min$ ($=PAS.min -PAD.min$): Pulse pressure for the minimum value of diastolic and systolic blood pressure.
- $SD.SMUR$ ($=PAS.SMUR -PAD.SMUR$): Pulse pressure at arrival of ambulance.
Figure \[fig:plotvar\] shows the histogram and the empirical *c.d.f.* of several covariates from the TraumaBase data.
Several of these distributions are not symmetrical. In practice, it is possible to consider that some suitable transformations of the covariates can be approximated by normal distributions. For example, transformations of the form $\log(c+x)$ and $\log(c-x)$, can be very appropriate for, respectively, right-skewed and left-skewed distributions. We applied the proposed methodology to the real dataset after transformation. However, the prediction result from cross-validation didn’t show advantage of the transformed version. Indeed when the log transformation is used as a prepossessing step, it only operates on the observed part, which is appropriate under MCAR calues. Consequently, taking into account the simulation study, the interpretability, the choices of transformations, and the prediction results, we have decided to keep the variables without any transformation.
Details of predictive performance for TraumaBase data {#ann:tbl}
-----------------------------------------------------
Details of predictive performance for TraumaBase data are given by Table \[table:com\].
Supplementary material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
R-package:
: R-package “misaem” containing the implementation of algorithm SAEM to fit the logistic regression model with missing data, now available in CRAN [@misaem].
Codes:
: Code to reproduce the experiments are provided in GitHub [@github].
Additional supplementary materials:
: Some supplementary simulation results are presented [@supp].
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: <http://www.traumabase.eu/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Radial magnetic fields are observed in all known young, shell-type supernova remnants (SNRs) in our Galaxy, including Cas A, Tycho, Kepler, and SN1006 and yet the nature of these radial fields has not been thoroughly explored. Using a 3D model, we consider the existence and observational implications of an intrinsically radial field. We also present a new explanation of the origin of the radial pattern observed from polarization data as resulting from a selection effect due to the distribution of cosmic-ray electrons (CREs). We show that quasi-parallel acceleration can concentrate CREs at regions where the magnetic field is radial, making a completely turbulent field appear ordered, when it is in fact disordered. We discuss observational properties that may help distinguish between an intrinsically radial magnetic field and the case where it only appears radial due to the CRE distribution. We also show that the case of an intrinsically radial field with a quasi-perpendicular CRE acceleration mechanism has intriguing similarities to the observed polarization properties of SN1006.'
author:
- 'J. L. West'
- 'T. Jaffe'
- 'G. Ferrand'
- 'S. Safi-Harb'
- 'B. M. Gaensler'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'When disorder looks like order: A new model to explain radial magnetic fields in young supernova remnants'
---
\[sec:intro\]Introduction
=========================
There are many outstanding questions surrounding our current understanding of the magnetic fields and cosmic-ray electron (CRE) distribution in supernova remnants (SNRs). Young shell-type SNRs are known to be sites of cosmic-ray acceleration [e.g., @2017arXiv170608275M] and understanding the magnetic field geometry in these SNRs is of particular relevance, since magnetic fields are thought to play a key role in the acceleration mechanism. All historical SNRs observed to date show radial magnetic fields [@Milne:1987wi; @1995ApJ...441..300A; @1997ApJ...491..816R; @2002ApJ...580..914D; @2002nsps.conf....1R; @Reynoso:2013tr], the origin of which is still not completely understood [e.g., @2012SSRv..166..231R]. Four such observations are shown in Fig. \[fig:historical\_snrs\].
Due to the ordered radial appearance, a common assumption has been that the magnetic field has some intrinsically radial nature that leads to this appearance. Two possible explanations are: owing to the expansion, Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities will stretch the field lines preferentially along the radial component, and/or turbulence with a radially biased velocity dispersion is induced, leading to selective amplification of the radial component of the magnetic field [@1996ApJ...472..245J; @2001ApJ...560..244B; @2008ApJ...678..939Z; @Inoue:2013el]. However, there are no 3D models that predict the appearance of the various observational properties, such as synchrotron emission and polarization, which such an intrinsically radial field would produce. In addition, it does not seem plausible that the intrinsic radial field would exist without some component of turbulence and the observational consequences of this have not been studied.
SN1006 is the oldest of the SNRs in Fig. \[fig:historical\_snrs\] and it is the only one to have a distinctly bilateral appearance. The others have a round shape with radio emission appearing all around their shell. Observations of both SN1006 and Cas A show evidence of a tangential field running along the outer edge of the shell [@Reynoso:2013tr; @2001ApJ...552L..39G]. In addition to being the oldest and only bilateral SNR, SN1006 also differs from the others as it is also the largest (both physical and angular size) and it is located at the highest Galactic latitude where the ambient Galactic medium may be more uniform and the Galactic magnetic field may be more ordered [@2015ASSL..407..483H]. This may result in the difference in amplitude between the ordered component and a turbulent component, which must be present at some level, and may explain the aforementioned tangential field at the outer perimeter of the shell.
Since radial fields are observed almost exclusively in young SNRs, it must be assumed that there exists some kind of transition from a radial magnetic field to a tangential one, which is observed in many older SNRs [@1976AuJPh..29..435D; @2012SSRv..166..231R]. [see also @1998ApJ...493..781G] found that a model made by compressing the ambient Galactic magnetic field can explain the geometry of most of the bilateral-shaped SNRs, which is consistent with this picture. This model can also explain the morphology of SN1006, but fails to reproduce the radial magnetic field .
In the case of SN1006, the favoured explanation of its radial-looking field uses quasi-parallel CRE acceleration and a “polar-cap" model of a compressed, ordered ambient magnetic field. This SNR has been the subject of much debate involving both its radial magnetic field geometry, its CRE distribution, and how this relates to its bilateral morphology, but these studies do not consider the presence of an intrinsically radial magnetic field.
Two CRE acceleration scenarios are typically considered: (a) the quasi-perpendicular scenario, where CREs are most efficiently accelerated when the shock normal is perpendicular to the post-shock magnetic field, and (b) the quasi-parallel scenario, where CREs are most efficiently accelerated when the shock normal is parallel to the post-shock magnetic field ([@Jokipii:1982jy; @1989ApJ...338..963L; @Fulbright:1990gu] and references therein). These two scenarios have been applied to the geometry of what is assumed to be an ordered, compressed magnetic field resulting in two opposite pictures of the bilateral morphology (rotated from each other by 90$^\circ$). Which, if any, applies has been argued in many studies (see references above) and conclude that neither scenario can adequately describe all the observed features of SN1006.
We consider the observational properties of an intrinsically radial magnetic field. We also explore the consequences of including a turbulent magnetic field component, which has led us to a new explanation of the origin of radial-appearing polarization observations. We describe our modelling in Sec. \[sec:model\]. Results and discussion are presented in Sec. \[sec:result\], and conclusions in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
![\[fig:historical\_snrs\]Magnetic fields in young, shell-type SNRs shown with total intensity contours and magnetic field vectors, which have been corrected for Faraday rotation. Top left: G004.5+006.8 (Kepler) at 5.0 GHz @2002ApJ...580..914D [with permission]. Top right: G111.7–02.1 (Cas A) at 5.0 GHz (using VLA data provided by L. Rundick). Bottom left: G120.1+01.4 (Tycho) at 1.4 GHz, @1997ApJ...491..816R [with permission]. Bottom right: G327.6+14.6 (SN1006) at 1.4 GHz, @Reynoso:2013tr [with permission]. Distance and date information is compiled by @Ferrand:2012cr [@Green:2014vb] and references therein.](f1.pdf){width="18cm"}
\[sec:model\]Modelling
======================
We use the updated version of Hammurabi[^1] [@Waelkens:2009bn], a HEALPix-based modelling code for simulating 2D synchrotron emission maps from 3D models of the input magnetic field and electron distributions. Hammurabi uses the HEALPIX pixelization scheme [@Gorski:2005ku] and integrates along lines of sight to calculate simulated total radio synchrotron emission, Stokes I, and the polarization vectors Stokes Q and Stokes U.
We use a static, non-dynamical, geometric model for this study. The models have a 512x512x512 pixel grid with a physical size of 21 pc on a side giving a physical scale of 0.04 pc/pixel. The physical size of the grid is arbitrary and does not affect the results, but we choose to use a value that is consistent with the size of the oldest and largest SNR in the sample in Fig. \[fig:historical\_snrs\], SN1006 (where the box size is defined as $1.2*d$, where $d=17.5$ pc, which is the diameter of SN1006). We construct a 3D box and define the magnetic field at each point in the box based on some physical assumptions. We model several linear combinations of the following three components:
1. An ordered regular component defined by a compressed ambient field, $\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{reg}}$ (see Sec. \[sec:regular\]).
2. An intrinsic radial component, $\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rad}}$ (see Sec. \[sec:radial\]).
3. A random component, $\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rdm}}$ (see Sec. \[sec:random\]).
The magnetic field is defined at every point within the box by $\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{total}}=\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{reg}}+\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rdm}}+\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rad}}$, including the very centre of the box (i.e., the centre of the SNR). In the physical picture of an SNR, we expect a very small magnetic field at the centre (or it may be dominated by a compact object), but in practice this does not impact the modelling since we scale the CRE density such that it is zero in the centre of the SNR (see Sec. \[sec:cre\]) and thus the scale of the magnetic field at the centre is not relevant.
The coordinate system is defined such that $B_x$ is the line-of-sight component, $B_y$ is the horizontal component when viewed on a projected image, and $B_z$ is the vertical component. We do not explicitly enforce that the resultant magnetic field be divergence free since this should not impact our conclusions, which are based on comparing the effect of the different components.
![\[fig:bfield\]Magnetic field, $\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{total}}=\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{reg}}+\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rdm}}+\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rad}}$, shown for the three cases modeled in this study. We show the y-z plane cut through the centre of the SNR. ](f2.pdf){height="6cm"}
![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3a.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3b.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3c.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3.pdf "fig:"){height="5.5cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3d.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3e.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3f.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3.pdf "fig:"){height="5.5cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3g.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3h.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3i.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:i\]Simulated total intensity maps resulting from the magnetic field configurations illustrated in Fig. \[fig:bfield\] and shown with isotropic (top row), quasi-parallel (centre row), and quasi-perpendicular (bottom row) CRE acceleration mechanisms.](f3.pdf "fig:"){height="5.5cm"}
![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4a.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4b.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4c.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4d.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4e.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4f.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4g.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4h.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4i.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"} ![\[fig:pi\]Same cases as in Fig. \[fig:i\] but for simulated polarized intensity with the projected magnetic field vectors plotted using the simulated observations.](f4.pdf "fig:"){height="5.4cm"}
![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5a.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5b.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5c.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5d.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5e.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5f.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5g.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5h.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"} ![\[fig:frac-plot\] Plots of the fractional polarization vs. $\phi$. We define an annulus around the SNR with an inner radius set to 90% of the total radius and show the mean (black) and maximum (red) values measured in 20 azimuthal bins. We show the same simulated cases as Fig. \[fig:i\], with the exception of the top-left case, which has been replaced by a plot of SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr. The data have similarities to the radially dominated quasi-perpendicular case (bottom-centre), however, we note that we have not attempted to make a best fit to SN1006.](f5i.pdf "fig:"){width="5.9cm"}
\[sec:regular\]Compressed ordered component
-------------------------------------------
We assume that the explosion takes place in an environment where there exists an ambient, ordered magnetic field that will be compressed by the shock wave according to a Sedov-Taylor explosion model [@1959sdmm.book.....S] by the method described by . This is a reasonable assumption since the SNRs in question (Kepler, Tycho, Cas A, and SN1006) are likely to be at least in transition to the Sedov phase. The Sedov mass density profile is a reasonable approximation even in a case where the transition has not fully taken place since we need only reasonable compression in the shock.
For these tests this field is initially oriented entirely parallel to the Galactic plane , with no line-of-sight component (i.e., $B_x$=0$~\mu$G, $B_y=1~\mu$G, $B_z$=0$~\mu$G).
\[sec:radial\]Intrinsic radial component
----------------------------------------
This component is constructed with an orientation that is parallel to the radius vector at all locations. Each point has a random amplitude between 0 and 1 $\mu$G and a random sign (i.e., the vector is either pointing towards the centre or towards the shock). The average amplitude is then normalized and scaled to a value appropriate for the particular model. The radial component is defined inside the shell radius, and is set to zero for all larger radii.
\[sec:random\]Random component
------------------------------
Using Hammurabi, we construct a Gaussian random-field given the rms amplitude (integrated over all scales), which we call $\sigma_{rdm}$, and the magnetic field power spectrum index, $\alpha$. The 3D power spectrum, $P(k)$, is given by $P(k)=k^{\alpha}$ where $k$ is the wavevector defined by $k=\sqrt({k_x^2+k_y^2+k_z^2})$. The 3D power spectrum is related to the energy spectrum, $E(k)$, which is given by $E(k)\propto k^2 P(k)$ . For the case of a Kolmogorov spectrum, $E(k)\propto k^{-5/3}$, and thus $\alpha=-11/3$ and for the case of a flat energy spectrum, $E(k)\propto k^0$, or $\alpha=-2$.
We construct boxes with values of the magnetic field power spectrum index $\alpha=-2.5$ ($E(k)\propto k^{-1/2}$), which is nearly flat and consistent with the values predicted by @2014ApJ...794...46C from diffusive shock acceleration[^2]. We use an outer turbulence scale of 1 pc. The inner scale is constrained by the pixel resolution (i.e., 0.04 pc).
It should be noted that the simulations of @2014ApJ...794...46C are on much smaller scales than our models, in both space and time, but it is expected that turbulence will be excited up to the scales of the highest-energy particles, which are not included in these simulations. We use these along with results for turbulence in the Milky Way as a whole, which shows that the power spectrum is flatter than the Kolmogorov case [e.g., @2015ASSL..407..483H] to provide some general guidance for our inputs.
\[sec:cre\]CRE density
----------------------
The CRE density is first scaled according to the compressed thermal electron density, $n_e$, i.e., the CRE density follows the mass density predicted by a Sedov profile. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:regular\], this is a reasonable approximation since we only need a strong compression at the shock, which the Sedov profile provides. We then include a sharp cutoff to set the CRE density to zero in the interior 80% of the shell and thus the CREs are confined to the outer 20% of the shell, which at the scale we are modelling is equivalent to 45 pixels or 1.8 pc. Besides being compressed, we consider how the CREs may also be distributed around the shell. We use the standard isotropic, quasi-parallel, and quasi-perpendicular injection recipes to model these distributions [@Jokipii:1982jy; @1989ApJ...338..963L; @Fulbright:1990gu and references therein]. In the quasi-perpendicular case, the CRE density is scaled by $\sin^{2}\phi_{Bn2}$, where $\phi_{Bn2}$ is the angle between the shock normal and the post-shock magnetic field, and in the quasi-parallel scenario the CRE density is scaled by $\cos^{2}\phi_{Bn2}$.
CREs are accelerated at the shock. In the cases where we include a turbulent component of the magnetic field, the CREs will be affected by the component of the field that is locally parallel or perpendicular to the shock normal, depending on the injection recipe. In our modelling this extends some distance inside the shell (20% of the SNR radius). For the CREs that remain interior to the shock, our implicit assumption is that these CREs have not had time to (azimuthally) diffuse far away from the location where they were accelerated on the timescales for which we are observing the SNR. Using the scale of 0.04 pc/pixel and a shock velocity of 5000 km/s, it would take nearly 8 years for the shock to cross a single pixel of this model SNR.
\[sec:result\]Results and Discussion
====================================
In Fig \[fig:bfield\], we show the three linear combinations of $|\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{reg}}|$, $|\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rdm}}|$, and $|\mathbf{B}_{\textrm{rad}}|$ that we model: one dominated by the random component, one dominated by the radial component, and one where the components are comparable. The results of the modelling are shown in Figs. \[fig:i\]-\[fig:frac-plot\].
An interesting outcome is that where quasi-parallel or quasi-perpendicular acceleration cases are used, the simulated observations reveal that an apparently ordered polarization morphology is created even if the input magnetic field is completely turbulent. In the quasi-parallel case, the magnetic field is apparently radial. Similarly, in the quasi-perpendicular case, we observe what appears to be a tangential magnetic field. This can be explained as a selection effect due to the distribution of the CREs.
For example, if we are using the quasi-parallel injection recipe and the case of a completely random magnetic field, there will be points all over the sphere that have a parallel component and CREs would be distributed uniformly over the sphere. At the particular locations where the magnetic field is parallel to the shock normal, the CRE density will be amplified. Where the magnetic field is perpendicular, the CRE density will be suppressed. So although on average the CREs are distributed uniformly, the value will be high only in the particular cells where the magnetic field is radial. Since synchrotron emission depends only on the magnetic field component that is in the plane of the sky, this will be preferentially bright at the points where the field is radial creating a radial appearance to the polarization vectors.
Observationally, the radial appearance created by an intrinsically radial magnetic field is very similar to an intrinsically turbulent field with a quasi-parallel CRE acceleration mechanism. These models are very similar to the observations of the young SNRs shown in Fig. \[fig:historical\_snrs\].
The polarized fraction is one possible observable that may help distinguish between these scenarios. It is very high for an intrinsically radial field but is greatly reduced when a random turbulent component dominates due to depolarization effects. In Fig. \[fig:frac-plot\], we plot the mean and maximum polarized fraction in an annulus (with an inner radius set to 90% of the SNR radius) for each of 20 azimuthal bins. We measure $\phi$ counterclockwise where $\phi=0$ is at the standard 3 o’clock position. We compare our models to SN1006 data from @Reynoso:2013tr, which has been rotated such that the bright limbs correspond to $\phi=90^\circ$ and $\phi=270^\circ$. We show the data for reference, but we do not attempt to fit a best model to the data. In practical terms, this is a subtle effect, especially considering that the foreground interstellar medium is also a source of depolarization.
An additional possible observable is polarization from dust. If the polarized dust emission is from thermal emission and not synchrotron, then the dust grains should be aligned with the intrinsic magnetic field and would not be impacted by the CRE acceleration mechanism. To date, there has only been one observation of dust polarization in a young SNR with a radial polarization morphology in the radio, which was for the case of Cas A [@2009MNRAS.394.1307D]. These observations covered only a portion of the remnant and were of relatively low resolution (18”) compared to the size of the SNR (5’). These data nonetheless reveal that the dust polarization follows a similar radial pattern as the polarized radio emission, implying the existence of at least some fraction of an intrinsically radial component.
An interesting case is that of a radially dominant magnetic field coupled with a quasi-perpendicular CRE acceleration mechanism (see Figs. \[fig:i\]-\[fig:frac-plot\], bottom-centre). In this case, we see evidence of the ordered compressed field, even when its amplitude is very small compared to the other components, not unlike the tangential field observed at the edges of SN1006 and Cas A. Also like SN1006, this particular model reveals a bilateral morphology, magnetic field lines through the centre of the SNR being parallel to the axis of symmetry, and the polarized fraction is highest at the points where the total intensity is lowest [see Fig. 4 in @Reynoso:2013tr]. In addition, when the strength of the turbulent component is comparable to the intrinsically radial component, as might be expected in the youngest SNRs, the bilateral morphology disappears (see Figs. \[fig:i\]-\[fig:frac-plot\], bottom-right).
\[sec:conclusions\]Conclusions
==============================
We consider the origin of radial magnetic fields in young SNRs with the inclusion of the most commonly considered CRE acceleration mechanisms: quasi-parallel, quasi-perpendicular, and isotropic. We make the following conclusions:
1. We demonstrate that an intrinsic radial field is not required to produce an observed radial polarization, but that a turbulent magnetic field can create a radial appearance due to a selection effect that is dependent on the distribution of the CREs (i.e., using the quasi-parallel case).
2. Two observables that can potentially distinguish between an intrinsic radial field and a purely turbulent field are the fractional polarization and dust polarization.
The case that is dominated by an intrinsically radial component and uses a quasi-perpendicular acceleration mechanism (Figs. \[fig:i\]-\[fig:frac-plot\], bottom-centre) is particularly interesting leading to an alternative explanation and several conclusions specific to this case:
1. The ordered compressed field can be revealed at the perimeter of the SNR, even when its amplitude is small compared to the amplitude of the other components.
2. Previous studies , which did not consider a radial component, were not able to model a radial appearance using quasi-perpendicular CRE geometry, whereas this case does.
3. This is the only example of bilateral morphology in the cases studied here, and we could find no case where a quasi-parallel CRE acceleration mechanism combined with an intrinsically radial field can have a bilateral appearance.
4. The observed magnetic field vectors through the centre of the SNR appear parallel to the axis of symmetry, which is consistent with what is observed in SN1006.
The leading interpretation of SN1006 is a polar cap geometry with the radial field interpreted as the magnetic field lines converging at these caps. The review by [@2017arXiv170202054K] concludes that the majority of studies support this picture and therefore support the quasi-parallel CRE acceleration scenario. We suggest that the range of possible scenarios that can lead to a radial-looking magnetic field in SN1006 have not been fully explored. The current picture describing this SNR may be incomplete, especially considering that all young SNRs exhibit radial fields and that the origin of the radial nature is likely similar.
We show here the unanticipated result that quasi-parallel acceleration can create an apparently ordered radial component in a turbulent field through a selection effect. This effect may reinforce an existing intrinsic radial component.
Alternatively, the case of an intrinsically radial field with a quasi-perpendicular CRE acceleration mechanism reveals intriguing similarities to SN1006 and the fractional polarization data would appear to support this scenario for this SNR. Further observations, such as high-frequency observations of SN1006 that would have less depolarization and more detailed modelling are required to distinguish between these scenarios.
The Dunlap Institute is funded through an endowment established by the David Dunlap family and the University of Toronto. J.L.W. and B.M.G. acknowledge the support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through grant RGPIN-2015-05948, and of the Canada Research Chairs program. S.S.H. acknowledges the support of the NSERC (Discovery Grants and Canada Research Chairs programs), CSA and CFI. We thank L. Rudnick and E. Reynoso for providing data, and the anonymous referee for helpful comments that improved the manuscript.\
This research has made use of the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS).
[^1]: <https://sourceforge.net/projects/hammurabicode/>
[^2]: See their Fig. 8, which shows that the slope of the power spectrum varies from negative to positive depending on the shock obliquity, and their footnote 2, p.8, which indicates that the power spectrum is flat in the relativistic regime
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A family $\{Q_{\beta}\}_{\beta \geq 0}$ of Markov chains is said to exhibit *metastable mixing* with *modes* $S_{\beta}^{(1)},\ldots,S_{\beta}^{(k)}$ if its spectral gap (or some other mixing property) is very close to the worst conductance $\min(\Phi_{\beta}(S_{\beta}^{(1)}), \ldots, \Phi_{\beta}(S_{\beta}^{(k)}))$ of its modes. We give simple sufficient conditions for a family of Markov chains to exhibit metastability in this sense, and verify that these conditions hold for a prototypical Metropolis-Hastings chain targeting a mixture distribution. Our work differs from existing work on metastability in that, for the class of examples we are interested in, it gives an asymptotically exact formula for the spectral gap (rather than a bound that can be very far from sharp) while at the same time giving technical conditions that are easier to verify for many statistical examples. Our bounds from this paper are used in a companion paper [@mangoubi2018Cheeger] to compare the mixing times of the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo algorithm and a random walk algorithm for multimodal target distributions.'
author:
- 'Oren Mangoubi$^{\flat}$'
- 'Natesh S. Pillai$^{\ddag}$'
- 'Aaron Smith$^{\sharp}$'
bibliography:
- 'HMC.bib'
title: Simple Conditions for Metastability of Continuous Markov Chains
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
Introduction
============
It is well known that Markov chains targeting multimodal distributions, such as those that appear in mixture models, will often mix very slowly. Of course, some algorithms are still faster than others, and the present paper is motivated by the problem of comparing different MCMC (Markov Chain Monte Carlo) algorithms in this “highly multimodal" regime. In this paper, we give a first step in this direction by finding some simple sufficient conditions under which we can find an explicit formula for the spectral gap for MCMC algorithms on multimodal target distributions. To be slightly more precise, we consider a sequence of Markov transition kernels $\{Q_{\beta}\}_{\beta \geq 0}$ with state space $\Omega$ partitioned into pieces $\Omega = \sqcup_{i=1}^{k} S_{\beta}^{(i)}$. One of our main results, Lemma \[LemmaMeta2\], gives sufficient conditions under which the spectral gap $\lambda_{\beta}$ of $Q_{\beta}$ is asymptotically given by the worst-case conductance $\Phi_{\min}(\beta) = \min(\Phi_{\beta}(S_{\beta}^{(1)}), \ldots, \Phi_{\beta}(S_{\beta}^{(k)}))$, in the sense: \[EqProtConc\] \_ = 1.
Our work is closely related to two large pieces of the Markov chain literature: *decomposition bounds* (see *e.g.,* [@woodard2009sufficient; @woodard2009conditions; @madras2002markov; @jerrum2004elementary; @pillai2017elementary]) and *metastability bounds* (see *e.g.,* the popular book [@olivieri2005large] and the references within the recent articles [@beltran2015martingale; @landim2018metastable]). Our work differs from existing work in that, for the class of examples we are interested in, it gives an asymptotically exact formula for the spectral gap (rather than a bound that can be very far from sharp) while at the same time giving technical conditions that are easier to verify for many statistical examples. In particular, we give simple sufficient conditions that work on continuous state spaces). We do not assume that our state space is discrete or compact, that we have precise knowledge of the boundary of the modes, or that we have precise knowledge of the “typical" trajectories between modes. We believe that our “in-between" results are a useful compromise that focuses on the most relevant properties for comparison of Markov chains targeting multimodal distributions that arise in a statistical context.
The main heuristic behind our calculations is that, in the highly-multimodal regime, a Markov chain with strongly multimodal stationary distribution will mix *within* its starting mode before travelling between modes. When this occurs, we say that the Markov chain exhibits *metastable behaviour*, and the mixing properties of the Markov chain are often determined by the rate of transition between modes at stationarity (again, see [@landim2018metastable] and the references therein). As a prototypical example, we consider the simple mixture of two Gaussians \_ = (-1,\^[2]{}) + (1,\^[2]{}) for $\sigma > 0$. When $\sigma$ is close to 0, the usual tuning heuristic for the random walk Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithms (see *e.g.,* [@roberts1997weak]) suggests using a proposal distribution with standard deviation on the order of $\sigma$, such as: K\_(x,) = (x,\^[2]{}). Informally, an MH chain $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ with proposal distribution $K_{\sigma}$, target distribution $\pi_{\sigma}$ and initial point $X_{0} \in [-2,-0.5]$ in one of the modes will evolve according to the following three stages:
1. For $t$ very small, the law of the chain $X_t$, $\mathcal{L}(X_{t})$, will depend quite strongly on the starting point $X_{0}$.
2. For $\sigma^{-1} \ll t \ll e^{c_{1} \sigma^{-2}}$ and $c_{1} > 0$ small, the chain will have mixed very well on its first mode and is very unlikely to have ever left the interval $(-\infty, -0.1)$, so that: (X\_[t]{}) - (-1,\^[2]{}) \_ e\^[-c\_[2]{} \^[-1]{}]{} for some $c_{2} > 0$.
3. For $t \gg e^{c_{3} \sigma^{-2}}$, the chain will have mixed well on the entire state space in the sense that (X\_[t]{}) - \_ \_ e\^[-c\_[3]{} \^[-1]{}]{} for some $c_{3} > 0$.
In the context of this example, the main result of our work is a straightforward way to verify that there is a sharp transition around $t \approx e^{\frac{1}{2} \sigma^{-2}}$, so that we may take $c_{1} = c_{3} = \frac{1}{2}$ in this heuristic description (see Theorems \[ThmRwmMultimodal1\], \[ThmRwmMultimodal2\] for a precise statement). In the notation of Equality , we can take the parameter $\beta$ that indexes our chains to be equal to $\sigma^{-1}$. We view $\beta$ as indexing “how multimodal" a chain is, while in this particular example $\sigma^{-1}$ measures both the width of each mode *and* how well-separated they are.
We believe that these scaling exponents $c_{1},c_{3}$ are natural ways to measure performance in the highly-multimodal regime; see our companion paper [@mangoubi2018Cheeger] for further discussion of this point and relationships to the literature on optimal scaling and lifted Markov chains.
Guide to Paper
--------------
In Section \[SecAlgDefs\], we review basic notation and definitions, and also provide some simple bounds. Our main results on metastability are in Section \[SecGenMetaBd\]. Finally, we give an illustrative application in Section \[SecAppl\].
Preliminaries {#SecAlgDefs}
=============
Basic Notation
--------------
Throughout the remainder of the paper, we denote by $\pi$ the smooth density function of a probability distribution on a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. We denote by $\mathcal{L}(X)$ the distribution of a random variable $X$. Similarly, if $\mu$ is a probability measure, we write “$X \sim \mu$" for “$X$ has distribution $\mu$." Throughout, we will generically let $Q \sim \pi$ and $P \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \mathrm{Id})$ be independent random variables, where $\mathrm{Id}$ is the $d$-dimensional identity matrix.
For two nonnegative functions or sequences $f,g$, we write $f = O(g)$ as shorthand for the statement: there exist constants $0 < C_{1},C_{2} < \infty$ so that for all $x > C_{1}$, we have $f(x) \leq C_{2} \, g(x)$. We write $f = \Omega(g)$ for $g = O(f)$, and we write $f = \Theta(g)$ if both $f= O(g)$ and $g=O(f)$. Relatedly, we write $f = o(g)$ as shorthand for the statement: $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{f(x)}{g(x)} = 0$. Finally, we write $f = \tilde{O}(g)$ if there exist constants $0 < C_{1},C_{2}, C_{3} < \infty$ so that for all $x > C_{1}$, we have $f(x) \leq C_{2} \, g(x) \log(x)^{C_{3}}$, and write $f = \tilde{\Omega}(g)$ for $g = \tilde{O}(f)$. As shorthand, we say that a function $f$ is “bounded by a polynomial" if there exists a polynomial $g$ such that $f = O(g)$.
Cheeger’s inequality and the spectral gap
-----------------------------------------
We recall the basic definitions used to measure the efficiency of MCMC algorithms. Let $L$ be a reversible transition kernel with unique stationary distribution $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. It is common to view $L$ as an operator from $L_{2}(\pi)$ to itself via the following formula: (L f)(x) = \_[y \^[d]{}]{} L(x,dy) f(y). The constant function is always an eigenfuncton of this operator, with eigenvalue 1. We define the space $W^{\perp} = \{ f \in L_{2}(\mu) \, : \, \int_{x} f(x) \mu(dx) = 0\}$ of functions that are orthogonal to the constant function, and denote by $L^{\perp}$ the restriction of the operator $L$ to the space $W^{\perp}$. We then define the *spectral gap* $\rho$ of $L$ by the formula = (L) 1 - { || : (L\^) }, where $\mathrm{Spectrum}$ refers to the usual spectrum of an operator. If $L^{\perp}$ has a largest eigenvalue $|\lambda|$ (for example, if $L$ is a matrix of a finite state space Markov Chain), then $\rho = 1-| \lambda |$.
Cheeger’s inequality [@cheeger1970lower; @lawler1988bounds] provides bounds for the spectral gap in terms of the ability of $L$ to move from any set to its complement in a single step. This ability is measured by the conductance $\Phi(L)$, which is defined by the pair of equations (L) = \_[S : 0 < (S) < ]{} (L,S) and (L,S) = , where $\mathcal{A}= \mathcal{A}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ denote the usual collection of Lebesgue-measurable subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Cheeger’s inequality for reversible Markov chains, first proved in [@lawler1988bounds], gives: $$\label{IneqCheegPoin}
\frac{\Phi(L)^2}{2} \leq \rho(L) \leq 2 \Phi(L).$$
Traces and Hitting Times
------------------------
We recall some standard definitions related to Markov processes.
\[Trace Chain\] Let $K$ be the transition kernel of an ergodic Markov chain on state space $\Omega$ with stationary measure $\mu$, and let $S \subset \Omega$ be a subset with $\mu(S) > 0$. Let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain evolving according to $K$, and iteratively define c\_[0]{} &= {t 0 : X\_[t]{} S }\
c\_[i+1]{} &= {t > c\_[i]{} : X\_[t]{} S }. Then \[EqTraceCoup\] \_[t]{} = X\_[c\_[t]{}]{}, t 0 is the *trace of $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ on $S$*. Note that $\{\hat{X}_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ is a Markov chain with state space $S$, and so this procedure also defines a transition kernel with state space $S$. We call this kernel the *trace of the kernel $K$ on $S$*.
\[Hitting Time\] Let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain with initial point $X_{0} = x$ and let $S$ be a measurable set. Then \_[x,S]{} = {t 0 : X\_[t]{} S} is called the *hitting time* of $S$.
Generic Metastability Bounds {#SecGenMetaBd}
============================
Denote by $\{Q_{\beta}\}_{\beta \geq 0}$ the transition kernels of ergodic Markov chains with stationary measures $\{ \mu_{\beta}\}_{ \beta \geq 0}$ on common state space $\Omega$, which we take to be a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$. Throughout, we will always use the subscript $\beta$ to indicate which chain is being used - for example, $\Phi_{\beta}(S)$ is the conductance of the set $S$ with respect to the chain $Q_{\beta}$. For any set $S$ with $\pi_{\beta}(S) > 0$, define the restriction $\pi_{\beta} |_{S}$ of $\pi_{\beta}$ to $S$ \_ |\_[S]{}(A) = .
Our two main results are:
1. In Lemma \[LemmaMeta1\], we fix a set $S \subset \Omega$ and give sufficient conditions for the *worst-case* hitting time of $S^{c}$ from $S$ to be bounded by the *average-case* hitting time $\Phi_{\beta}(S)$.
2. In Lemma \[LemmaMeta2\], we consider sufficient conditions on the entire partition $S^{(1)},\ldots,S^{(k)}$ to ensure that the *spectral gap* of $Q_{\beta}$ is approximately equal to the *worst-case conductance* $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \Phi_{\beta}(S^{(i)})$.
Metastability and Hitting Times
-------------------------------
The main point of our first set of assumptions is to guarantee that the Markov chain cannot get “stuck" for a long time before mixing within a mode $S$. Fix $S \subset \Omega$ with $\inf_{\beta \geq 0} \pi_{\beta}(S) \equiv c_{1} > 0$ and, for all $\beta \geq 0$, let $\gd_{\beta}, \bd_{\beta}, \cov_{\beta} \subset S$ satisfy \_ \_, \_ \_\^[c]{}. In the following assumption, we think of the set $\gd_{\beta}$ as the points that are “deep within" the mode $S$, the points $\bd_{\beta}$ as the points that are “far in the tails" of the target distribution, and the “covering set" $\cov_{\beta}$ as a way of separating these two regions.
\[AssumptionsMeta1\] We assume the following all hold for $\beta > \beta_{0}$ sufficiently large:
1. **Small Conductance:** There exists some $c > 0$ such that $\Phi_{\beta}(S) \leq e^{-c \beta}$.
2. **Rapid Mixing Within $\gd_{\beta}$:** Let $\hat{Q}_{\beta}$ be the Metropolis-Hastings chain with proposal kernel $Q_{\beta}$ and target distribution $\pi_{\beta} |_{S}$. There exists some function $r_{1}$ bounded by a polynomial such that \[IneqMeta1MixingRestrictions\] \_[x \_]{} \_\^[r\_[1]{}()]{}(x,) - \_ |\_[S]{}() \_ \^[-2]{} \_(S).
3. **Never Stuck In $\cov_{\beta}\backslash \gd_{\beta}$:** There exists some function $r_{2}$ bounded by a polynomial such that \[IneqNeverStuckInEscM1\] \_[x \_\\\_]{} ¶\[\_[x, \_ S\^[c]{}]{} > r\_[2]{}()\] \^[-2]{} \_(S).
4. **Never Hitting $\cov_{\beta}^{c}$:** We have \[IneqNeverHittingBad1\] \_[x \_ ]{} ¶\[\_[x, \_\^[c]{}]{} < ( r\_[1]{}() + r\_[2]{}() + 1, \_[x,S\^[c]{}]{})\] \_(S)\^[4]{}.
Under these assumptions, we have the conclusion:
\[Hitting Times and Conductance\] \[LemmaMeta1\] Let Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\] hold, and fix a point $x$ that is in $\gd_{\beta} $ for all $\beta > \beta_{0}(x)$ sufficiently large. Then for all $\epsilon > 0$, ¶= o(1).
Let $p \in \cov_{\beta}$, let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain with transition kernel $Q_{\beta}$ started at $X_{0} = p$, and let $\{Y_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain with transition kernel $Q_{\beta}$ started with distribution $Y_{0} \sim \pi_{\beta}|_{S}$. Finally, define $T = T(\beta) = r_{1}(\beta) + r_{2}(\beta) + 1$.
We then calculate:
¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} T \] &\_[q \_]{} ¶\[\_[q,S\^[c]{}]{} r\_[1]{}() + 1\] - ¶\[X\_[r\_[2]{}()]{} \_ S\^[c]{}\]\
&\_[q \_]{} ¶\[\_[q,S\^[c]{}]{} r\_[1]{}() + 1\] - ¶\[\_[p, \_ S\^[c]{}]{} > r\_[2]{}()\]\
&¶\[Y\_[1]{} S\^[c]{}\] - \_[q \_]{} \_\^[r\_[1]{}()]{}(q,) - \_ |\_[S]{}() \_ - ¶\[\_[p, \_ S\^[c]{}]{} > r\_[2]{}()\]\
&= \_(S) - \_[q \_]{} \_\^[r\_[1]{}()]{}(q,) - \_ |\_[S]{}() \_ - ¶\[\_[p, \_ S\^[c]{}]{} > r\_[2]{}()\]
Applying parts **(2)** and **(3)** of Assumption \[AssumptionsMeta1\] to bound the size of the negative terms, this implies
\[IneqMeta1Hit1\] ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} T\] \_(S) (1 - 2 \^[-2]{}).
If we also have $p \in \gd_{\beta} \subset \cov_{\beta}$, then applying part **(4)** of Assumption \[AssumptionsMeta1\] gives \[IneqMeta1Hit2\] ¶\[\_[p,\_\^[c]{}]{} (T, \_[p,S\^[c]{}]{})\] \_(S)\^[4]{}.
We now iteratively apply Inequalities and to control the behaviour of $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ over longer time intervals. More precisely, for all $k \in \mathbb{N}$ and starting points $p \in \gd_{\beta}$, we have:
¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > kT\] &= ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > kT | \_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\] ¶\[ \_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_ \]\
& + ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > kT | \_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\^[c]{} \] ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\^[c]{} \]\
&¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > kT | \_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\] ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T\]\
& + ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\^[c]{}\]\
& (1 - \_(S)(1 - 2 \^[-2]{})) ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T\] + ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T, X\_[(k-1)T]{} \_\^[c]{}\]\
& (1 - \_(S)(1 - 2 \^[-2]{}))¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > (k-1)T\] + k\_(S)\^[4]{},\
where Inequality is used in the second-last line and Inequality is used in the last line. Iterating and collecting terms, this gives \[IneqMeta1Hit3\] ¶\[\_[p,S\^[c]{}]{} > kT\] (1 - \_(S)(1 - 2 \^[-2]{}))\^[k]{} + k\^[2]{} \_(S)\^[4]{}.
Fix any $\epsilon > 0$ and take $k = \lceil \beta \Phi_{\beta}(S)^{-1} \rceil$. By Part **(1)** of Assumption \[AssumptionsMeta1\], $k T \leq \Phi_{\beta}(S)^{1+\epsilon}$ for all $\beta > \beta_{0}(\epsilon)$ sufficiently large. Thus, we can use Inequality to conclude ¶\[ > 1 + \] &= ¶\[\_[x,S\^[c]{}]{} > \_(S)\^[1 + ]{}\]\
& ¶\[\_[x,S\^[c]{}]{} > k T\]\
&(1 - \_(S)(1 - 2 \^[-2]{}))\^[k]{} + k\^[2]{} \_(S)\^[4]{} = o(1).
This completes the proof of the lemma.
Metastability and Spectral Gaps
-------------------------------
If one can partition the state space of a Markov chain into a collection of sets $S^{(1)},\ldots,S^{(k)}$ satisfying Assumption \[AssumptionsMeta1\], one typically expects the spectral gap of the Markov chain to be entirely determined by the typical transition rates between these sets. However, we must rule out a few possible sources of bad behaviour:
1. Very slow mixing in the “tails" of the distribution could have an impact on the spectral gap.
2. A typical transition from one mode could land far out in the tails of the mode being entered, causing the walk to get “stuck."
3. The transitions between modes might exhibit near-periodic behaviour, even if the Markov chain is not exactly periodic.
4. There might be metastability among *collections* of modes. For example, there might be some $I \subset \{1,2,\ldots,k\}$ for which $\Phi_{\beta}(\cup_{i \in I} S^{(i)})$ is much smaller than $\min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \Phi_{\beta}(S^{(i)})$.
Although detailed discussion of metastability is beyond the scope of the present paper, the first three types of behaviour can all cause the spectral gap to be very different from the prediction given by our metastability heuristic. The fourth behaviour simply says that you have chosen the “wrong" partition of the state space, and that you should check the conditions again after joining several pieces of the partition together.
The following assumptions rule out these new complications:
\[AssumptionsMeta2\] Let $\Omega = \sqcup_{i=1}^{k} S^{(i)}$ be a partition of $\Omega$ into $k$ pieces. Set $\Phi_{\min} = \min(\Phi_{\beta}(S^{(1)}),\ldots, \Phi_{\beta}(S^{(k)}))$ and $\Phi_{\max} = \max(\Phi_{\beta}(S^{(1)}), \ldots, \Phi_{\beta}(S^{(k)}))$. Assume that:
1. **Metastability of Sets:** Each set $S^{(i)}$ satisfies Assumption \[AssumptionsMeta1\] (with $\Phi_{\beta}(S)$ replaced by $\Phi_{\max}$ in Part **(1)** and replaced by $\Phi_{\min}$ in Parts **(2-4)**). We use the superscript $(i)$ to extend the notation of that assumption in the obvious way.
2. **Lyapunov Control of Tails:** Denote by $B_{r}(x)$ the ball of radius $r > 0$ around a point $x \in \Omega$. Assume there exist $0 < m, M < \infty$ satisfying \[IneqLyapContain\] \_[i=1]{}\^[k]{} \_\^[(i)]{} B\_[M]{}(0), B\_[m]{}(0) \_[i=1]{}\^[k]{} \_\^[(i)]{}. Assume there exist a collection of privileged points $s_{i} \in \gd_{\beta}^{(i)}$ such that the function $V_{\beta}(x) = e^{\beta \min_{1 \leq i \leq k} \| x - s_{i} \|}$ satisfies \[IneqLyapMain\] (Q\_ V\_)( x) (1 - ) V\_( x) + r\_[4]{} e\^ for all $x \in \Omega$, where $r_{3}, r_{4}$ are bounded by polynomials and $0 \leq \ell < m$.
3. **Never Hitting $\cov_{\beta}^{c}$:** We have the following variant of Inequality : \[IneqNeverHittingBad2\] \_[x \_[i=1]{}\^[k]{} \_\^[(i)]{}]{} ¶\[\_[x, (\_[i=1]{}\^[k]{}\_\^[(i)]{})\^[c]{}]{} < \_\^[-2]{}\] &\_\^[4]{}.
4. **Non-Periodicity:** For all $1 \leq i \neq j \leq k$, \[IneqNP1\] \_ \_[x S\^[(i)]{} ]{} Q\_(x,S\^[(i)]{}) c\_[2]{}\^[(i)]{} > 0, and, \[IneqNP2\] \_[x S\^[(i)]{}]{} Q\_(x,S\^[(j)]{} \\\_\^[(j)]{}) < \_\^[4]{}.
5. **Connectedness:** There exists some $r_{5}$ bounded by a polynomial so that the graph with vertex set $\{1,2,\ldots,k\}$ and edge set \[IneqStrongCon\] { (i,j) : ( \_[x S\^[(i)]{}]{} ¶\[X\_[\_[x,(S\^[(i)]{})\^[c]{}]{}]{} S\^[(j)]{}\], \_[x S\^[(j)]{}]{} ¶\[X\_[\_[x,(S\^[(j)]{})\^[c]{}]{}]{} S\^[(i)]{}\]) r\_[5]{}() } is connected.
We then have:
\[Spectral Gap and Conductance\] \[LemmaMeta2\] Let Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] hold. Denote by $\lambda_{\beta}$ and $\Phi_{\beta}$ the spectral gap and conductance of $Q_{\beta}$. Then \[EqSpecGapCondConc\] \_ = \_ = 1.
Define the candidate “small set" R = \_[i=1]{}\^[k]{} \_\^[(i)]{}.
For convenience, we define $T_{\max} = T_{\max}(\beta) \equiv \Phi_{\min}^{-1.5}$ to be the longest time-scale of interest in this problem; we note that any mixing behaviour should occur on this time scale, while on the other hand there should be no entrances to the “bad" set W (\_[i=1]{}\^[k]{} \_\^[(i)]{})\^[c]{}. In order to reduce notational clutter, we will frequently use $q$ with a subscript to refer to a function that is bounded by a polynomial and whose specific values are not of interest.
We will begin by estimating the mixing rate of $Q_{\beta}$ for Markov chains started at points $x,y \in R$. We do this by coupling Markov chains $\{X_{t}\}_{t =0}^{T_{\max}}$, $\{Y_{t}\}_{t =0}^{T_{\max}}$ started at $X_{0} = x$, $Y_{0} = y$ for some $x,y \in R$ and trying to force them to collide.[^5] Roughly speaking, we will make the following two calculations:
1. If we run the two chains independently, the time it takes for them to both be in $\gd_{\beta}^{(i)}$ for the *same $i$ simultaneously*, is not too much larger than the conjectured relaxation time $\Phi_{\min}^{-1}$.
2. If we run two chains started on the same good set $\gd_{\beta}^{(i)}$, the two chains will couple long before either one transitions from $\gd_{\beta}^{(i)}$ to another mode.
We now give some further details, following this sketch. Let $x,y \in R$.
**Part 1: Time to be in same good set simultaneously.** We will run the chains independently until the first time \_[1]{} = {t 0 : 1 i k X\_[t]{}, Y\_[t]{} \_\^[(i)]{} } that they are both in the same “good" part of the partition. Define \_[2]{} = {t 0 : 1 i k X\_[t]{}, Y\_[t]{} S\^[(i)]{} }, the first time that $\{X_{t}\}$, $\{Y_{t}\}$ are both in the same part of our partition. For convenience, set $c_{2} = \min(c_{2}^{(1)}, \ldots, c_{2}^{(k)}, 0.5)$. By Inequalities , , and
\[IneqMeta2InitHitting1\] ¶\[\_[2]{} q\_[1]{}() \_\^[-1]{}\] c\_[2]{} r\_[5]{}()\^[k]{} for some function $q_{1}$ that is bounded by a polynomial. By Inequality , ¶\[\_[1]{} = \_[2]{}\] 1- T\_ \_\^[4]{} 1 - \_\^[2]{}. Combining this with Inequality , \[IneqMeta2InitHitting3\] ¶\[\_[1]{} q\_[1]{}() \_\^[-1]{}\] for some function $q_{2}$ that is bounded by a polynomial.
**Part 2: Mixing from same good set.** If $\psi_{1} \geq T_{\max} - r_{1}(\beta)$, continue to evolve $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$, $\{Y_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ independently. Otherwise, let $1 \leq i \leq k$ satisfy $X_{\psi_{1}}, \, Y_{\psi_{1}} \in S^{(i)}$. We then let $\{ \hat{X}_{t} \}_{t \geq 0}$, $\{ \hat{Y}_{t} \}_{t \geq 0}$ be Markov chains evolving according to the Metropolis-Hastings kernel with proposal distribution $Q_{\beta}$ and target distribution $\pi_{\beta} |_{S^{(i)}}$. We give these chains initial points $\hat{X}_{0} = X_{\psi_{1}}$, $\hat{Y}_{0} = Y_{\psi_{1}}$ and couple them according to a maximal $r_{1}(\beta)$-step coupling (that is, a coupling that maximizes $\P[\hat{X}_{r_{1}(\beta)} = \hat{Y}_{r_{1}(\beta)}]$; such a coupling is known to exist [@griffeath1975maximal]).
We next observe that the following informal algorithm gives a valid coupling of the Markov chains $\{X_{t}\}_{t = \psi_{1}}^{\psi_{1} + r_{1}(\beta)}$, $\{\hat{X}_{t}\}_{t = 0}^{r_{1}(\beta)}$:
1. Run the full Markov chain $\{X_{t}\}_{t = \psi_{1}}^{\psi_{1} + r_{1}(\beta)}$ according to $Q_{\beta}$.
2. For all t < \_ {s : X\_[\_[1]{} + s]{} S\^[(i)]{} }, set $\hat{X}_{t} = X_{\psi_{1} + t}$.
3. If $ \tau_{\mathrm{bad}} < r_{1}(\beta)$, continue to evolve $\{\hat{X}_{s}\}_{s=\tau_{\mathrm{bad}}}^{r_{1}(\beta)}$ independently of $\{X_{t}\}_{t=0}^{r_{1}(\beta)}$.[^6]
We couple the pair of chains $\{X_{t}\}_{t = \psi_{1}}^{\psi_{1} + r_{1}(\beta)}$, $\{\hat{X}_{t}\}_{t = 0}^{r_{1}(\beta)}$ this way, and we couple $\{Y_{t}\}_{t = \psi_{1}}^{\psi_{1} + r_{1}(\beta)}$, $\{\hat{Y}_{t}\}_{t = 0}^{r_{1}(\beta)}$ analogously. Under these couplings, we have: ¶\[X\_[\_[1]{} + r\_[1]{}()]{} Y\_[\_[1]{} + r\_[1]{}()]{}\] &¶\[\_[r\_[1]{}()]{} \_[r\_[1]{}()]{}\] + ¶\[X\_[\_[1]{} + r\_[1]{}()]{} \_[r\_[1]{}()]{}\] + ¶\[Y\_[\_[1]{} + r\_[1]{}()]{} \_[r\_[1]{}()]{}\]\
&\^[-2]{} \_ + 2 \_\^[4]{}, where the first term is bounded by Inequality and the last two terms are bounded by Inequality .
Combining this with Inequality , we conclude \[IneqMeta2Minor1\] ¶\[X\_[T\_[1]{}]{} = Y\_[T\_[1]{}]{}\] = (1 -o(1)), where $T_{1} = \lceil q_{1}(\beta) \Phi_{\min}^{-1} + r_{1}(\beta) \rceil$.
This completes the proof of our two-stage analysis, as Inequality gives a useful minorization bound for $x,y \in R$. Note that Inequality is very close to a minorization condition in the sense of [@rosenthal1995minorization] for the small set $R$. Applying the closely related Lemma A.11 of [@mangoubi2017rapidp1] (on ArXiv, [@mangoubi2017concave]), the minorization bound and the drift bound in Part **(2)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\], we find Q\_\^[t]{}(x,) - \_() \_ M(,x) e\^[-]{}, where $q_{4}(\cdot) \geq 1$ and, for each $x$, $M(\cdot,x)$, are bounded by a polynomial.
By Theorem 2.1 of [@roberts1997geometric], this implies
\[IneqPrev21\] \_ .
By Equation , the conductance $\Phi_{\beta}$ of $Q_{\beta}$ satisfies
\[IneqPrev22\] \_ 2 \_ 2 \_.
Combining Inequalities and , we conclude
, \_ 2 \_ 2 \_. This immediately implies the limit in Equation , completing the proof of the theorem.
Application to Mixtures of Gaussians {#SecAppl}
====================================
We define the usual random-walk Metropolis algorithm:
\[Random Walk Metropolis Algorithm\] \[DefRWMAlg\] The transition kernel $K$ of the *random walk Metropolis algorithm* with step size $\sigma > 0$ and target distribution $\pi$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with density $\rho$ is given by the following algorithm for sampling $X \sim K(x,\cdot)$:
1. Sample $\epsilon_{1} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$ and $U_{1} \sim \mathrm{Unif}[0,1]$.
2. If U < , set $X = x + \epsilon_{1}$. Otherwise, set $X=x$.
For $\sigma > 0$, define the mixture distribution \[EqDefMixDistBasic\] \_ = (-1,\^[2]{}) + (1,\^[2]{}) and denote its density by $f_{\sigma}$. Let $K_{\sigma}$ be the kernel from Definition \[DefRWMAlg\] with step size $\sigma$ and target distribution $\pi_{\sigma}$.
Denote by $\lambda_{\sigma}$ the relaxation time of $K_{\sigma}$ (the reciprocal of the spectral gap of $K_\sigma$), and denote by $\Phi_{\sigma} = \Phi(K_{\sigma}, (-\infty,0))$ the Cheeger constant associated with kernel $K_{\sigma}$ and set $(-\infty,0)$.
We will state our two main results about this walk; the proofs are deferred until both results have been stated. First, we have an asymptotic formula for the Cheeger constant:
\[ThmRwmMultimodal1\] The Cheeger constant $\Phi_{\sigma}$ satisfies \[EqMultiCheegAsymRwm\] \_[0]{} (-2 \^[2]{}) (\_) = 1.
For fixed $x \in (-\infty,0)$, let $\{X_{t}^{(\sigma)}\}_{t \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a Markov chain with transition kernel $K_{\sigma}$ and initial point $X_{1}^{(\sigma)} = x$. Define the hitting time \[EqDefTauSigmaX\] \_[x]{}\^[()]{} = { t > 0 : X\_[t]{}\^[()]{} (-,0)}.
We also have the following estimate of the spectral gap and the hitting time:
\[ThmRwmMultimodal2\] For all $\epsilon > 0$ and fixed $x \in (-\infty,0)$, the hitting time $\tau_{x}^{(\sigma)}$ satisfies \[EqMultiCheegHittingRwm\] \_[0]{} ¶\[ < 1 + \] = 1 and the relaxation time satisfies \[IneqRelMultiRwm\] \_[0]{} = \_[0]{} = 1.
This result implies that the Cheeger constant $\Phi(K_{\sigma})$ of $K_{\sigma}$ is close to the bottleneck ratio $\Phi_{\sigma} = \Phi(K_{\sigma}, (-\infty,0))$ associated with the set $(-\infty,0)$, at least for $\sigma$ very small. The set $(-\infty,0)$ is of course a natural guess for the set with the “worst" conductance, though we do not know of any simple argument that would actually prove this. In some sense this is the motivation for the approach taken in this paper: it can be very hard to guess a good partition, even in a very simple example!
We begin by proving Theorem \[ThmRwmMultimodal1\]:
Let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain with transition kernel $K_{\sigma}$ and started at $X_{0} \sim \pi_{\sigma}$ drawn according to the stationary distribution. Denote by $\phi_{\sigma}$ the density of the Gaussian with variance $\sigma^{2}$. Defining the set $\mathcal{E} = \{X_{0} < -\sigma^{-1} \} \cup \{|X_{1} - X_{0}| > \sigma^{-1} \}$, we have
¶\[{X\_[0]{} < 0} { X\_[1]{} > 0} \^[c]{}\] &\_[-\^[-1]{}]{}\^[0]{} \_[0]{}\^[\^[-1]{}]{} f\_(x) \_(y-x) dx dy\
& 2\_[-\^[-1]{}]{}\^[0]{} \_[0]{}\^[\^[-1]{}]{} \_(1+x) \_(y-x) dx dy\
&= \_[-\^[-1]{}]{}\^[0]{} \_[0]{}\^[\^[-1]{}]{} e\^[-( (1+x)\^[2]{} + (y-x)\^[2]{})]{} dx dy\
& \_[-\^[-1]{}]{}\^[0]{} \_[0]{}\^[\^[-1]{}]{} e\^[-]{} = e\^[-]{}.
We also have the simple bound ¶\[\] &¶\[X\_[0]{} < - \^[-1]{}\] + ¶\[|X\_[1]{} - X\_[0]{} | > \^[-1]{}\]\
&2 \_[-]{}\^[-\^[-1]{}]{} \_(x) dx + 2 \_[\^[-1]{}]{}\^ \_(x) dx\
& e\^[-]{} e\^[- \^[-3]{}]{}, where the last inequality holds for all $\sigma$ sufficiently small. Putting these two bounds together, we have for all $\sigma > 0$ sufficiently small that ¶\[X\_[0]{} < 0, X\_[1]{} > 0\] e\^[-]{} + e\^[- \^[-3]{}]{}. Taking logs, this immediately proves \_[0]{} (-2 \^[2]{}) (\_) 1, the desired upper bound on the left-hand side of Inequality . To prove the lower bound on this quantity, begin by defining the intervals $I_{\sigma} = (-2 \sigma^{20}, - \sigma^{20})$ and $J_{\sigma} = (\sigma^{10},2 \sigma^{10})$. Since $\sigma^{20} \ll \sigma^{10}$ for $\sigma$ small, we have for sufficiently small $\sigma > 0$ \_[x I\_, y J\_]{} 1. Informally, this means that any proposed step from $I_{\sigma}$ to $J_{\sigma}$ will be accepted. Thus, letting $Y \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$ be independent of $X_{1}$, we have ¶\[X\_[0]{} < 0, X\_[1]{} > 0\] &¶\[ X\_[0]{} I\_, X\_[1]{} J\_\]\
&¶\[X\_[0]{} I\_\] \_[x I\_]{} ¶\[ X\_[0]{} + Y J\_ | X\_[0]{} = x\]\
&( e\^[-]{} ) ( ), where the last inequality holds for all $\sigma > 0$ sufficiently small. Taking logs, this proves \_[0]{} (-2 \^[2]{}) (\_) 1, completing the proof of Inequality .
We defer some of the longer exact calculations in this proof to Appendix \[SecAppendix\], retaining here the key steps that might be used to prove similar metastability results for other Markov chains. To prove Theorem \[ThmRwmMultimodal2\], it is enough to verify Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\] and \[AssumptionsMeta2\] for the sets S\^[(1)]{} = (-,0), S\^[(2)]{} = \[0,), with decomposition of $S^{(1)}$ \_\^[(1)]{} = (-\^[-9]{},0), \_\^[(1)]{} = (-\^[-10]{},0), \_\^[(1)]{} = (-, -\^[-10]{}) and $\gd_{\beta}^{(2)}$, $\cov_{\beta}^{(2)}$, $\bd_{\beta}^{(2)}$ defined analogously (see Figure \[FigPartitionEx\]). Note that Part **(1)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\] follows immediately from Inequality , which we have already proved.
![A cartoon plot of the target density $\mu_{\sigma}$ with the regions illustrated. Note that we have substantially compressed the regions; in a to-scale drawing, $\bd_{\beta}$ would not be visible. \[FigPartitionEx\]](Regions)
Denote by $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$ the Metropolis-Hastings transition kernel on $(-\infty,0)$ that has as its proposal kernel $K_{\sigma}$ and as its target distribution the density \_(x) = 2 f\_(x), x (-,0).
We begin by proving some stronger Lyapunov-like bounds for $K_{\sigma}$ and $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$:
\[LemmaLyapunovEx\] Let $V_{\sigma}(x) = e^{\sigma^{-1} \min(\|x - 1\|, \|x+1\|)}$. Then there exist $0 < \alpha \leq 1$, $0 \leq M,C < \infty$ so that for all $K \in \{K_{\sigma}, \hat{K}_{\sigma}\}$ and $x \in (-\infty,-M \sigma)$, \[IneqLyapMultiMH\] (K V\_)(x) (1 - ) V\_(x) + C. Furthermore, Part **(2)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] holds.
Proof is deferred to Appendix \[SecAppendix\].
We next check the main condition:
\[ThmMulti2AppMainMixingMode\] With notation as above, Part **(2)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\] is satisfied.
We begin with a weak estimate of mixing from within a good set:
\[LemmaInitialModeMixingEstimateMH\] Fix $0 < \delta < \frac{1}{20}$. With notation as above, there exist some constants $0 < a_{1}, A_{1} < \infty$ so that \[IneqMixingBulkHatMH\] \_[-\^[-11]{} < x,y < -]{} \_\^[T]{}(x,) - \_\^[T]{}(y,) \_ A\_[1]{} e\^[-a\_[1]{} \^[-1]{}]{} for $T > A_{1} \sigma^{-a_{1}}$.
Proof is deferred to Appendix \[SecAppendix\].
Note that this bound is not good enough for our conclusions, since our upper bound $e^{-a_{1} \sigma^{-1}}$ is still very large compared to the conductance of interest. We improve the bound by iterating it several times:
\[LemmaIterateHatMixingMH\] Fix $0 < \delta < \frac{1}{20}$. There exist constants $0 < a_{2},A_{2} < \infty$ depending only on $\delta$ so that \[EqVeryStrongHatMixing2MH\] \_[-\^[-9]{} < x,y < -]{} \_\^[S]{}(x,) - \_\^[S]{}(y,) \_ A\_[2]{} e\^[-a\_[2]{} \^[-5]{}]{} for $S = \lceil A_{2} \sigma^{-a_{2}} \rceil$. Furthermore, there exist constants $0 < a_{3}, A_{3} < \infty$ such that
\[IneqEscapeSmallSet\] \_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[ \_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{} < A\_[3]{} \^[-a\_[3]{}]{}\] 1- e\^[-\^[-10]{}]{}.
Proof is deferred to Appendix \[SecAppendix\].
Fix $\delta = 0.01$. Combining Inequality with the bound on the length of excursions above $- \delta$ completes the proof of the theorem.
With notation as above, Parts **(3-4)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\] and Part **(3)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] hold.
These all follow immediately from Lemma \[LemmaLyapunovEx\] and the definition of our partition.
Next, note that Part **(1)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] holds by the symmetry of $S^{(1)}, S^{(2)}$ and the fact that we have already checked Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta1\].
Thus, it remains only to check Part **(4)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\]:
With notation as above, Part **(4)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] holds.
It is immediately clear that $K_{\sigma}(x,(-\infty,x]) \geq \frac{1}{2}$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$, which implies Inequality . Standard Gaussian inequalities imply \_[x < 0]{} K\_(x,(\^[10]{},)) e\^[-\^[9]{}]{} for $\sigma < \sigma_{0}$ sufficiently small. Combining this with Inequality completes the proof of Inequality .
Since we have verified all the assumptions of Lemma \[LemmaMeta1\] and \[LemmaMeta2\], applying them completes the proof of Theorem \[ThmRwmMultimodal2\].
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Neil Shephard and Gareth Roberts for some questions about multimodal distributions and helpful comments on initial results.
Technical Bounds from the Proof of Theorem \[ThmRwmMultimodal2\] {#SecAppendix}
================================================================
We prove some technical lemmas that occur in the proof of Theorem \[ThmRwmMultimodal2\].
\[Proof of Lemma \[LemmaLyapunovEx\]\] Let $a = a_{\sigma}$ be the unique local minimum of $f_{\sigma}$ in the interval $(-2, -0.5)$ (it is clear one such exists for all $\sigma > \sigma_{0}$ sufficiently large and that $a_{\sigma}$ is within distance $O(e^{-\frac{1}{3 \sigma^{2}}})$ of $-1$). Let $Q_{\sigma}$ be the transition kernel given in Definition \[DefRWMAlg\] with step size $\sigma$ and target distribution $\mathcal{N}(a,4\sigma^{2})$. Let $L_{\sigma}(x) = e^{-\sigma^{-1} \|x-1\|}$. By a standard computation (*e.g.,* keeping track of the constants in the proof of Theorem 3.2 of [@mengersen1996rates]), there exist $0 < \alpha \leq 1$, $0 \leq C < \infty$ so that (Q\_ L\_)(x) (1-)L(x) + C for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $Q \in \{Q_{\sigma}, \hat{Q}_{\sigma}\}$. Next, observe that \_[x (-,-10 )]{} -(f\_(x)) . In particular, $f_{\sigma}$ is strongly log-concave on the interval $(-\infty,-10 \sigma)$ with the same parameter as the density of $\mathcal{N}(a,4\sigma^{2})$. Thus, if we fix $M > 0$ and $x \in (-\infty,-M \sigma)$ and let $X \sim K_{\sigma}(x,\cdot)$, we have for $K \in \{K_{\sigma}, \hat{K}_{\sigma}\}$ \[LyapProofPt1\] (K V\_)(x) &(Q\_ L\_)(x) +\
&(1 -) L\_(x) + C +\
&= (1 -) V\_(x) + C + . Let $Y \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$. As $M \rightarrow \infty$, for $K = \hat{K}_{\sigma}$ we can then bound the last term by \[LyapProofPt2\] V\_(x) = (1+o(1)) V\_(x). Combining Inequalities and completes the proof of Inequality in the case $K = \hat{K}_{\sigma}$. In the case $K = K_{\sigma}$, we replace Inequality by the similar bound: V\_(x) + V\_(x) ¶\[x+Y > 10 \] = (1+o(1)) V\_(x) to obtain the same conclusion.
Finally, Part **(2)** of Assumptions \[AssumptionsMeta2\] immediately follows from Inequality in the case $K = K_{\sigma}$ and the trivial inequality \_[|x| M ]{} (K\_ V\_)(x) e\^[\^[-3]{}]{} for any fixed $M$ and all $\sigma < \sigma_{0} = \sigma_{0}(A)$ sufficiently small.
\[Proof of Lemma \[LemmaInitialModeMixingEstimateMH\]\]
Fix $\alpha, C$ as in Lemma \[LemmaLyapunovEx\] and let $\mu$ be the uniform distribution on the interval $I = [-1-\frac{10 C}{\alpha} \sigma, -1 + \frac{10 C}{\alpha} \sigma]$. We note that $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$ inherits the following *minorization condition* from the standard Gaussian: \[IneqSimpleMinGauss\] \_[x I]{} \_[J I]{} \_(x,J) (J) for some $\epsilon > 0$ that does not depend on $\sigma$.
Fix $-\sigma^{-10} < x,y < -\delta$. Applying the popular “drift-and-minorization" bound in Section 10 of [@meyn1994computable], using the “drift" bound in Inequality and the “minorization" bound in Inequality gives a bound of the form: \[IneqProtoInitMixing\] \_[-\^[-10]{} < x,y < -]{} \_\^[T]{}(x,) - \_\^[T]{}(y,) \_ B\_[1]{} e\^[-b\_[1]{} \^[-1]{}]{} + 2 \_[-\^[-10]{} < x < -]{} ¶\[\_[x, (-M ,)]{} < t\] for all $T > B_{1} \sigma^{-b_{1}}$, where $0 < b_{1}, B_{1}$ are constants that do not depend on $\sigma$. Note that the second term on the right-hand side, which does not appear in [@meyn1994computable], represents the possibility that a Markov chain ever escapes from the set $(-\infty,-M \sigma)$ on which the drift bound holds.
Fix $-\sigma^{-10} < x < -\delta$ and let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ be a Markov chain with transition kernel $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$ and starting point $X_{0} = x$. Let $\tau = \inf \{t \geq 0 \, : \, X_{t} > -M \sigma \}$. By , we have for all $t \in \mathbb{N}$ (1-)\^[t]{} V\_(X\_[0]{}) + . Thus, by Markov’s inequality, ¶\[t\] &e\^[-\^[-1]{} (-M + 1)]{} \_[s=0]{}\^[t]{} ((1-)\^[t]{} V\_(X\_[0]{}) + )\
&t e\^[-\^[-1]{} (-M + 1)]{} (e\^[\^[-1]{} (-+1)]{} + ). Combining this with Inequality completes the proof of the lemma.
We denote by $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ a Markov chain with transition kernel $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$ and some starting point $X_{0} = x$. To improve on the bound in Lemma \[LemmaInitialModeMixingEstimateMH\], we must control what can occur when coupling does not happen quickly. There are two possibilities to control: the possibility that $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ goes above $- \delta$, and the possibility that it goes below $-\sigma^{-10}$. The latter is easier to control; by Inequality and Markov’s inequality, for all $\epsilon > 0$ there exist constants $c_{1} = c_{1}(\epsilon), C_{1} = C_{1}(\epsilon) > 0$ so that
\[IneqVeryLowExcursionsVeryUnlikely\] \_[|X\_[0]{}| \^[-]{}]{} ¶\[\_[1 t e\^[\^[-]{}]{}]{} X\_[t]{} < -\^[-- ]{}\] &e\^[\^[-]{}]{} \_[|X\_[1]{}| \^[-]{}]{} \_[1 t e\^[\^[-]{}]{}]{}\
&e\^[\^[-]{}]{} ( )\
&C\_[1]{} e\^[-c\_[1]{} \^[-- ]{}]{} uniformly in $\beta \geq 1$.
The possibility that $\{X_{t} \}_{t \geq 0}$ goes above $- \delta$ cannot be controlled in the same way, because it does not have negligible probability on the time scale of interest. Instead, we use the fact that $X_{t}$ will generally exit the interval $(- \delta, 0)$ fairly quickly, often to the interval $(-\infty, - \delta)$.
To see this, fix $x \in (- \delta, 0)$ and let $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ have starting point $X_{0} = x$. Next, let $\{\epsilon_{t}\}_{t \geq 1}$ be a sequence of i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^{2})$ random variables and let $Y_{t} = X_{0} + \sum_{s=1}^{t} \epsilon_{t}$. For $I \subset \mathbb{R}$, let \_[x,I]{} = {t 0 : Y\_[t]{} I} be the hitting time of $I$ for the Markov chain $\{Y_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$. Observing the forward mapping representation of $K_{\sigma}$ in Definition \[DefRWMAlg\] and that $f_{\sigma}$ is monotone on $(- \delta, 0)$, it is clear that we can couple $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$, $\{Y_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ so that \[IneqStochasticDomination\] X\_[t]{} Y\_[t]{}, 0 t (\_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{}, \_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{}).
But by standard calculations for simple random walk, [^7] \_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[\_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{} > C\_[2]{} \^[-c\_[2]{}]{}\] \^[2]{}, \_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[Y\_[\_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{}]{} < -\] > C\_[3]{}
for some constants $c_{2}, C_{2}, C_{3}$ that do not depend on $\sigma$. Combining this with Inequality and noting that $\{X_{t}\}_{t \geq 0}$ never exits $(-\infty,0)$ by construction, we find \_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[ \_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{} < C\_[2]{} \^[-c\_[2]{}]{}\] C\_[3]{} - \^[2]{} = C\_[3]{}() (1 - o(1)).
Noting that these bounds are uniform over the starting point $X_{0} \in (-\delta,0)$, we find for $k \in \mathbb{N}$ \_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[ \_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{} < k C\_[2]{} \^[-c\_[2]{}]{}\] 1 - (1 - C\_[3]{}() - \^[2]{})\^[k]{}. Taking $k$ very large ($k > \sigma^{-12}$ suffices) gives
\_[x (-,0)]{} ¶\[ \_[x,(-,0)\^[c]{}]{} < C\_[4]{} \^[-c\_[4]{}]{}\] 1- e\^[-\^[-10]{}]{} for some constants $0 \leq c_{4}, C_{4} < \infty$, which is exactly Inequality
Combining the bound on the mixing of $\hat{K}_{\sigma}$ on $(-\sigma^{-11},-\delta)$ with the bound on the possibility of excursions below $-\sigma^{-11}$ and the bound on the length of excursions above $- \delta$ completes the proof of the lemma.
[^1]: $^{\flat}[email protected], École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), IC IINFCOM THL3, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
[^2]: $^{\ddag}[email protected], Department of Statistics, Harvard University, 1 Oxford Street, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
[^3]: $^{\sharp}[email protected], Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Ottawa, 585 King Edward Avenue, Ottawa ON K1N 7N5, Canada
[^4]: NSP is partially supported by an ONR grant. AS and OM were supported by a grant from NSERC
[^5]: Note that the Markov chains are only defined up until this “maximal time" $T_{\max}$. This saves us from having to explicitly write $\min(\cdot, T_{\max})$, or adding extremely small terms that correspond to the probability that various times exceed $T_{\max}$, error bounds in essentially all of the following calculations. This choice has virtually no other impact.
[^6]: Note that the particular choice made in this third step will not influence the analysis - we could make any measurable choice here.
[^7]: To see the first inequality, note that a direct calculation for Gaussians gives $\sup_{x \in (-\delta,0)} \P[\psi_{x,(-\delta,0)^{c}} > C_{2}' \sigma^{-c_{2}'}] > C_{2}'' > 0$ for some $C_{2}', c_{2}' C_{2}'' > 0$; applying the strong Markov property to iterate this bound as in the proof of Inequality gives the desired conclusion. The second inequality follows from the observation that $\P[Y_{1} > C_{3}' \sigma] > C_{3}'' > 0$ for some constants $C_{3}', C_{3}'' > 0$ and then the well-known “gambler’s ruin" calculation (see *e.g.* Section 10.14.4 of [@resnick2013probability]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Electronic transport properties of two quantum dots side-coupled to a quantum wire are studied by means of the two impurity Anderson Hamiltonian. The conductance is found to be a superposition of a Fano and a Breit-Wigner resonances as a function of the Fermi energy, when the gate voltages of the quantum dots are slightly different. Under this condition, we analyze the time evolution of a Gaussian-shaped superposition of plane waves incoming from the source lead, and found that the wave packet can be splitted into three packets at the drain lead. This spatial pattern manifests in a direct way the peculiarities of the conductance in energy space. We conclude that the device acts as a quantum electron splitter.'
author:
- 'A. V. Malyshev'
- 'P. A. Orellana'
- 'F. Domínguez-Adame'
title: Quantum electron splitter based on two quantum dots attached to leads
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Quantum dots (QDs) are often referred to as *artificial atoms* since they present discreteness of energy and charge. Moreover, progress in nanofabrication of quantum devices enabled to form an artificial molecule sharing electrons from two or more QDs. In view of the analogy of QDs-based systems and atomic systems, new ways to look for electronic effects are being explored. In this regard, it has been recently demonstrated that coupled QDs shows the electronic counterpart of Fano and Dicke effects that can be controlled via a magnetic flux. [@Orellana04] In the case of QDs, Fano resonance coexists with Coulomb interaction, giving rise to new quantum transport regimes. [@Johnson04] In addition, Fano resonances have been clearly observed in a quantum wire (QW) with a side-coupled QD, and it has been proven that this geometry can be used as an accurate interferometer. [@Kobayashi04; @Sato05]
More recently, we have considered electron transport in a double QD side attached to a QW by means of the two impurity Anderson Hamiltonian. [@Orellana06] The conductance was found to be a superposition of a Fano and a Breit-Wigner resonances as a function of the Fermi energy, provided the gate voltages of the QDs were slightly different. Remarkably, previous numerical simulations (not shown here) demonstrated that the electron-electron interaction is not responsible of this phenomenon, which can be then regarded as a one-electron process.
In this work we provide further progress along this direction. To be specific, we solve analytically the scattering by the QDs of a wide electronic wave packet moving in the QW, and find that the wave packet can be splitted into three packets after the scattering process, one delayed with respect to the other. Remarkably, this spatial pattern manifests in a direct way the peculiarities on the conductance in energy space. The analytical approach to the problem allows us to understand the dependence of the scattering event on the various parameters of the model. As a result, a fine control of the electron dynamics in the QW can be achieved by changing the gate voltages of the two attached QDs.
Conductance at zero temperature {#conductance}
===============================
The system under consideration is formed by two QDs connected to a QW waveguide, as shown schematically in Fig. \[fig1\]. The full system is modeled by a two impurity Anderson Hamiltonian, that can be written as [@Orellana06] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal H}&=&-v\sum_{\langle i\neq j\rangle}\,(c_{i}^{\dagger}
c_{j}^{}+c_{i}^{}c_{j}^{\dagger}) \nonumber \\
&-&V_{0}\sum_{\alpha}(d_{\alpha}^{\dagger}c_{0}^{}+c_{0}^{\dagger}d_{\alpha}^{})
+\sum_{\alpha}\varepsilon_{\alpha}d_{\alpha}^{\dagger} d_{\alpha}^{}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{i}^{\dagger}$ is the creation operator for an electron at site $i$ of the QW, $d_{\alpha}^{\dagger}$ is the corresponding operator for an electron in the QD $\alpha=1,2$. The on-site energy of the QW is assumed to be zero and the hoppings are taken to be $v$. The hopping $V_{0}$ couples the QDs to the QW. Notice that spin indices are omitted hereafter since we do not consider applied magnetic fields or any other interaction breaking spin-degeneracy.
![Schematic view of the two quantum dots attached to quantum wire. Current passing from the source (S) to the drain (D) is controled by the gate voltages $V_{1G}$ and $V_{2G}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](figure1.eps){width="45mm"}
The linear conductance can be obtained from the Landauer formula at zero temperature $$\mathcal{G}=\frac{2e^2}{h}\,T(\omega=\varepsilon_F)\ ,$$ where $T(\omega)$ is the transmission probability ($T=|t|^2$) with $t$ the transmission amplitude. The transmission amplitude is given by [@Fisher81] $$t(\omega)=2iv\sqrt{1-\omega^2/4v^2} \,G^W_{0}\ .
\label{transmission}$$ Here $G^W_{0}$ is the Green’s function at site $0$ of the QW.
By using the Dyson equation we calculate the Green’s function at site $0$ of the QW coupled to the QDs, obtaining the following expression: $$G_{0}^{W}=\frac{1}{2iv\sin k}\ \frac{1}{1-i\eta (g_1+g_2)}\ ,
\label{afterDyson}$$ where $\eta= V_0^2/2v$, $k=\arccos(-\omega/2v)$, and $g_{\alpha}=1/(\omega - \epsilon_{\alpha})$ ($\alpha =1,2$). The transmission amplitude can be obtained from Eq. (\[transmission\]), $$t(\omega)=\frac{(\omega-\varepsilon_1)(\omega-\varepsilon_2)}%
{(\omega-\varepsilon_1)(\omega-\varepsilon_2)-i\eta
(2\omega-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2)}\ .
\label{afterDyson2}$$ Finally, we arrive at the following expression for the linear conductance at zero temperature $$\mathcal{G}=
\frac{(2e^2/h)(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_1)^2(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_2)^2}
{(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_1)^2(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_2)^2
+\eta^2(2\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2)^2}\ .$$
The density of states of the QDs can give us a better understanding of the transport properties of the system. To obtain it we calculate the diagonal elements of the Green’s functions of the QDs. In doing so we obtain[@Orellana06] $$\rho=\sum_{\alpha}
\frac{(\eta/\pi)(\omega-\varepsilon_{\alpha})^2}{(\omega-\varepsilon_1)^2
(\omega-\varepsilon_2)^2+\eta^2
(2\omega-\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2)^2}\ .$$ Setting the sites energies as $\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_0+\Delta
V$ and $\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_0-\Delta V$ and taking $\Delta V
\ll \eta$, we get $$\rho\approx\frac{2\eta/\pi}{(\omega-\varepsilon_0)^2+4\eta^2} +
\frac{\Delta V^2/2\eta\pi}{(\omega-\varepsilon_0)^2+(\Delta
V^2/2\eta)^2}\ . \label{dos}$$ The density of states is the sum of two Lorentzians with widths $\Gamma_+ = 2\eta$ and $\Gamma_{-}=\Delta V^2/2\eta$. On the other hand the conductance can be written as $$\mathcal{G}=\frac{(2e^2/h)\varepsilon_F^2}
{(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_0)^2+4\eta^2}+
\frac{(2e^2/h)(\Delta V^2/2\eta)^2}
{(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_0)^2+(\Delta V^2/2\eta)^2} \ .$$ The conductance is the superposition of the a Fano line shape and a Breit-Wigner line shape. In the limit $\Delta V \rightarrow 0$ one bound state appears $$\begin{aligned}
\rho&=&\frac{1}{\pi}\,\frac{2\eta}{(\omega-\varepsilon_0)^2+4\eta^2}+
\delta (\omega-\varepsilon_0)\ ,
\label{rho}\end{aligned}$$ since one of the states is decoupled from the continuum. A similar effect is already observed in two-channel resonance tunneling. [@Shahbazyan] In this limit, the conductance is reduced to a Fano line shape $$\mathcal{G}=\frac{2e^2}{h}\frac{\varepsilon_F^2}
{(\varepsilon_F-\varepsilon_0)^2+4\eta^2}\ .$$
The bound state arises from the indirect coupling of both QDs through the QW, giving rise to level mixing and formation of collective anti-bonded states which have zero amplitude at the QW and are therefore decoupled from it. This mixing arises from quantum interference in the transmission through the two different discrete states (the QD levels) coupled to leads. This result is similar to the Dicke effect in optics, taking place in the spontaneous emission of two closely-lying atoms radiating a photon into the same environment.[@dicke] The coherent indirect coupling of the two energy levels gives rise to the splitting of the decay rates (level broadening), into a fast (superradiant) and a slow (subradiant) mode.[@brandes] Under more realistic experimental conditions when the QW wire has a finite width such state would couple weakly to the QW giving rise to broadening of the $\delta$-function in (\[rho\]).
Time-dependent electron dynamics
================================
Having discussed the steady state properties of the system, we now consider the time-dependent dynamics of electron wave packets. The initial wave packet was chosen to be a narrow Gaussian of width $a$ in real space, moving in the QW $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_0(x,t) &=&
\frac{\psi_0}{\sqrt{1 + i\hbar t/m a^2}}
\exp{ \left[ - \frac{(x-v_0t)^2}{2 a^2(1+i\hbar t/m a^2) }\right]}
\nonumber\\
& \times &
\exp{\left[i k_0 x - i \frac{\hbar k_0^2 }{2m}\, t \right]} \ .
\label{initial}\end{aligned}$$ Here the group velocity is $v_0=\hbar k_0/m$ and the kinetic energy of the pulse is $\varepsilon_P = \hbar^2 k_0^2 /2m$.
For the sake of clarity, we introduce the following dimensionless variables $\xi=x/a$ and $\tau=\hbar t/ma^2$, as well as the parameter $\omega_0=k_0a$. In doing so, the wave packet can be rewritten as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_0(\xi,\tau) &=& \frac{\psi_0}{\sqrt{1 + i\tau}}
\exp{ \left[ - \frac{(\xi -\omega_0\tau)^2}{2(1+i\tau) }\right]}
\nonumber\\
& \times &
\exp{\left[i \omega_0 \xi - i \omega_0^2\tau/2\right]} \ .
\label{initial_reduced}\end{aligned}$$
Following the approach introduced in Ref. , the transmitted wave packet after the scattering by the QDs is obtained as
$$\psi(\xi > 0,\tau) \sim \int_{0}^{\infty} dq\, \widetilde{\psi}(q)\, t(q)\,
e^{\left[i q \xi - i q^2\tau/2\right]} \ .
\label{transmitted}$$
From Eq. (\[afterDyson2\]) we get approximately $$t(q)=1+\frac{i\Gamma}{q-\omega_0-i\Gamma}-\frac{i\gamma}{q-\omega_0+i\gamma}\ ,
\label{afterDyson2_bis}$$
where we set $\varepsilon_P=\varepsilon_0$. Here $\Gamma=2\eta/\varepsilon_0\omega_0$ and $\gamma=\Delta V^2/2\eta\varepsilon_0\omega_0$. After performing the integration in (\[transmitted\]), the transmitted wave packet is found to be
\[three\_terms\] $$\psi(\xi > 0,\tau) \sim \psi_0(\xi,\tau)+\psi_1(\xi,\tau)+\psi_2(\xi,\tau) \ ,
\label{transmitted2}$$ where $\psi_0(\xi,\tau)$ is the initial wave packet (\[initial\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(\xi,\tau) &=& \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}\,\gamma \,
\exp{\left[i \omega_0 \xi - i \omega_0^2\tau/2\right]} \nonumber \\
&\times & \exp{\left[\gamma (\xi -\omega_0\tau) + \frac{\gamma^2}{2}\,
(1+i\tau)\right]}\nonumber \\
&\times & \mathrm{erfc}
\left[
\frac{\xi -\omega_0\tau+\gamma(1+i\tau)}{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1+i\tau}}
\right] \ ,\end{aligned}$$
erfc being the complementary error function. Moreover, $-\psi_2(\xi,\tau)$ is obtained from $\psi_1(\xi,\tau)$ simply replacing $\gamma$ by $\Gamma$. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the scattered wave packet originates from the interference of three contributions, resulting in a complicated spatial pattern as we will show below.
Figure \[fig2\] depicts the scattered wave packet at three different values of the dimensionless time $\tau$, indicated on each panel. The chosen parameters are $\gamma=0.02$ and $\Gamma=0.5$. Hereafter we set $\epsilon_0=2v$, that is we consider a wave packed centered at the bottom of the QW band where the energy dispersion is quadratic. To improve clarity, both vertical and horizontal axis were scaled, as dispersion makes the wave packet lower and wider on increasing time. We observe that at earlier stages of the scattering process the wave packet splits into two pulses, but after interference with the reflected one, finally a third and much narrowed peak appears at the center.
![Scattered wave packet at three different values of the dimensionless time $\tau$, indicated on each panel. Vertical axis is scaled by a factor $\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$ and $\chi=(\xi-\omega_0\tau)/\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$. The inset shows the corresponding conductance, in units of $G_0=2e^2/h$, as function of the Fermi energy, in units of the effective coupling $\eta$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](figure2.eps){width="70mm"}
The width of the third peak is given by $\gamma$, as it can be seen from Eq. (\[three\_terms\]). To show this, one can use the asymptotic form of the complementary error function[@Abramowitz64] $ \mathrm{erfc}(z)\approx
e^{-z^2}/z\sqrt{\pi}$ ($z\gg 1$) for $\xi \sim \omega_0 \tau$ and $\gamma \sqrt{\tau},\, \Gamma\sqrt{\tau}\gg 1$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\psi(\xi > 0,\tau) & \sim & \psi_0(\xi,\tau)
\left[
1+\frac{\gamma(1+i\tau)}{\xi-\omega_0\tau+\gamma(1+i\tau)}
\right.
\nonumber \\
&-& \left.\frac{\Gamma(1+i\tau)}{\xi-\omega_0\tau+\Gamma(1+i\tau)}
\right] \ .
\label{asymptotic}\end{aligned}$$ The final pattern can be explained from this asymptotic result. The scattered wave packet has two additive contributions, the initial one and a very narrow central peak \[two first terms of (\[asymptotic\])\], while the third term is negative, causing the central and wide dip.
Thus we came to the conclusion that the appearance of the transmitted pulse can be controlled by varying $\eta$, namely the effective coupling of the two QDs and the QW, as well as their voltage ($\Delta V$). This result allows for a fine control of the transport properties of the QW with adjusting the parameters of the two QDs. As an example, Fig. \[fig3\] the asymptotic wave packet (dimensionless time $\tau=20000$) for two sets of parameters: a) $\gamma=0.0045$ and $\Gamma=0.11$, and b) $\gamma=0.045$ and $\Gamma=1.1$. One can notice a change in the spatial pattern by varying the widths of the central peak and the central dip.
![Scattered wave packet at dimensionless time $\tau=20000$ for a) $\gamma=0.0045$ and $\Gamma=0.11$, and b) $\gamma=0.045$ and $\Gamma=1.1$. Vertical axis is scaled by a factor $\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$ and $\chi=(\xi-\omega_0\tau)/\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](figure3.eps){width="70mm"}
The results discussed above refer to two QDs attached to a QW. It is interesting to elucidate the main differences appearing in the scattered pulse with respect to the case of a single QD attached to a QW. Figure \[fig4\] shows the asymptotic wave packet (dimensionless time $\tau=2000$) in both cases. It is clearly seen the vanishing of the central peak after removing one of the two QDs. Notice that this behavior directly reflects the peculiarities of the DOS discussed in Sec. \[conductance\], in the sense that the narrow Lorentzian peak \[second term in Eq. (\[dos\])\] vanishes when one QD is removed.
![Scattered wave packet at dimensionless time $\tau=2000$ for a) two QDs and b) one QD attached to the QW. Vertical axis is scaled by a factor $\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$ and $\chi=(\xi-\omega_0\tau)/\sqrt{1+\tau^2}$. The insets show the corresponding conductance, in units of $G_0=2e^2/h$, as function of $\varepsilon_F/\eta$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](figure4.eps){width="70mm"}
Conclusions
===========
We have studied coherent transport through a QW side attached to two QDs with slightly different gate voltages. To this end, a noninteracting two impurity Anderson Hamiltonian was used to describe the electronic properties of the system. We found closed expressions or both the conductance at zero temperature and the density of states. The conductance is the superposition of a Fano line shape and a Breit-Wigner line shape. Also, we found that the density of states is the sum of two Lorentzians of different widths. It resembles the Dicke effect observed in quantum optics. More important, their widths can be controlled via the coupling of the QDs and the QW.
In addition, we analytically solved the scattering of a Gaussian wave packet impinging over the QDs. The scattered wave packet was shown to be the superposition of three pulses, giving rise a complicated pattern as a function of time. In spite of this complex behavior, the long-time asymptotic pulse reflects the peculiarities found in the density of states, showing a central peak whose width can be controlled via the gate voltages. This peak is absent when one of the QD is disconnected from the QW, and the time-dependent current after pulse excitation presents two bumps delayed an amount of $ma^2/\hbar$. For couplings between the QDs and the QW of the order of few tenths of meV, and $a \sim
20\,$nm, the delay time might be of the order of few ps in GaAs. To conclude, this phenomenon opens possibilities to design new quantum electron devices like electron splitters, based on physical effects that are usually encountered in quantum optics.
Work at Madrid was supported by MEC (MAT2003-01533). A. V. M. acknowledges financial support of MEC through the Ramón y Cajal programm. P. A. O. would like to thank financial support from Milenio ICM P02-054-F and FONDECYT under Grants 1060952 and 7020269. Moreover, P. A. O. would like to thank the hospitality of the Departamento de Física de Materiales of the Universidad Complutense de Madrid during his visit.
[99]{}
P. A. Orellana, M. L. Ladrón de Guevara, and F. Claro, Phys. Rev. B **70** 233315 (2004).
A. C. Jonhson, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 106803 (2004).
K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, A. Sano, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 035319 (2004).
M. Sato, H. Aikawa, K. Kobayashi, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 066801 (2005).
P. A. Orellana and F. Domínguez-Adame, phys. stat. sol. (a) **203**, 1178 (2006).
D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B **23**, R6851 (1981).
T. V. Shahbazyan and M. E. Raikh, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 17123 (1994).
R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. **89**, 472 (1953).
T. Brandes, Phys. **408**, 315 (2005).
U. Wulf and V. V. Skalozub, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 165331 (2005).
M. Abramowitz and I. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (US Government Printing Office, Wahington DC, 1964).
[^1]: On leave from Ioffe Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the suitability of holographically generated optical potentials for the investigation of superfluidity in ultracold atoms. By using a spatial light modulator and a feedback enabled algorithm we generate a smooth ring with variable bright regions that can be dynamically rotated to stir ultracold atoms and induce superflow. We also comment on its future integration into a cold atoms experiment.'
address: 'Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9SS, Scotland'
author:
- 'Graham D Bruce, James Mayoh, Giuseppe Smirne, Lara Torralbo-Campo and Donatella Cassettari'
---
Introduction {#sect:Intro}
============
In 1938, Kaptiza [@Kapitza_38] and Allen / Misener [@Allen_38] independently discovered that, below 2.17 K, liquid Helium-4 can flow without friction. This superfluidity is also a property of dilute ultracold atomic gases, and has been demonstrated through the presence of a critical velocity [@Raman_99], the formation of arrays of vortices under rotation [@Abo-Shaeer_01] and the observation of persistent flow [@Ryu_07]. The high degree of control over both the gas interactions and the trapping potential allows detailed studies of superfluidity in these systems, whilst their accurate modelling is also possible using the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation.
There have been numerous alternative proposals for toroidal atom traps using magnetic fields with [@Morizot_06] or without rf-dressing [@Gupta_05], electrostatic fields [@Hopkins_04], time-averaged optical fields [@Schnelle_08] or Laguerre-Gauss beams [@Wright_00; @Franke-Arnold_07]. An advantage of using optical rather than magnetic potentials is that they are suitable for trapping atoms in any state. In order for any of these to be used to study superflow of ultracold atoms, a stirring mechanism needs to be introduced, such as the transfer of orbital angular momentum from an additional light source [@Ryu_07] or a stirring laser beam [@Raman_99]. We propose a new method of generating optical ring traps with which to study superfluidity phenomena. The trapping potential is created by a computer generated hologram (CGH) and a phase-only Spatial Light Modulator (SLM), and incorporates a controllable stirring mechanism using the same laser beam.
Our SLM is a programmable diffractive optical device which consists of a two-dimensional array of pixels. Each of these is individually controllable, imprinting an arbitrary phase onto incident light. If the diffracted light is then focussed by a lens, the intensity distribution in the focal plane of the lens is given by the Fourier transform of the phase pattern on the SLM, allowing freedom to create arbitrary intensity distributions. By displaying a sequence of phase patterns on the SLM, dynamic light patterns can also be generated.
CGHs are becoming increasingly popular as a method to trap ultracold atoms. SLMs have been proposed as a tool for generating a number of exotic trapping geometries beyond those achievable with standing-wave technologies, such as atom interferometers [@McGloin_03] and ring lattices [@Franke-Arnold_07], while they have been used to manipulate single atoms [@Bergamini_04], clouds of cold atoms from a Magneto-Optical Trap [@Rhodes_06] and a Bose-Einstein condensate [@Boyer_06]. All works to date have used either arrays of dipole potentials or patterns for which the phase is well known, e.g. Laguerre-Gauss beams.
In general, calculating a phase pattern which will produce an arbitrary desired intensity distribution is not an easy task as the undefined phase in the Fourier plane gives the problem many solutions. However, the calculation can be performed using relatively slow Direct Search Algorithms [@Seldowitz_87], computationally-demanding but highly-accurate Genetic Algorithms[@Mitchell_98] or computationally-efficient Iterative Fourier Transform Algorithms such as Gerchberg-Saxton [@Gerchberg_72] or Adaptive-Additive [@Soifer_97]. In 2008, Pasienski and DeMarco introduced a variant of these algorithms: the Mixed-Region Amplitude Freedom (MRAF) algorithm [@Pasienski_08]. This allows the creation of smooth, continuous two-dimensional optical traps. However, until now experimental achievement of optical traps suitable for ultracold atoms using this algorithm has not been shown.
By recording intensity patterns on a CCD camera, we show that the MRAF algorithm can generate light patterns suitable for trapping a Bose–Einstein condensate. We further demonstrate that this trap can be dynamically varied in order to induce superflow. We also find that the physical implementation of these CGHs using SLMs is susceptible to aberrations in the optical system and imperfect device response, thus introducing errors and roughness that were not present during the calculation. However, we show that this roughness can be reduced by incorporating the MRAF algorithm into a feedback loop. Finally, we discuss the future integration of our trap into a cold atoms experiment.
Inducing Superflow with a Holographic Optical Trap {#sect:Holography}
==================================================
A conservative trapping potential for ultracold atoms can be generated with focussed laser light far-detuned from an atomic transition. Light of intensity $I(\bf r)$ which is detuned by $\delta$ from an atomic transition frequency $\omega_0$ gives a trapping potential
$$U({\bf r}) \approx \frac{3 \pi c^2 \Gamma}{2 \omega_{0}^3 \delta} I({\bf r}) \label{eqn:trappingpot}$$
where $\Gamma$ is the natural linewidth of the atomic transition and $c$ is the speed of light. We design an annular light pattern of intensity $I_0$ with two bright spots of intensity $I_0 + I_p$, given by
$$\begin{aligned}
I(x,y) = & I_0 \exp(-2 (\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-R)^2/w^2) \nonumber \\
& + I_p \exp(-2 ((x+R \sin \theta)^2+(y-R \cos \theta)^2)/w^2) \\
& + I_p \exp(-2 ((x-R \sin \theta)^2+(y+R \cos \theta)^2)/w^2) \nonumber
\label{eqn:Ir}
\end{aligned}$$
where $R$ is the radius of the ring, $\theta$ is the angular position of the bright spots, and $w$ is the $1/e^2$ waist of the Gaussian ring potential, as shown in Figure \[fig:TargPred\]. The MRAF algorithm divides the output plane into three regions: the measure region, the signal region and the noise region. The measure region closely matches the boundaries of the light pattern, whilst the signal region is large enough to contain the measure region plus a border which will be devoid of light. The amplitude of the light in these regions is fixed to match the target amplitude, meaning “noise” on the pattern can only exist in the noise region (the entire plane outside the signal region), where the amplitude is unconstrained. The algorithm converges to a solution within 100 iterations and the rms error of the calculated output is $0.6\%$.
![(Left) Our target intensity profile showing the measure region (ring enclosed by ) and signal region (ring enclosed by ). (Right) The computed output of the MRAF algorithm, showing an intensity which differs from the target by $0.6\%$ in the measure region. This has been achieved by allowing unwanted light to be present outside the signal region.[]{data-label="fig:TargPred"}](TargPredGrey.jpg){width="50.00000%"}
We plan to induce superflow by “stirring” the atoms in the ring potential by rotating the bright spots within the pattern. This is possible by replacing the phase pattern on the SLM with one which corresponds to the next position of the bright spots, as shown in Figure \[fig:rotred\]a. The experiments reported in [@Ryu_07] showed superflow of atoms with angular momentum $\hbar$ and $2\hbar$, which for their trap corresponds to a rotational frequency of around $7~$Hz and $14~$Hz respectively. The maximum rate at which our SLM can refresh the whole pattern is $500~$Hz, which allows a maximum of $70$ steps within one complete rotation of our ring trap. The difference between consecutive positions of the bright spots should thus be sufficiently small that the motion of the stirring appears continuous to the atoms. Once superflow has begun, the stirring beams can be gradually removed, as shown in Figure \[fig:rotred\]b. As in [@Abo-Shaeer_01], we plan to ramp the value $I_p$ to zero within $20~$ms, which allows us to refresh the pattern ten times.
![a) The pattern can be rotated to stir the ultracold gas. We show equally-spaced snapshots from the first half of a 70-step sequence. b) Once stirring has been completed, the bright spots can be slowly removed to leave a uniform ring trap.[]{data-label="fig:rotred"}](rotred2.jpg){width="75.00000%"}
Experimental Implementation
===========================
Our SLM (Boulder Nonlinear Systems P256) has $256\times256$ nematic liquid crystal pixels, each of which can shift the phase of an incoming laser beam in steps of $2\pi/256$. We send the phase pattern calculated using MRAF to our SLM, which is illuminated with collimated and spatially filtered light from a $1060~$nm diode laser. To illuminate the SLM as uniformly as possible, we expand the beam to a $1/e^2$ radius of $6~$mm to overfill the active area of the SLM, a square of side length $6.14~$mm. This ensures that all pixels of the SLM are illuminated by a comparable light power. MRAF is capable of calculating the phase required to generate the desired intensity distribution regardless of the incoming beam profile, so in future the overfilling could be relaxed to allow more power in the optical trap. The fact that MRAF shifts light into the noise region coupled to losses due to our overfilling and to the generation of other diffracted orders gives us $3\%$ of the incoming light in the actual optical trap. However, this low efficiency does not limit the application of the optical traps.
Whilst we have used a limited power for diagnostics, our SLM can be illuminated by up to $3.5~$Wcm$^{-2}$. We could, for example, illuminate the SLM with $360~$mW of $1060~$nm light to generate a ring of radius $80~\mu$m and waist $25~\mu$m, giving us $10~$mW in the measure region; this corresponds to a ring trap of depth $52~$nK for $^{87}$Rb atoms. The light pattern shown here is two-dimensional, and disperses quickly away from the Fourier plane. To confine atoms to the Fourier plane we will add an orthogonal light sheet with a trapping frequency close to that of the ring trap. The chemical potential of a Bose–Einstein condensate in a ring trap is calculated using the Thomas-Fermi approximation to be
$$\mu=\hbar \omega \sqrt{\frac{2 N a_s}{\pi R}}
\label{eqn:mu}$$
where $R$ is the radius of the ring as before, $\omega = 2\pi \times 20~$Hz is the radial trapping frequency, $N$ is the number of trapped atoms and $a_s$ is the s-wave scattering length. For $2\times10^5$ $^{87}$Rb atoms in the ring trap described above, the chemical potential is $18~$nK. This is around one third of the trap depth given above, thus making trapping possible.
![a) Initial output of MRAF algorithm. The bright cross at the bottom-right of the image is zeroth order of diffraction by the SLM. b) Light intensity after seven iterations of the feedback loop. c) The final light intensity within the ring portion of the trap () is significantly smoother and more accurate than the initial output (). The desired intensity distribution is shown () for reference.[]{data-label="fig:Outputs"}](outputgrey2.jpg){width="60.00000%"}
Whilst the computed patterns give smooth and accurate trapping potentials, imperfect device response and aberrations cause significant discrepancies and roughness in the resulting light pattern shown in Figure \[fig:Outputs\]a. We improve the light pattern’s suitability as an atom trap by including the algorithm in a feedback loop. Placing a CCD camera (Thorlabs DCU200 Series) in the Fourier plane of a $f=150$mm lens allows us to measure the difference between the target profile and the real recorded intensity pattern. We then create a new target pattern by subtracting the discrepancy from the original target, and re-run the MRAF algorithm in an attempt to minimise this difference. After a few iterations, the measured light profile shown in Figure \[fig:Outputs\]b is noticeably closer to the original target. To illustrate this, we plot the intensity of light around the trapping minimum of a section of the ring by integrating over the pixels within a small angle, as shown in Figure \[fig:Outputs\]c.
It follows from equation \[eqn:trappingpot\] that any roughness in the intensity of the light pattern produces a roughness in the energy landscape, which may in turn cause heating or fragmentation of the atom cloud. Our feedback loop reduce the rms error from $8.48\%$ to $3.88\%$ at the minimum of our optical trap. This gives us a roughness of $\mu/9$, lower than the value reported in [@Ryu_07], which should allow us to observe superflow in this trap.
As experiments with cold atoms are carried out under vacuum, the windows of the vacuum system will themselves introduce aberrations which would not be accounted for by the feedback loop in its present form. However, atoms are a very sensitive probe of roughness of the trapping potential, so we envisage continuing to use the feedback loop by taking absorption images of the trapped atoms rather than directly imaging the light profile, and use these images within the feedback loop.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that computer generated holographic techniques supplemented with a feedback algorithm can produce flexible, smooth, all-optical traps for the investigation of superfluidity and persistent currents in ultracold atoms. The trap depth at different points of the pattern can be dynamically varied and the whole pattern can be rotated to induce superflow. The geometry created using this method need not be restricted to the one presented here: the creation of ring lattices or ring potentials with areas of lowered intensity for the investigation of Josephson tunnelling, or increasingly non-trivial geometries, should be possible. For example, by creating two of these traps which intersect and rotate in opposite directions, one could investigate an area of crossing superfluids. An appropriate choice of trapping light wavelength will allow mixtures of ultracold bosons and fermions and their corresponding superfluidities to be investigated. Improved understanding of superfluidity in ultracold atoms may help to solve more difficult problems in condensed matter physics, such as the much-sought explanation of high-$T_c$ superconductors.
This work is supported by the UK EPSRC. GS acknowledges support from a Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA) Advanced Fellowship. The authors would like to acknowledge useful discussions with Vincent Boyer, Tiffany Harte and Sarah Bromley.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
Kapitza P 1938 Viscosity of liquid helium below the $\lambda$-point [*Nature*]{} [**141**]{} 74
Allen JF and Misener AD 1938 Flow of liquid helium II [*Nature*]{} [**141**]{} 75
Raman C, Köhl M, Onofrio R, Durfee DS, Kuklewicz CE, Hadzibabic Z and Ketterle W 1999 Evidence for a critical velocity in a Bose-Einstein Condensed gas [**]{} [**83**]{} 2502–2505
Abo-Shaeer JR, Raman C, Vogels JM and Ketterle W 2001 Observation of Vortex Lattices in Bose-Einstein Condensates [*Science*]{} [**292**]{} 476–479
Ryu C, Andersen MF, Cladé P, Natarajan V, Helmerson K and Phillips WD 2007 Observation of persistent flow of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a toroidal trap [**]{} [**99**]{} 260401
Morizot O, Colombe Y, Lorent V, Perrin H and Garraway BM 2006 Ring trap for ultracold atoms [**]{}A [**74**]{} 023617
Lesanovsky I, Schumm T, Hofferberth S, Andersson LM, Krüger P and Schmiedmayer, J 2006 Adiabatic radio-frequency potentials for the coherent manipulation of matter waves [**]{}A [**73**]{} 033619
Heathcote WH, Nugent E, Sheard BT and Foot CJ 2008 A ring trap for ultracold atoms in an RF-dressed state [**]{} [**10**]{} 043012
Gupta S, Murch KW, Moore KL, Purdy TP and Stamper-Kurn DM 2005 Bose-Einstein condensation in a circular waveguide [**]{} [**95**]{} 143201
Arnold AS, Garvie CS and Riis E 2006 Large magnetic storage ring for Bose-Einstein condensates [**]{}A [**73**]{} 041606
Hopkins A, Lev B and Mabuchi H 2004 Proposed magnetoelectrostatic ring trap for neutral atoms [**]{}A [**70**]{} 053616
Schnelle SK, van Ooijen ED, Davis MJ, Heckenberg NR and Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H 2008 Versatile two-dimensional potentials for ultra-cold atoms [*Opt. Exp.*]{} [**16**]{} 1405–1412
Henderson K, Ryu C, MacCormick C and Boshier MG 2009 Experimental demonstration of painting arbitrary and dynamic potentials for Bose-Einstein condensates [**]{} [**11**]{} 043030
Wright EM, Arlt J and Dholakia K, 2000 Toroidal optical dipole traps for atomic Bose-Einstein condensates using Laguerre-Gaussian beams [**]{}A [**63**]{} 013608
Olson SE, Terraciano ML, Bashkansky M and Fatemi FK 2007 Cold-atom confinement in an all-optical dark ring trap [**]{}A [**76**]{} 061404
Franke-Arnold S, Leach J, Padgett MJ, Lembessis VE, Ellinas D, Wright AJ, Girkin JM, Öhberg P and Arnold AS 2007 Optical ferris wheel for ultracold atoms [*Opt. Exp.*]{} [**15**]{} 8619–8625
McGloin D, Spalding G, Melville H, Sibbett W and Dholakia K 2003 Applications of spatial light modulators in atom optics [*Opt. Exp.*]{} [**11**]{} 158–166
Bergamini S, Darquié B, Jones M, Jacubowiez L, Browaeys A and Grangier P 2004 Holographic generation of microtrap arrays for single atoms by use of a programmable phase modulator [**]{}B [**21**]{} 1889–1894
Xiaodong He, Peng Xu, Jin Wang and Mingsheng Zhan 2009 Rotating single atoms in a ring lattice generated by a spatial light modulator [*Opt. Exp.*]{} [**17**]{} 21007–21014
Rhodes DP, Gherardi DM, Livesey J, McGloin D, Melville H, Freegarde T and Dholakia K 2006 Atom guiding along high order Laguerre-Gaussian light beams formed by spatial light modulation [*J. Mod. Opt.*]{} [**53**]{} 547–556
Fatemi FK, Bashkansky M and Dutton Z 2007 Dynamic high-speed spatial manipulation of cold atoms using acousto-optic and spatial light modulation [*Opt. Exp.*]{} [**15**]{} 3589–3596
Kruse J, Gierl C, Schlosser M and Birkl G 2010 Reconfigurable site-selective manipulation of atomic quantum systems in two-dimensional arrays of dipole traps [**]{}A [**81**]{} 060308
Boyer V, Godun RM, Smirne G, Cassettari D, Chandrashekar CM, Deb AB, Laczik ZJ and Foot CJ 2006 Dynamic manipulation of Bose-Einstein condensates with a spatial light modulator [**]{}A [**73**]{} 031402
Seldowitz MA, Allebach JP and Sweeney DW 1987 Synthesis of digital holograms by direct binary search [*Appl. Opt.*]{} [**26**]{} 2788–2798
Clark M and Smith R A 1996 direct-search method for the computer design of holograms [*Opt. Commun.*]{} [**124**]{} 150–164
Mitchell M 1998 [*An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms*]{} (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
Gerchberg RW and Saxton WO 1972 A practical algorithm for the determination of the phase from image and diffraction plane pictures [*Optik*]{} [**35**]{} 237–246
Soifer V, Kotlyar V and Doskolovich L 1997 [*Iterative Methods for Diffractive Optical Elements Computation*]{} (Taylor $\&$ Francis Ltd, London)
Pasienski M and DeMarco B 2008 A high-accuracy algorithm for designing arbitrary holographic atom traps [*Opt. Exp.*]{}, [**16**]{} 2176–2190
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For a finite alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ and shift $X\subseteq\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ whose factor complexity function grows at most linearly, we study the algebraic properties of the automorphism group ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$. For such systems, we show that every finitely generated subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$, in contrast to the behavior when the complexity function grows more quickly. With additional dynamical assumptions we show more: if $X$ is transitive, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}$; if $X$ has dense aperiodic points, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$. We also classify all finite groups that arise as the automorphism group of a shift.'
address:
- 'Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA 17837 USA'
- 'Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 USA'
author:
- Van Cyr
- Bryna Kra
title: 'The automorphism group of a shift of linear growth: beyond transitivity'
---
Introduction
============
Given a finite alphabet ${\mathcal{A}}$, a shift system $(X,\sigma)$ is a closed set $X\subseteq{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ that is invariant under the left shift $\sigma\colon
{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ and its automorphism group ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is the group of homeomorphisms of $X$ that commute with $\sigma$ (these notions are made precise in Section \[sec:notation\]). For general shift systems, while ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is countable, it can be quite complicated: for the full shift [@Hedlund2] or for mixing shifts of finite type [@BLR], ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is not finitely generated and is not amenable (see also [@BK; @KRW; @FF; @ward; @hochman]). The assumption of topological mixing can be used to construct a rich collection of subgroups of the automorphism group. For example, the automorphism group contains isomorphic copes of all finite groups, the direct sum of countably many copies of ${\mathbb{Z}}$, and the free group on two generators. In these examples, the topological entropy is positive, and the complexity function $P_X(n)$, which counts the number of nonempty cylinder sets of length $n$ taken over all elements $x\in X$, grows quickly.
When the complexity function of a shift system grows slowly, the automorphism group is often much simpler and the main goal of this paper is to study the algebraic properties of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ in this setting. In contrast to mixing shifts, we study general shifts of low complexity, without an assumption of minimality or transitivity. We show that the automorphism group of any shift of low complexity is amenable, yet its behavior can still be be quite complicated.
As $P_X(n)$ is non-decreasing, boundedness is the slowest possible growth property that $P_X(n)$ can have. As expected, this case is simple: the Morse-Hedlund Theorem [@MH] implies that if there exists $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $P_X(n)\leq n$, then $X$ is comprised entirely of periodic points. Thus ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is a finite group (and we classify all finite groups that arise in this way in Section \[sec:periodic2\]). It follows that if $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift for which $P_X(n)/n\xrightarrow{n\to\infty}0$, then $|{{\rm Aut}}(X)|<\infty$.
It is thus natural to study shifts for which $P_X(n) > n$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The first nontrivial growth rate that such a system can have is linear, by which we mean $$0<\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<\infty.$$ In previous work [@CK3], we studied the algebraic properties of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ for transitive shifts of subquadratic growth and showed that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$ is a periodic group. In particular, this holds for transitive shifts of linear growth. Periodic groups, however, can be quite complicated: for example, a periodic group need not be finitely generated, and there are finitely generated, nonamenable periodic groups. In this paper, we study ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ for general (not necessarily transitive) shifts of linear growth. In the transitive case, we prove a stronger result than is implied by [@CK3], showing that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$ is finite. However, the main novelty of this work is that our techniques remain valid even without the assumption of transitivity.
Depending on dynamical assumptions on the system, shift systems with linear growth exhibit different behavior. Our most general result is:
\[thm:main\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift system for which there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<k.$$ Then every finitely generated subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$.
Let $[\sigma]$ denote the full group of a shift $(X,\sigma)$ (see Section \[sec:full-group\] for the definition). With the additional assumption that $(X,\sigma$) has a dense set of aperiodic points, we have:
\[th:finitely-generated\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift system for which there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<k.$$ If $X$ has a dense set of aperiodic points, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]\cong{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$ and ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is finite. In particular, ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
For a shift $(X, \sigma)$, let $\langle\sigma\rangle$ denote the subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ generated by $\sigma$. With the additional assumption that $(X,\sigma)$ is topologically transitive, meaning there exists of a point whose orbit is dense in $X$, we show:
\[thm:transitive\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a transitive shift system for which $$0<\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<\infty.$$ Then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$ is finite. In particular, ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually $\mathbb{Z}$.
For minimal shifts, meaning shifts such that every point has dense orbit, we show (note the growth condition on the complexity only assumes $\liminf$ instead of $\limsup$):
\[theorem:minimal\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a minimal shift for which there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<k.$$ Then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$ is finite and $|{{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle|<k$.
For periodic minimal shifts, it is easy to see that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}/nZ$ where $n$ is the minimal period. Salo and Törmä [@SaTo] asked if the automorphism group of any linearly recurrent shift is virtually $\mathbb{Z}$. Linearly recurrent shifts are minimal and the factor complexity function grows at most linearly, and so Theorem \[theorem:minimal\] gives an affirmative answer to their question.
Roughly speaking, the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] splits into two parts. We start by studying shifts with a dense set of aperiodic points in Section \[sec:aperiodic\], showing that the automorphism group is locally a group of polynomial growth, with the polynomial growth rate depending on the linear complexity assumption on the shift. We sharpen this result to understand transitive shifts of linear growth, leading to the proof of Theorem \[thm:transitive\] in Section \[subsec:transitive\]. We then combine this with information on existence of aperiodic points, completing the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] in Section \[sec:general-linear\]. The proof of Theorem \[theorem:minimal\] in Section \[sec:minimal\] proceeds in a different manner, relying on a version of a lemma of Boshernitzan used to bound the number of ergodic probability measures on a shift with linear growth, which we use to bound the number of words in the language of the system that have multiple extensions.
For some of these results, we are able to give examples showing that they are sharp. These examples are included in Section \[sec:examples\].
While writing up these results, we became aware of related work by Donoso, Durand, Maass, and Petit [@DDMP]. While some of the results obtained are the same, the methods are different and each method leads to new open directions.
Background and notation {#sec:notation}
=======================
Shift systems
-------------
We assume throughout that $\mathcal{A}$ is a fixed finite set endowed with the discrete topology. If $x\in\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$, we denote the value of $x$ at $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ by $x(n)$. The metric $d(x,y):=2^{-\inf\{|n|\colon x(n)\neq y(n)\}}$ generates the product topology on $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ and endowed with this metric, ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a compact metric space; henceforth we assume this metric structure on ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
The [*left shift*]{} $\sigma\colon\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}\to\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ is the map defined by $(\sigma x)(n):=x(n+1)$ and is a homeomorphism from $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ to itself. If $X\subseteq\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a closed, $\sigma$-invariant subset, then the pair $(X,\sigma)$ is called a [*subshift of $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$*]{}, or just a [*shift of $\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$*]{}. If the alphabet $\mathcal{A}$ is clear from the context, we refer to $(X,\sigma$) as just a [*shift*]{}.
The set $$\mathcal{O}(x):=\{\sigma^nx\colon n\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$$ is the [*orbit of $x$*]{} and we use $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x)$ to denote its closure. The shift $(X,\sigma)$ is [*transitive*]{} if there exists some $x\in X$ such that $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x) = X$ and it is [*minimal*]{} if $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x) = X$ for all $x\in X$. A point $x\in X$ is [*periodic*]{} if there exists some $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\sigma^nx = x$ and otherwise it is said to be [*aperiodic*]{}.
Complexity of shifts
--------------------
For a shift $(X,\sigma)$ and $w=(a_{-m+1},\dots,a_{-1},a_0,a_1,$ $\dots,a_{m-1})\in\mathcal{A}^{2m+1}$, the [*central cylinder set $[w]_0$ determined by $w$*]{} is defined to be $$[w]_0:=\left\{x\in X\colon x(n)=a_n\text{ for all }-m<n<m\right\}.$$ The collection of central cylinder sets forms a basis for the topology of $X$. If $w=(a_0,\dots,a_{m-1})\in\mathcal{A}^m$, then the [*one sided cylinder set $[w]_0^+$ determined by $w$*]{} is given by $$[w]_0^+:=\left\{x\in X\colon x(n)=a_n\text{ for all }0\leq n<m\right\}.$$ For $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, define the set of [*words $\mathcal{L}_m(X)$ of length $m$ in $X$*]{} by $$\mathcal{L}_m(X):=\left\{w\in\mathcal{A}^m\colon[w]_0^+\neq\emptyset\right\}$$ and define the [*language $\mathcal{L}(X)$*]{} of $X$ to be $\mathcal{L}(X):=\bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{L}_m(X)$. For $w\in\mathcal{L}(X)$, we denote the length of $w$ by $|w|$. A word in $x\in X$ is also referred to as a [ *factor*]{} of $x$.
A measure of the complexity of $X$ is the [*(factor) complexity function*]{} $P_X\colon X\to{\mathbb{N}}$, which counts the number of words of length $n$ in the language of $X$: $$P_X(n):=|\mathcal{L}_n(X)|.$$ If $P_x(n)$ is the complexity function of a fixed $x\in X$, meaning it is the number of configurations in a block of size $n$ in $x$, then $P_X(n) \geq \sup_{x\in X}P_x(n)$, with equality holding when $X$ is a transitive shift.
The automorphism group of a shift
---------------------------------
Let ${{\rm Hom}}(X)$ denote the group of homeomorphisms from $X$ to itself. If $h_1,\dots,h_n\in{{\rm Hom}}(X)$, then $\langle h_1,\dots,h_n\rangle$ denotes the subgroup of ${{\rm Hom}}(X)$ generated by $h_1,\dots,h_n$. Thus the shift $\sigma\in{{\rm Hom}}(X)$ and its centralizer in ${{\rm Hom}}(X)$ is called the [*automorphism group*]{} of $(X,\sigma)$. We denote the automorphism group of $(X,\sigma)$ by ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and endow it with the discrete topology.
A map $\varphi\colon X\to X$ is a [*sliding block code*]{} if there exists $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $w\in\mathcal{L}_{2R+1}(X)$ and any $x,y\in[w]_0$, we have $(\varphi x)(0)=(\varphi y)(0)$. Any number $R\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup\{0\}$ for which this property holds is called a [*range*]{} for $\varphi$. The [*minimal range*]{} of $\varphi$ is its smallest range.
If $\varphi\colon X\to X$ is a sliding block code of range $R$, there is a natural map (which, by abuse of notation, we also denote by $\varphi$) taking $\bigcup_{m=2R+1}^{\infty}\mathcal{L}_m(X)$ to $\mathcal{L}(X)$. To define this extension of $\varphi$, let $m>2R$ and let $w=(a_0,\dots,a_{m-1})\in\mathcal{A}^m$. For $0\leq i<m-2R$, choose $x_i\in[(a_i,\dots,a_{i+2R})]_0$ and define $$\varphi(w):=\bigl((\varphi x_0)(0),(\varphi x_1)(0),\dots,(\varphi x_{m-2R-1})(0)\bigr).$$ Therefore if $w$ is a word of length at least $2R+1$, then $\varphi(w)$ is a word of length $|w|-2R$.
The elements of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ have a concrete characterization:
\[th:CHL\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift, then any element of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is a sliding block code.
For $R\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup\{0\}$, we let ${{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\subseteq {{\rm Aut}}(X)$ denote the automorphisms of $(X,\sigma)$ for which $R$ is a (not necessarily minimal) range. Thus ${{\rm Aut}}(X)=\bigcup_{R=0}^{\infty}{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$. We observe that if $\varphi_1\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R_1}(X)$ and $\varphi_2\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R_2}(X)$, then $\varphi_1\circ\varphi_2\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R_1+R_2}(X)$.
In general, the automorphism group of a shift can be complicated, but Theorem \[th:CHL\] implies that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is always countable.
Automorphisms and the full group {#sec:full-group}
--------------------------------
The [*full group*]{} $[\sigma]$ of a shift $(X,\sigma)$ is the subgroup of ${{\rm Hom}}(X)$ comprised of the orbit preserving homeomorphisms: $$[\sigma]:=\left\{\psi\in{{\rm Hom}}(X):\psi(x)\in\mathcal{O}(x)\text{ for all }x\in X\right\}.$$ Thus if $\psi\in[\sigma]$, then there is a function $k_{\psi}\colon X\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\psi(x)=\sigma^{k_{\psi}(x)}(x)$ for all $x\in X$.
It follows from the definitions that the group ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is the centralizer of $\sigma$ in $[\sigma]$. We note two basic facts about ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ which we will need in order to study ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ in Section \[lemma:aperiodic-finite\].
\[lemma:normal\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is normal in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$.
Let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and suppose $\psi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$. Let $k_{\varphi}\colon X\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a function such that $\varphi(x)=\sigma^{k_{\varphi}(x)}(x)$ for all $x\in X$. Fix $x\in X$ and observe that since $\varphi$ and $\sigma$ commute, $$\varphi\circ\psi\circ\varphi^{-1}(x)=\varphi\circ\sigma^{k_{\varphi}(\varphi^{-1}(x))}\circ\varphi^{-1}(x)=\sigma^{k_{\varphi}(\varphi^{-1}(x))}(x).$$ As this holds for any $x\in X$, it follows that $\varphi\circ\psi\circ\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$. Since $\phi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and $\psi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ are arbitrary, we have $${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]=\varphi\cdot\left({{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]\right)\cdot\varphi^{-1}$$ for all $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. So ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is normal in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$.
\[lemma:abelian\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is abelian.
Suppose $\varphi_1, \varphi_2\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$. For $i=1,2$, let $k_{\varphi_i}\colon X\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ be functions such that $\varphi_i(x)=\sigma^{k_{\varphi_i(x)}}(x)$ for all $x\in X$. For any $x\in X$, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1\circ\varphi_2(x)&=&\varphi_1\circ\sigma^{k_{\varphi_2}(x)}(x)=\sigma^{k_{\varphi_2}(x)}\circ\varphi_1(x) \\
&=&\sigma^{k_{\varphi_2}(x)}\circ\sigma^{k_{\varphi_1}(x)}(x)=\sigma^{k_{\varphi_1}(x)}\circ\sigma^{k_{\varphi_2}(x)}(x) \\
&=&\sigma^{k_{\varphi_1}(x)}\circ\varphi_2(x)=\varphi_2\circ\sigma^{k_{\varphi_1}(x)}(x) \\
&=&\varphi_2\circ\varphi_1(x). \end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\varphi_1\circ\varphi_2=\varphi_2\circ\varphi_1$.
Summary of group theoretic terminology
--------------------------------------
For convenience, we summarize the algebraic properties that we prove ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ may have. We say that a group $G$ is [*locally $P$*]{} if every finitely generated subgroup of $G$ has property $P$. The group $G$ is [*virtually $H$*]{} if $G$ contains $H$ as a subgroup of finite index. The group $G$ is [*$K$-by-$L$*]{} if there exists a normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ which is $K$ and such that the quotient $G/H$ is $L$.
Shifts of linear growth with a dense set of aperiodic points {#sec:transitive}
============================================================
Cassaigne’s characterization of linear growth
---------------------------------------------
Linear growth can be characterized in terms of the (first) difference of the complexity function:
\[theorem:cassaigne\] A shift $(X,\sigma)$ satisfies $p_X(n)=O(n)$ if and only if the difference function $p_X(n+1)-p_X(n)$ is bounded.
Let $w=(a_0,\dots,a_{|w|-1})\in\mathcal{L}_{|w|}(X)$. For fixed $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we say that $w$ [*extends uniquely $m$ times to the right*]{} if there is exactly one word $\widetilde{w}=(b_0,\dots,b_{|w|+m-1})\in\mathcal{L}_{|w|+m}(X)$ such that $a_i=b_i$ for all $0\leq i<|w|$.
\[corollary:extend\] Assume $(X,\sigma)$ satisfies $p_X(n)=O(n)$. Then for any $m,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the number of words of length $n$ that do not extend uniquely $m$ times to the right is at most $B m$, where $B=\max_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\bigl(p_X(n+1)-p_X(n)\bigr)$.
Note that it follows from Cassaigne’s Theorem that $B$ is finite.
For any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, the quantity $p_X(N+1)-p_X(N)$ is an upper bound on the number of words of length $N$ that do not extend uniquely to the right. For any word $w$ of length $n$ which does not extend uniquely $m$ times to the right, there exists $0\leq k<m$ such that $w$ extends uniquely $k$ times to the right, but not $k+1$ times. For fixed $k$, the number of words for which this is the case is at most the number of words of length $n+k$ that do not extend uniquely to the right. So the number of words of length $n$ that fail to extend uniquely $m$ times to the right is at most $$\sum_{k=1}^m\bigl(p_X(n+k)-p_X(n+k-1)\bigr)\leq Bm.\hfill\qedhere$$
Assuming a dense set of aperiodic points {#sec:aperiodic}
----------------------------------------
We start by considering shifts with a dense set of aperiodic points. This assumption holds in particular when the shift has no isolated points: if $X$ has no isolated points then, for any fixed period, the set of periodic points with that period has empty interior. Then the Baire Category Theorem implies that the set of all periodic points has empty interior. In particular, the set of aperiodic points is dense. The two assumptions are equivalent if the set of aperiodic points is nonempty.
\[lemma:k-transitive\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift with a dense set of aperiodic points and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ Then there exist $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}\in X$ such that $$X=\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)\cup\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_2)\cup\dots\cup\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{k-1}).$$
Suppose not and let $x_1\in X$. Since $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)\neq X$, there is a word $w_1\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ such that $[w_1]_0^+\cap\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)=\emptyset$. Choose $x_2\in X$ with $x_2\in[w_1]_0^+$. Let $i<k$ and suppose that we have constructed $x_1,\dots,x_i\in X$ and $w_1,\dots,w_{i-1}\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ such that $[w_{j_1}]_0\cap\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{j_2})=\emptyset$ whenever $j_2\leq j_1$. Since $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)\cup\dots\cup\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i)\neq X$, there is a word $w_i\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ such that $[w_i]_0^+\cap\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)\cup\dots\cup\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i)=\emptyset$. Let $x_{i+1}\in[w_i]_0^+$ and we continue this construction until $i=k$.
Let $N>\max_{1\leq i<k}|w_i|$ be a fixed large integer (to be specified later). Since $x_1$ is aperiodic, there are at least $N+1$ distinct factors of length $N$ in $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1)$. Therefore there are at least $N+1$ distinct factors of length $N$ in $X$ which do not contain the words $w_1,\dots,w_{k-1}$. We claim that for $1\leq i<k$, there are at least $N-|w_i|$ distinct factors in $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{i+1})$ which contain the word $w_i$ but do not contain any of the words $w_{i+1},w_{i+2},\dots,w_{k-1}$. Assuming this claim, then for any sufficiently large $N$ we have $p_X(N)\geq kN-\sum_{i=1}^k|w_i|$, a contradiction of the complexity assumption.
We are left with proving the claim. Let $1\leq i<k$ be fixed. By construction, the word $w_i$ appears in $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{i+1})$ but $[w_j]_0^+\cap\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{i+1})=\emptyset$ for any $j>i$. If $w_i$ appears syndetically in $x_{i+1}$ then so long as $N$ is sufficiently large, every factor of $x_{i+1}$ of length $N$ contains the word $w_i$. In this case, since $x_{i+1}$ is aperiodic, there are at least $N+1$ distinct factors in $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_{i+1})$ which contain $w_i$ but not $w_j$ for any $j>i$. Otherwise $w_i$ does not appear syndetically in $x_{i+1}$ and so there are arbitrarily long factors in $x_{i+1}$ which do not contain $w_i$. Since $w_i$ appears at least once in $x_{i+1}$, it follows that there are arbitrarily long words which appear in $x_{i+1}$ which contain exactly one occurrence of $w_i$ and we can assume that $w_i$ occurs as either the rightmost or leftmost subword. Without loss, we assume that there exists a word $w$ of length $N$ which contains $w_i$ as its rightmost subword and has no other occurrences of $w_i$. Choose $j\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$w=\bigl(x_{i+1}(j),x_{i+1}(j+1),\dots,x_{i+1}(j+|w|-1)\bigr).$$ By construction, if $0\leq s<|w|-|w_i|$ then the word $$w^{(s)}:=\bigl(x_{i+1}(j+s),x_{i+1}(j+s+1),\dots,x_{i+1}(j+s+|w|-1)\bigr)$$ is a word of length $N$ for which the smallest $t\in\{0,\dots,|w|-|w_i|\}$ such that $$w_i=\bigl(x_{i+1}(j+t),x_{i+1}(j+t+1),\dots,x_{i+1}(j+t+|w_i|-1\bigr)$$ is $t=|w|-|w_i|-s$. Therefore, the words $w^{(s)}$ are pairwise distinct and each contains $w_i$ as a subword. By construction, they do not contain $w_j$ for any $j>i$, thus establishing the claim.
\[prop:polynomial\] Suppose that $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift with a dense set of aperiodic points and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ Then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is locally a group of polynomial growth with polynomial growth rate is at most $k-1$. Moreover, if $q\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is the smallest cardinality of a set $x_1,\dots,x_q\in X$ such that $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\mathcal{O}(x_2)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_q)$ is dense in $X$, then the polynomial growth rate of any finitely generated subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is at most $q$.
In Section \[sec:large-poly-growth\], we give an example showing that the growth rate given in this proposition is optimal.
By Lemma \[lemma:k-transitive\], there exist $y_1,\dots,y_{k-1}\in X$ such that the union of the orbits $\mathcal{O}(y_1)\cup\mathcal{O}(y_2)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(y_{k-1})$ is dense in $X$. Let $x_1,\dots,x_q\in X$ be a set of minimum cardinality for which $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\mathcal{O}(x_2)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_q)$ is dense.
For $1\leq i\leq q$, define the constant $$C_i:=\inf\{|w|\colon\text{$w$ is a subword of $x_i$ and $[w]_0^+$ contains precisely one element}\}$$ and define $C_i:=0$ if no such subword exists. Define $$\label{eq:constant}
C:=\max_{1\leq i\leq q}C_i.$$ Fix $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For $i=1,\ldots, q$, let $\tilde{w}_i$ be a factor of $x_i$ such that
1. $|\tilde{w}_i|\geq3R+1$;
2. \[it:two\] for all $u\in\mathcal{L}_{2R+1}(X)$, there exists $i$ such that $u$ is a factor of $\tilde{w}_i$.
Note that is possible since $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\mathcal{O}(x_2)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_q)$ is dense.
Without loss of generality, we can assume that there exists $M_1\geq0$ such that $[\tilde{w}_i]_0^+$ contains precisely one element for all $i\leq M_1$ and contains at least two elements for all $i>M_1$ (otherwise reorder $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}$). For each $i>M_1$, either there exists $a\geq0$ such that $\tilde{w}_i$ extends uniquely to the right $a$ times but not $a+1$ times, or there exists $a\geq0$ such that $\tilde{w}_i$ extends uniquely to the left $a$ times but not $a+1$ times. Again, reordering if necessary, we can assume that there exists $M_2\geq M_1$ such that the former occurs for all $M_1<i\leq M_2$ and the latter occurs when $i>M_2$. For $i=1, \ldots, q$, we define words $w_1,\dots,w_q$ as follows:
1. For $i=1, \ldots, M_1$, the set $[\tilde{w}_i]_0^+$ contains precisely one element. This must be a shift of $x_i$, and without loss, we can assume it is $x_i$ itself. In this case, we define $u_i$ to be the shortest subword of $x_i$ with the property that $[u_i]_0^+$ contains precisely one element and define $w_i$ to be the (unique) extension $2R+2$ times both to the right and to the left of $u_i$. Observe that if $\varphi, \varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$, then $\varphi^{-1}(\varphi(w_i))=u_i$. Since $\varphi^{-1}$ is injective and sends every element of $[\varphi(w_i)]_0^+$ to the one point set $[u_i]_0^+$, it follows that $[\varphi(w_i)]_0^+$ contains precisely one element and the word $\varphi(w_i)$ uniquely determines the word $\varphi(\tilde{w}_i)$. Moreover, $|u_i|\leq C$, where $C$ is the constant in , and so $|w_i|\leq C+4R+4$.
2. For $i=M_1+1, \dots, M_2$, there exists $a_i\geq0$ such that $\tilde{w}_i$ extends uniquely to the right $a_i$ times but not $a_i+1$ times. Define $w_i$ to be the (unique) word of length $|\tilde{w}_i|+a_i$ which has $\tilde{w}_i$ as its leftmost factor. By choice of the ordering, $w_i$ does not extend uniquely to its right.
3. For $i=M_2+1, \ldots, q$, there exists $a_i\geq0$ such that $\tilde{w}_i$ extends uniquely to the left $a_i$ times but not $a_i+1$ times. Define $w_i$ to the be (unique) word of length $|\tilde{w}_i|+a_i$ which has $\tilde{w}_i$ as its rightmost factor. By choice of the ordering, $w_i$ does not extend uniquely to its left.
For $\varphi\in {{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$, we have that $\varphi(w_i)$ determines the word $\varphi(\tilde{w}_i)$ and so the block code determines what $\varphi$ does to every word in $\mathcal{L}_{2R+1}(X)$. Thus the map $\Phi\colon{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\to\mathcal{L}_{|w_1|-2R}(X)\times\mathcal{L}_{|w_2|-2R}(X)\times\cdots\times\mathcal{L}_{|w_q|-2R}(X)$ defined by $$\Phi(\varphi)=\bigl(\varphi(w_1),\varphi(w_2),\dots,\varphi(w_q)\bigr)$$ is injective. We claim that for $1\leq i\leq q$, we have $$\label{eq:words}
\left|\left\{\varphi(w_i)\colon\varphi,\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\right\}\right|\leq Bk(C+2)(R+1) ,$$ where $B$ is the constant appearing in Corollary \[corollary:extend\] and $C$ is the constant in .
Before proving the claim, we show how to deduce the proposition from this estimate. It follows from that $|\{\Phi(\varphi)\colon\varphi, \varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}|\leq(Bk(C+2))^q(R+1)^q$. Since $\Phi$ is injective, it follows that we have the bound $$\label{eq:growth-estimate}
|\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}|\leq(Bk(C+2))^q(R+1)^q.$$
Given $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_m\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, choose $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_m,\varphi_1^{-1},\dots,\varphi_m^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$. Then for any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, any $e_1,\dots,e_n\in\{-1,1\}$, and any $f_1,\dots,f_n\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, we have $$\varphi_{f_1}^{e_1}\circ\varphi_{f_2}^{e_2}\circ\cdots\circ\varphi_{f_n}^{e_n}\in{{\rm Aut}}_{nR}(X).$$ In particular, if $\mathcal{S}:=\{\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_m,\varphi_1^{-1},\dots,\varphi_m^{-1}\}$ is a (symmetric) generating set for $\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_m\rangle$, then any reduced word of length $n$ (with respect to $\mathcal{S}$) is an element of $\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_{nR}(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_{nR}(X)\}$. By , there are at most $(Bk(C+2))^q(nR+1)^q$ such words. Therefore $\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_m\rangle$ is a group of polynomial growth and its polynomial growth rate is at most $q$. This holds for any finitely generated subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ (where the parameter $R$ depends on the subgroup and choice of generating set, but $B$, $C$, $k$, and $q$ depend only on the shift $(X,\sigma)$). As $q\leq k-1$, the proposition follows.
We are left with showing that holds. There are three cases to consider, depending on the interval in which $i$ lies.
1. Suppose $1\leq i\leq M_1$. Then $|w_i|\leq C+4R+4$ and so $\varphi(w_i)$ is a word of length $C+2R+2$. Therefore, there are $$p_X(C+2R+2)\leq k\cdot(C+2R+2)\leq k(C+2)(R+1)$$ possibilities for the word $\varphi(w_i)$.
2. \[case:two\] Suppose $M_1<i\leq M_2$. Then $w_i$ does not extend uniquely to its right. If $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is such that $\varphi, \varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$, then the word $\varphi(w_i)\in\mathcal{L}_{|w_i|-2R}(X)$ cannot extend uniquely $R+1$ times to its right (as otherwise this extended word would have length $2R+1$ and applying $\varphi^{-1}$ to it would show that there is only one possible extension of $w_i$ to its right). By Corollary \[corollary:extend\], there are at most $B(R+1)$ such words. Therefore $\{\varphi(w_i)\colon\varphi,\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}$ has at most $B(R+1)$ elements.
3. Suppose $i>M_2$. Then $w_i$ does not extend uniquely to its left. As in Case , if $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is such that $\varphi, \varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$, then $\varphi(w_i)$ cannot extend uniquely $R+1$ times to its left. By Corollary \[corollary:extend\], there are at most $B(R+1)$ such words. Therefore $\{\varphi(w_i)\colon\varphi,\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}$ has at most $B(R+1)$ elements.
This establishes , and thus the proposition.
The automorphism group of a transitive shift {#subsec:transitive}
--------------------------------------------
\[lemma:transitive-finite-index\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a transitive shift and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ If $x_0\in X$ has a dense orbit, then the set $$\left\{\varphi(x_0)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\right\}$$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits.
Suppose not. Let $\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ be such that $\varphi_i(x_0)\notin\mathcal{O}(\varphi_j(x_0))$ whenever $i\neq j$. For $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $R(N)$ be the smallest integer such that we have $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N,\varphi_1^{-1},\dots,\varphi_N^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R(N)}(X)$. For $1\leq i\leq N$, $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $-n\leq j\leq n$, we have $\varphi_i^{\pm1}\circ\sigma^j\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R(N)+n}(X)$. As automorphisms take aperiodic points to aperiodic points, for fixed $i$, the set $$\{\varphi_i\circ\sigma^j\colon-n\leq j\leq n\}$$ contains $2n+1$ elements. If $i_1\neq i_2$ and $-n\leq j_1,j_2\leq n$, then $\varphi_{i_1}\circ\sigma^{j_1}(x_0)\notin\mathcal{O}(\varphi_{i_2}\circ\sigma^{j_2}(x_0))$. Thus the set $$\{\varphi_i\circ\sigma^j\colon 1\leq i\leq N\text{ and }-n\leq j\leq n\}$$ contains $2Nn+N$ elements. Therefore, $$|\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R(N)+n}(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_{R(N)+n}(X)\}|\geq2Nn+N.$$ It follows that $$\limsup_{R\to\infty}\frac{|\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}|}{R}\geq 2N.$$ Since $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ was arbitrary, we have $$\label{eq:slow-growth}
\limsup_{R\to\infty}\frac{|\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}|}{R}=\infty.$$
On the other hand, since $(X,\sigma)$ is transitive, the parameter $q$ in the conclusion of Proposition \[prop:polynomial\] is $1$. Then by , we have $$|\{\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\colon\varphi^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)\}\leq Bk(C+2)(R+1),$$ where $B,k,C$ are as in Proposition \[prop:polynomial\], which depend only on the shift $(X,\sigma)$ and not on $R$. This estimate holds for any $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$, a contradiction of .
We use this to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:transitive\], characterizing the automorphism group of transitive shifts of linear growth:
Assume $(X,\sigma)$ is a transitive shift satisfying $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<k$$ for some $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. An automorphism in a transitive shift is determined by the image of a point whose orbit is dense, and so Lemma \[lemma:transitive-finite-index\] implies that the group ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is finite (Lemma \[lemma:normal\] implies that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is normal in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$). However, the only orbit preserving automorphisms in a transitive shift are elements of $\langle\sigma\rangle$, since such an automorphism acts like a power of the shift on a point whose orbit is dense.
Theorem \[thm:transitive\] shows that if $(X,\sigma)$ is transitive and has low enough complexity, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is highly constrained. One might hope to have a converse to this theorem: if $(X,\sigma)$ is transitive and is above some “complexity threshold” then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is nontrivial. In Section \[sec:no-complexity-threshold\], we give an example showing that no such converse holds.
The automorphism group of a shift with dense aperiodic points {#sec:dense-aperiodic}
-------------------------------------------------------------
\[lemma:aperiodic-finite\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ has a dense set of aperiodic points and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ Let $x_1,\dots,x_q\in X$ be a set (of minimal cardinality) such that $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_q)$ is dense in $X$. Then for each $1\leq i\leq q$, the set $$\left\{\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\right\}$$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits.
By minimality of the set $\{x_1,\dots,x_q\}$, we have $$x_i\notin\bigcup_{j\neq i}\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_j)$$ for any $1\leq i\leq q$. Therefore there exists $w_i\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ such that $[w_i]_0^+\cap\mathcal{O}(x_i)\neq\emptyset$ but $[w_i]_0^+\cap\bigcup_{j\neq i}\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_j) =\emptyset$. This implies that $[w_i]_0^+\subseteq\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i)$.
Let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and note that $\varphi$ is determined by $\varphi(x_1),\dots,\varphi(x_q)$. If for some $1\leq i\leq q$ we have $\mathcal{O}(\varphi(x_j))\cap[w_i]_0^+=\emptyset$ for all $j$, then $\varphi(X)\cap[w_i]_0^+=\emptyset$ and $\varphi$ is not surjective, a contradiction. Therefore, for each $i$ there exists $1\leq j_i\leq q$ such that $\mathcal{O}(\varphi(x_{j_i}))\cap[w_i]_0^+\neq\emptyset$. By construction, if $\mathcal{O}(\varphi(x_{j_i}))\cap[w_i]_0^+\neq\emptyset$, then $\varphi(x_{j_i})\in\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i)$ and so $\mathcal{O}(\varphi(x_{j_i}))\cap[w_k]_0^+=\emptyset$ for any $k\neq i$. That is, the map $i\mapsto j_i$ is a permutation on the set $\{1,2,\dots,q\}$. Let $\pi_{\varphi}\in S_q$, where $S_q$ is the symmetric group on $q$ letters, denote this permutation.
Let $$H:=\{\pi_{\varphi}\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}\subseteq S_q.$$ For each $h\in H$, choose $\varphi_h\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ such that $h=\pi_{\varphi_h}$. Then if $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and $h=\pi_{\varphi}$, the permutation induced by $\varphi_h^{-1}\circ\varphi$ is the identity. It follows that $\varphi_h^{-1}\circ\varphi$ preserves each of the sets $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_1),\dots,\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_q)$. Consequently, for each $1\leq i\leq q$, the restriction of $\varphi_h^{-1}\circ\varphi$ to $\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i)$ is an automorphism of the (transitive) subsystem $\left(\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i),\sigma\right)$. By Lemma \[lemma:transitive-finite-index\], the set $\{\psi(x_i)\colon\psi\in{{\rm Aut}}(\overline{\mathcal{O}}(x_i))\}$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits. Therefore, the set $\{\varphi_{\pi_{\varphi}}^{-1}\circ\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits. Since $$\{\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}\subseteq\bigcup_{h\in H}\varphi_h\left(\{\varphi_{\pi_{\varphi}}^{-1}\circ\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}\right)$$ and automorphisms take orbits to orbits, it follows that $\{\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits.
\[lemma:rank\] Let $(X,\sigma)$ be a shift with a dense set of aperiodic points and assume that there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ Then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]\cong{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$.
By Lemmas \[lemma:normal\] and \[lemma:abelian\], ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is abelian and normal in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$. By Lemma \[lemma:k-transitive\], there exist points $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}\in X$ such that $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_{k-1})$ is dense in $X$. If $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$, then there exist $e_1(\varphi),\dots,e_{k-1}(\varphi)\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\varphi(x_i)=\sigma^{e_i(\varphi)}(x_i)$ for all $1\leq i\leq q$. As an automorphism is determined by the images of $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}$, the map $\varphi\mapsto(e_1(\varphi),\dots,e_{k-1}(\varphi))$ is an injective homomorphism from ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}^{k-1}$.
By Lemma \[lemma:k-transitive\], there exist $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}\in X$ such that $\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_{k-1})$ is dense in $X$. If $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, then $\varphi$ is determined by the values of $\varphi(x_1),\dots,\varphi(x_{k-1})$. By Lemma \[lemma:aperiodic-finite\], the set $\{\varphi(x_i)\colon\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\}$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits in $X$. Therefore, modulo orbit preserving automorphisms, there are only finitely many choices for $\varphi(x_1),\dots,\varphi(x_{k-1})$. It follows that the group ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is finite. By Lemma \[lemma:rank\], ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$.
General shifts of linear growth {#sec:general-linear}
===============================
\[lemma:per-finite\] Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift and $w\in\mathcal{L}(X)$ is such that $[w]_0^+$ is infinite. Then there exists aperiodic $x_w\in X$ such that $x_w\in[w]_0^+$.
Either $w$ occurs syndetically in every element of $[w]_0^+$ with a uniform bound on the gap, or there exists a sequence of elements of $[w]_0^+$ along which the gaps between occurrences of $w$ in $y_w$ grow.
In the first case, the subsystem $$\overline{\left\{\sigma^ix\colon x\in[w]_0^+\text{, }i\in{\mathbb{Z}}\right\}}$$ is infinite and so contains an aperiodic point $x_w$. Since $w$ occurs syndetically with the same bound in every element of $[w]_0^+$, it also occurs syndetically in any limit taken along elements of $[w]_0^+$, and in particular in $x_w$.
In the second case, there is an element of $x_w\in\overline{\mathcal{O}(y_w)}\cap[w]_0^+$ for which either $w$ occurs only finitely many times or infinitely many times with gaps tending to infinity in the semi-infinite word $\{x(n)\colon n\geq0\}$, or the same behavior occurs in the semi-infinite word $\{x(n)\colon n\leq0\}$. In either case, $x_w$ is aperiodic.
We use this to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], characterizing the finitely generated subgroups of a shift of linear growth:
Let $(X,\sigma)$ be a shift and assume there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k.$$ Let $$X_{NP}:=\overline{\left\{x\in X\colon\sigma^i(x)\neq x\text{ for all }i\neq0\right\}}$$ be the closure of the set of aperiodic points in $X$. As automorphisms take aperiodic points to aperiodic points, every element of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ preserves $X_{NP}$. Consequently, restriction to $X_{NP}$ defines a natural homomorphism $h\colon{{\rm Aut}}(X)\to{{\rm Aut}}(X_{NP})$.
Let $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and choose $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N,\varphi_1^{-1},\dots,\varphi_N^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$. By Lemma \[lemma:k-transitive\], there exists a set $x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}\in X_{NP}$ such that $$\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_{k-1})$$ is dense in $X_{NP}$. Let $\{x_1,\dots,x_q\}\subseteq X_{NP}$ be a set of minimal cardinality with the property that $$\mathcal{O}(x_1)\cup\cdots\cup\mathcal{O}(x_q)$$ is dense in $X_{NP}$. Then for any $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$, the restriction of $\varphi$ to $X_{NP}$ is determined by $\varphi(x_1),\dots,\varphi(x_q)$. By Lemma \[lemma:aperiodic-finite\], for each $1\leq j\leq q$, the set $$\{\varphi(x_j)\colon\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle\}$$ is contained in the union of finitely many distinct orbits. Therefore there exists a finite collection of automorphisms $\psi_1,\dots,\psi_M\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$ such that for any $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$, there exists $1\leq t(\varphi)\leq M$ such that for all $1\leq j\leq q$, we have $$\varphi(x_j)\in\mathcal{O}(\psi_{t(\varphi)}(x_j)).$$ Thus the restriction of $\psi_{t(\varphi)}^{-1}\circ\varphi$ to $X_{NP}$ is orbit preserving. Let $$K:=\{\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle\colon\text{the restriction of $\varphi$ to $X_{NP}$ is orbit preserving}\}.$$ Clearly $K$ is a subgroup of $\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$.
For each $1\leq i\leq N$, we have that $\varphi_i$ is a block code of range $R$. Let $$\mathcal{W}_R:=\left\{w\in\mathcal{L}_{2R+1}(X)\colon[w]_0^+\cap X_{NP}=\emptyset\right\}.$$ Then by Lemma \[lemma:per-finite\], the set $$Y:=\bigcup_{w\in\mathcal{W}_R}[w]_0^+$$ is finite. Since every element of $Y$ is periodic and automorphisms preserve the minimal period of periodic points, the ($\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$-invariant) set $$Z:=\left\{\varphi_{i_1}^{e_1}\circ\cdots\circ\varphi_{i_S}^{e_S}(y)\colon i_1,\dots,i_S\in\{1,\dots,N\}\text{, }e_1,\dots,e_S\in\{-1,1\},S\in{\mathbb{N}}\text{, }y\in Y\right\}$$ is finite. For any $1\leq i\leq N$, the restriction of $\varphi_i$ to $X_{NP}$ uniquely determines the restriction of $\varphi_i$ to $X\setminus Z$ (since all words of length $2R+1$ that occur in elements of $X\setminus Z$ also occur in $X_{NP}$). Since $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N$ are automorphisms that preserve $Z$, they take elements of $X\setminus Z$ to elements of $X\setminus Z$. Thus for any $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$, the restriction of $\varphi$ to $X_{NP}$ uniquely determines the restriction of $\varphi$ to $X\setminus Z$. In particular, this holds for all $\varphi\in K$. So there exists a finite collection of automorphisms $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_T\in K$ such that for all $\varphi\in K$, there is an integer $1\leq s(\varphi)\leq T$ such that $\alpha_{s(\varphi)}^{-1}\circ\varphi$ acts trivially on $Z$.
With the functions $t(\varphi)$ and $s(\varphi)$ defined as above, we have that for any $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$, the automorphism $$\alpha^{-1}_{s\left(\psi^{-1}_{t(\varphi)}\circ\varphi\right)}\circ\psi^{-1}_{t(\varphi)}\circ\varphi$$ acts trivially on $Z$ and its restriction to $X_{NP}$ is orbit preserving. Define $H\subseteq\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$ to be the subgroup of elements $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$ such that $\varphi$ acts trivially on $Z$ and the restriction of $\varphi$ to $X_{NP}$ is orbit preserving. Every element of $H$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $X_{NP}$, and so $H$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X_{NP})\cap[\sigma]$. By Lemma \[lemma:rank\], this subgroup is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$. On the other hand, for any $\varphi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$, there exist $1\leq t\leq M$ and $1\leq s\leq T$ such that $\alpha_s^{-1}\circ\psi_t^{-1}\circ\varphi\in H$. Therefore $H$ has finite index in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$.
Finally, if $\varphi\in H$, then there is a function $k\colon X_{NP}\to{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that for all $x\in X_{NP}$ we have $\varphi(x)=\sigma^{k(x)}(x)$. Thus if $\psi\in\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$ and $x\in X_{NP}$, we have $$\psi\circ\varphi\circ\psi^{-1}(x)=\psi\circ\sigma^{k(\psi^{-1}(x))}\circ\psi^{-1}(x)=\sigma^{k(\psi^{-1}(x))}(x)$$ and if $x\in Z$, we have $$\psi\circ\varphi\circ\psi^{-1}(z)=z.$$ Therefore $\psi\circ\varphi\circ\psi^{-1}\in H$ and so $H$ is a normal subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$.
It follows that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$ for some $d<k$.
Minimal shifts of linear growth {#sec:minimal}
===============================
For minimal shifts, we need more information on the words that are uniquely extendable:
For $x\in X$, define $$x_R:=\{y\in X\colon y(i)=x(i)\text{ for all }i\geq0\}.$$ For $x,y\in X$, we write $x\sim_Ry$ if $x_R=y_R$ and define $X_R:=X/\!\sim_R$ to be $X$ modulo this relation.
It is easy to check that $\sim_R$ is an equivalence relation on $X$ and so $X_R$ is well defined. We view $(X_R,\sigma)$ as a one sided shift. If $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, then $\varphi$ is a block code (say of range $N$) and so determines an endomorphism on $(X_R,\sigma)$ as follows: if $y\in x_R$ and $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is the minimal range of $\varphi$, then $\varphi(x_R):=\left(\sigma^N\circ\varphi(y)\right)_R$. It is easy to check that $\varphi(x_R)$ is well defined.
For $x\in X$, we say that $x_R$ is [*uniquely left extendable*]{} if it has a unique preimage in $X_R$ and [*nonuniquely left extendable*]{} otherwise.
If $w\in\mathcal{L}_n(X)$ is a word of length $n$ in the language of $X$, we say that $w$ is [*uniquely left extendable*]{} if there is a unique $\hat{w}\in\mathcal{L}_{n+1}(X)$ that ends with $w$.
Boshernitzan [@Bos] showed that if $(X,\sigma)$ is minimal and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)-kn=-\infty,$$ then the number of ergodic probability measures on $(X,\sigma)$ is finite. In his proof, he makes use of a counting lemma and we use an infinite version of this lemma to study minimal shifts of linear growth:
\[lemma-boshernitzan\] Let $(X,\sigma)$ be a shift for which there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\label{eq1}
\liminf_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)-kn=-\infty.$$ Then there are at most $k-1$ distinct elements of $(X_R,\sigma)$ which are nonuniquely left extendable.
We first claim that for infinitely many $n$, the number of words of length $n$ that are nonuniquely left extendable is at most $k-1$. If not, let $L_n$ be the number of words of length $n$ that do not extend uniquely to their left. Then by assumption there exists $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for all $n\geq N$ we have $L_n\geq k$. However, $$P_X(n+1)\geq P_X(n)+L_n,$$ and so $P_X(n)\geq P_X(N)+k\cdot(n-N)$ for all $n\geq N$. This contradicts , and the claim follows.
We use this to show that there are at most $k-1$ elements in $X_R$ which are nonuniquely left extendable. If not, there exist distinct elements $x_1,\dots,x_k\in X_R$ which are all nonuniquely left extendable. Choose $M\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $1\leq i<j\leq k$, there exists $0\leq m<M$ such that $x_i(m)\neq x_j(m)$. By the first claim, there exists $n>M$ such that there are at most $k$ words of length $n$ that are nonuniquely left extendable. For all $1\leq i\leq k$, the word $$\left(x_i(0),x_i(1),\dots,x_i(n-2),x_i(n-1)\right)$$ is a word of length $n$ that is nonuniquely left extendable and these words are pairwise distinct since $n>M$, leading to a contradiction. Thus the number of elements of $(X_R,\sigma)$ that are nonuniquely left extendable is at most $k-1$.
\[NLE-def\] We write ${{\Upsilon}}_0\subseteq X_R$ for the collection of nonuniquely left extendable points in $X_R$. For $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we write ${{\Upsilon}}_m:=\sigma^m({{\Upsilon}}_0)$ for the collection of elements of $X_R$ whose preimage under $m$ iterates of $\sigma$ contains more than one point.
\[lemma-extension\] If $y\in X_R\setminus\bigcup_{m=0}^{\infty}{{\Upsilon}}_m$, then there is a unique $z\in X$ for which $y=z_R$.
If not, there exist distinct $z_1, z_2\in X$ and $y=(z_1)_R=(z_2)_R$. Thus there exists $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $z_1(-i)\neq z_2(-i)$. Set $i_0$ to be the minimal such $i$. Then $\sigma^{-i_0+1}y=(\sigma^{-i_0+1}z_1)_R=(\sigma^{-i_0+1}z_2)_R$, but $(\sigma^{-i_0}z_1)_R\neq(\sigma^{-i_0}z_2)_R$. Thus $\sigma^{-i_0+1}y\in {{\Upsilon}}_0$, which implies that $y\in {{\Upsilon}}_{-i_0+1}$, a contradiction.
\[lemma-finite-extension\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift, $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, and $y\in {{\Upsilon}}_0$, then there exists $m\geq 0$ such that $\varphi(y)\in {{\Upsilon}}_m$.
It not, then $\varphi(y)\in X_R\setminus\bigcup_{m=0}^{\infty}{{\Upsilon}}_m$ and so Lemma \[lemma-extension\] implies that there is a unique $z\in X$ such that $\varphi(y)=z_R$. Since $\varphi$ is an automorphism, it follows that $\varphi^{-1}(z)$ is the only solution to the equation $y=x_R$, a contradiction of $y\in {{\Upsilon}}_0$.
We use this to complete the characterization of the automorphism group for minimal aperiodic shifts with linear growth:
Assume $(X,\sigma)$ is an aperiodic minimal shift such that there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ with $\liminf_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)/n<k$.
Fix $y\in {{\Upsilon}}_0$ and let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. By Lemma \[lemma-finite-extension\], there exists $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi(y)\in {{\Upsilon}}_m$. Let $m_{\varphi}\geq 0$ be the smallest non-negative integer for which $\varphi(y)\in {{\Upsilon}}_m$. Then there exists $z_{\varphi}\in {{\Upsilon}}_0$ such that $\sigma^{m_{\varphi}}(z_{\varphi})=\varphi(y)$.
Now suppose $\varphi_1, \varphi_2\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and $z_{\varphi_1}=z_{\varphi_2}$. We claim that $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ project to the same element in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$. Without loss, suppose $m_{\varphi_1}\leq m_{\varphi_2}$. Then $$\varphi_2(y)=\sigma^{m_{\varphi_2}}(z_{\varphi_2})=\sigma^{(m_{\varphi_2}-m_{\varphi_1})}\circ\sigma^{m_{\varphi_1}}(z_{\varphi_1})=\sigma^{(m_{\varphi_2}-m_{\varphi_1})}\circ\varphi_1(y).$$ By minimality, every word of every length occurs syndetically in every element of $(X,\sigma)$. It follows that all words occur syndetically in every element of $(X_R,\sigma)$, and in particular, all words occur syndetically in $y$. Both $\varphi_2$ and $\sigma^{(m_{\varphi_2}-m_{\varphi_1})}\circ\varphi_1$ are sliding block codes. Since $\varphi_2(y)=\sigma^{(m_{\varphi_2}-m_{\varphi_1})}\circ\varphi_1(y)$, it follows that $\varphi_2$ and $\sigma^{(m_{\varphi_2}-m_{\varphi_1})}\circ\varphi_1$ have the same image on every word, meaning that they define the same block code. In other words, $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ project to the same element in ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$, proving the claim.
Since $|{{\Upsilon}}_0|\leq k-1$, Lemma \[lemma-boshernitzan\] implies that there can be at most $k-1$ distinct elements of $(X_R,\sigma)$ that arise as $z_{\varphi}$ for $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. Therefore, there are at most $k-1$ distinct elements of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$. $\hfill\square$
This can be used to characterize the automorphism groups for particular systems. We note the simplest case of a Sturmian shift for later use (see [@Olli Example 4.1]):
\[cor:olli\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a Sturmian shift, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)=\langle\sigma\rangle$.
For a Sturmian shift, $(X,\sigma)$ is minimal, aperiodic, and $P_X(n)=n+1$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Applying Theorem \[theorem:minimal\] with $k=2$, we have that $\left|{{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle\right|=1$.
More generally:
If $(X,\sigma)$ is aperiodic, minimal and there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}P_X(n)-kn=-\infty,$$ then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is the semi-direct product of a finite group and ${\mathbb{Z}}$.
By Theorem \[theorem:minimal\], ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/\langle\sigma\rangle$ is finite. Since $\langle\sigma\rangle$ has infinite order and is contained in the center of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$, it follows from the classification of virtually cyclic groups (see [@SW]) that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is the semi-direct product of a finite group and ${\mathbb{Z}}$.
Examples {#sec:examples}
========
Automorphism group with large polynomial growth {#sec:large-poly-growth}
-----------------------------------------------
Proposition \[prop:polynomial\] shows that if $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift satisfying $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{P_X(n)}{n}<k$$ then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is locally a group of polynomial growth, with polynomial growth rate at most $k-1$. The following Proposition shows that this estimate of the polynomial growth rate of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is optimal.
Let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ be fixed and let ${\mathcal{A}}=\{0,1\}\times\{1,\dots,k\}$. There is a shift $X\subseteq{\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ with a dense set of aperiodic points such that $P_X(n)=kn+k$ and ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}^k$.
Recall that a Sturmian shift is an aperiodic, minimal shift of $\{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ whose complexity function satisfies $P_X(n)=n+1$ for all $n$. There are uncountably many Sturmian shifts and any particular Sturmian shift only factors onto countably many other Sturmian shifts (since the factor map must be a sliding block code, of which there are only countably many). Therefore there exist $k$ Sturmian shifts $X_1, X_2,\dots,X_k$ such that there exists a sliding block code taking $X_i$ to $X_j$ if and only if $i=j$. We identify $X_i$ with in a natural way with a shift of ${\mathcal{A}}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ by writing the elements of $X_i$ with the letters $(0,i)$ and $(1,i)$ and will abuse notation by also referring to this shift as $X_i$. Let $X:=X_1\cup\cdots\cup X_k$ (which is clearly shift invariant, and is closed because the minimum distance between a point in $X_i$ and $X_j$ is $1$ whenever $i\neq j$).
Let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. As $\varphi$ is given by a sliding block code, $\varphi$ must preserve the sets $X_1,\dots,X_k$. Therefore ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong{{\rm Aut}}(X_1)\times\cdots\times{{\rm Aut}}(X_k)$. By Corollary \[cor:olli\] we have ${{\rm Aut}}(X_i)=\langle\sigma\rangle\cong{\mathbb{Z}}$ for $i=1,\dots,k$. So ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong{\mathbb{Z}}^k$.
Quickly growing transitive shifts with trivial automorphism group {#sec:no-complexity-threshold}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Next we describe a general process which takes a minimal shift of arbitrary growth rate and produces a transitive shift with essentially the same growth, but whose automorphism group consists only of powers of the shift. This shows that there is no “complexity threshold” above which the automorphism group of a transitive shift must be nontrivial.
\[lemma:dense-orbit\] If $(X,\sigma)$ is a transitive shift with precisely one dense orbit, then ${{\rm Aut}}(X)=\langle\sigma\rangle$.
Suppose that there exists $x_0\in X$ such that $$\{y\in X\colon y\text{ has a dense orbit}\}=\mathcal{O}(x_0).$$ If $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, then $\varphi(x_0)$ has a dense orbit and so there exists $k\geq 0$ such that $\varphi(x_0)=\sigma^k(x_0)$. It follows that $\varphi$ and $\sigma^k$ agree on the (dense) orbit of $x_0$. Since both functions are continuous, they agree everywhere.
Let $\mathcal{A}=\{0,1,2,\dots,n-1\}$ and let $X\subseteq\mathcal{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a minimal shift. Let $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}=\mathcal{A}\cup\{n\}$, where we add the symbol $n$ to the alphabet and $n\notin{\mathcal{A}}$. Fix $x_0\in X$ and define $\tilde{x}_0\in\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ by: $$\tilde{x}_0(i)=\begin{cases}
x_0(i) & \text{ if }i\neq 0; \\
n & \text{ if }i=0.
\end{cases}$$ Let $\tilde{X}\subseteq\tilde{A}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the orbit closure of $\tilde{x}_0$. Then $\tilde{X}=X\cup\mathcal{O}(\tilde{x}_0)$, $(\tilde{X},\sigma)$ is transitive, $p_{\tilde{X}}(n)=p_X(n)+n$ for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, and $\tilde{X}$ has precisely one dense orbit. By Lemma \[lemma:dense-orbit\], ${{\rm Aut}}(\tilde{X})=\langle\sigma\rangle$.
${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ are not always finitely generated {#sec:not-global}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theorem \[thm:main\] shows that every finitely generated subgroup of ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is virtually ${\mathbb{Z}}^d$. When $X$ has a dense set of aperiodic points, Theorem \[th:finitely-generated\] shows that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is finite. In this section we show that the result of Theorem \[th:finitely-generated\] cannot be extended to the general case, and the words “every finitely generated subgroup” cannot be removed from the statement of Theorem \[thm:main\]. We begin with an example to set up our construction.
Let $\mathcal{A}=\{0,1\}$ and for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $x_n\in{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be the periodic point $$x_n(i)=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if }i\equiv0\text{ (mod $2^n$)}; \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Let $X$ be the closure of the set $\{x_n\colon n\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ under $\sigma$. If we define $$x_{\infty}(i)=\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if }i=0; \\
0 & \text{ otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ and ${\bf 0}$ to be the ${\mathcal{A}}$-coloring of all zeros, then we have $$X=\{{\bf 0}\}\cup\mathcal{O}(x_{\infty})\cup\bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathcal{O}(x_n).$$ Suppose $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is fixed and $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$. Since $\varphi$ preserves the period of periodic points, $\varphi({\bf 0})={\bf 0}$. In particular, the block code $\varphi$ takes the block consisting of all zeros to $0$. It follows that there exists $k\in[-R,R]$ such that $\varphi(x_{\infty})=\sigma^k(x_{\infty})$. For any $m>2R+1$, the blocks of length $2R+1$ occurring in $x_m$ are identical to those appearing in $x_{\infty}$ and so $\varphi(x_m)=\sigma^k(x_m)$ for all such $m$.
Now let $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ and find $R\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n,\varphi_1^{-1},\dots,\varphi_n^{-1}\in{{\rm Aut}}_R(X)$. For $1\leq i\leq n$, let $k_i\in[-R,R]$ be such that for all $m>2R+1$ we have $\varphi_i(x_m)=\sigma^{k_i}(x_m)$. Then $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, any $e_1,\dots,e_N\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, any $\epsilon_1,\dots,\epsilon_N\in\{-1,1\}$, and any $m>2R+1$, we have $$\left(\varphi_{e_1}^{\epsilon_1}\circ\varphi_{e_2}^{\epsilon_2}\circ\cdots\circ\varphi_{e_N}^{\epsilon_N}\right)(x_m)=\sigma^{(\epsilon_1\cdot k_{e_1}+\epsilon_2\cdot k_{e_2}+\cdots+\epsilon_N\cdot k_{e_N})}(x_m).$$ Then if $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is the automorphism that acts like $\sigma$ on $\mathcal{O}(x_{R+1})$ and acts trivially on $X\setminus\mathcal{O}(x_{R+1})$ (this map is continuous because $x_{R+1}$ is isolated), then $\varphi\notin\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle$. Therefore $\langle\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_N\rangle\neq{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. Since $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ were general, it follows that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is not finitely generated.
On the other hand $$P_X(n)=n+2^{\lfloor\log_2(n)\rfloor+1}-1<3n$$ for all $n$, so $P_X(n)$ grows linearly. We also remark that ${{\rm Aut}}(X)={{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ for this shift.
\[ex:infinitely-generated\] There exists a shift $(X,\sigma)$ of linear growth that has a dense set of periodic points and is such that none of the groups ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$, ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$, and ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ are finitely generated.
Let $X_1$ be the shift of $\{0,1\}^{{\mathbb{Z}}}$ constructed in the previous example. Let $X_2$ be the same shift, constructed over the alphabet $\{2,3\}$ (by identifying $0$ with $2$ and $1$ with $3$). Let $X=X_1\cup X_2$ and observe that $d(X_1,X_2)=1$. Since ${{\rm Aut}}(X_i)\cap[\sigma]={{\rm Aut}}(X_i)$ for $i=1,2$, we have ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]\cong{{\rm Aut}}(X_1)\times{{\rm Aut}}(X_2)$. Therefore ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is not finitely generated. On the other hand, $$P_X(n)=P_{X_1}(n)+P_{X_2}(n)=2\cdot P_{X_1}(n)<6n$$ so $X$ is a shift of linear growth (and has a dense set of periodic points).
We claim that ${{\rm Aut}}(x)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is not finitely generated. Define $\delta\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ to be the range $0$ involution that exchanges $0$ with $2$ and $1$ with $3$. For each $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$ let $\delta_m\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ be the range $0$ involution which exchanges the (unique) orbit of period $2^m$ in $X_1$ with the (unique) orbit of period $2^m$ in $X_2$ by exchanging $0$ with $2$ and $1$ with $3$ in these orbits only (and fixing the remainder of $X$. For $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$ let $\tilde{\delta}_i$ be the projection of $\delta_i$ to ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ and let $\tilde{\delta}$ be the projection of $\delta$. These involutions commute pairwise and the set $\{\tilde{\delta}_i\colon i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}\cup\{\tilde{\delta}\}$ is clearly independent.
Now let ${\bf x}\in X_1$ be the point ${\bf x}(i)=1$ if and only if $i=0$, and let ${\bf y}\in X_2$ be the point ${\bf y}(i)=4$ if and only if $i=0$. Let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$ be fixed and observe that either $\varphi({\bf x})\in\mathcal{O}({\bf x})$ or $\varphi({\bf x})\in\mathcal{O}({\bf y})$. In the former case define $\epsilon:=0$ and in the latter case define $\epsilon:=1$, so that $\varphi\circ\delta^{\epsilon}$ preserves the orbit of ${\bf x}$ (hence also the orbit of ${\bf y}$). As $\varphi\circ\delta^{\epsilon}$ is given by a block code which carries the block of all $0$’s to $0$, there are at most finitely many $m$ such that $\varphi\circ\delta^{\epsilon}$ does not preserve the orbit of the (unique) periodic orbit of period $2^m$ in $X_1$. Let $m_1<\cdots<m_n$ be the set of $m$ for which it does not preserve the orbit. Then $$\varphi\circ\delta^{\epsilon}\circ\delta_{m_1}\circ\cdots\circ\delta_{m_n}\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma].$$ Therefore ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is the group generated by $\tilde{\delta}, \tilde{\delta}_1, \tilde{\delta}_2, \tilde{\delta}_3,\dots$ This group is isomorphic to $\prod_{i=1}^{\infty}{\mathbb{Z}}_2$ so ${{\rm Aut}}(X)/{{\rm Aut}}(X)\cap[\sigma]$ is not finitely generated. Finally, as ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ factors onto a group that it not finitely generated, it is not finitely generated either.
Automorphisms of periodic shifts {#sec:periodic2}
================================
We characterize which finite groups arise as automorphism groups of shifts.
For $n>1$ and $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $${\mathbb{Z}}_n^m:=\underbrace{\mathbb{Z}_n\times\mathbb{Z}_n\times\cdots\times\mathbb{Z}_n}_{m\text{ times}}$$ where $\mathbb{Z}_n$ denotes ${\mathbb{Z}}/n{\mathbb{Z}}$. Let $S_m$ denote the symmetric group on $m$ letters and define a homomorphism $\psi\colon S_m\to{{\rm Aut}}({\mathbb{Z}}_n^m)$ by $$\left(\psi(\pi)\right)(i_1,\dots,i_m):=(i_{\pi(1)},\dots,i_{\pi(m)}).$$ Then the [*generalized symmetric group*]{} is defined as in [@Osima] to be $$S(n,m):={\mathbb{Z}}_n^m\rtimes_{\psi} S_m.$$ Equivalently, $S(n,m)$ is the wreath product ${\mathbb{Z}}_n\wr S_m$.
Suppose $G$ is a finite group. There exists a shift $(X,\sigma)$ for which ${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong G$ if and only if there exist $s\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n_1<n_2<\cdots<n_s$, and $m_1, m_2, \dots,m_s\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $$G\cong S(n_1,m_1)\times S(n_2,m_2)\times\cdots\times S(n_s,m_s).$$
Suppose $(X,\sigma)$ is a shift for which ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ is finite. Since $\sigma\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$, there exists $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\sigma^k(x)=x$ for all $x\in X$. That is, $X$ is comprised entirely of periodic points such that the minimal period of each point is a divisor of $k$. Since a shift can have only finitely many such points, $X$ is finite. Let $x_1,\dots,x_N\in X$ be representatives of the orbits in $X$, meaning that $\mathcal{O}(x_i)\cap\mathcal{O}(x_j)=\emptyset$ whenever $i\neq j$ and for all $x\in X$ there exist $i,k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $x=\sigma^k(x_i)$. For $i=1, \ldots, N$, let $p_i$ be the minimal period of $x_i$ and, without loss, assume that $p_1\leq p_2\leq\cdots\leq p_N$. Define $n_1:=p_1$ and inductively define $n_2,n_3,\dots,n_s$ by $$n_{i+1}:=\min\{p_j\colon p_j>n_i\},$$ where $s$ is the number of steps before the construction terminates. Define $$m_i:=\vert\{j\colon p_j=n_i\}\vert.$$ Let $\varphi\in{{\rm Aut}}(X)$. Then for $1\leq i\leq s$, $\varphi$ induces a permutation on the set of periodic points of minimal period $n_i$. More precisely, for fixed $1\leq i\leq s$, we can define $\pi_i^{\varphi}\in S_{m_i}$ to be the permutation that sends $j\in\{1,2,\dots,m_i\}$ to the unique integer $k\in\{1,2,\dots,m_i\}$ such that $\varphi(x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+j})\in\mathcal{O}(x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+k})$. For $1\leq j\leq m_i$, choose $k_j^i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{n_i}$ such that $$\varphi(x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+j})=\sigma^{k_j^i}(x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+\pi_i^{\varphi}(j)}).$$ Then the map $$\varphi\mapsto(k_1^1,k_2^1,\dots,k_{m_1}^1,\pi_1^{\varphi},k_1^2,\dots,k_{m_2}^2,\pi_2^{\varphi},\dots,k_1^s,\dots,k_{m_s}^s,\pi_s^{\varphi})$$ is a homomorphism from ${{\rm Aut}}(X)$ to $S(n_1,m_1)\times\cdots\times S(n_s,m_s)$. The kernel of this map is trivial. To check that it is surjective, if $\pi_1,\dots,\pi_s$ are permutations ($\pi_i\in S_{m_i}$ for all $i$), then define $$\varphi_{\pi_1,\dots,\pi_s}(x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+j})=x_{m_1+\cdots+m_{i-1}+\pi_i(j)}$$ and extend this to an automorphism of $(X,\sigma)$. Similarly, for $1\leq i\leq N$, define $$\varphi_i(\sigma^k(x_j)):=\sigma^{k+\delta_{i,j}}(x_j),$$ where $\delta_{i,j}$ is the Kronecker delta. Note that each of these maps is given by a block code, where the range is the smallest $R$ such that $\sigma^R(x)=x$ for all $x\in X$. Taken together, this shows that the map $\phi$ is surjective and thus is an isomorphism.
Conversely, suppose that $n_1<\cdots<n_s$ are given and $m_1,\dots,m_s\in{\mathbb{N}}$. For $1\leq i\leq s$ and $1\leq j\leq m_i$, define $$x_{i,j}(k):=\begin{cases}
j & \text{ if }k\equiv0\text{ (mod $n_i$)}; \\
0 & \text{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Let $$X^{\prime}=\bigcup_{i=1}^s\bigcup_{j=1}^{n_i}x_{i,j}$$ and let $X$ be the closure of $X^{\prime}$ under $\sigma$. Then $X$ consists of periodic points, with precisely $m_i$ distinct orbits of minimal period $n_i$, for $1\leq i\leq s$. Thus $${{\rm Aut}}(X)\cong S(n_1,m_1)\times\cdots\times S(n_s,m_s). \hfill\qedhere$$
[**Acknowledgment**]{}: We thank Jim Davis for pointing us to reference [@SW].
[99]{} A unique ergodicity of minimal symbolic flows with linear block growth. [*Journal d’Analyse Math.*]{} [**44**]{}, no. 1 (1984) 77–96.
Periodic points and automorphisms of the shift. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**302**]{}, (1987) 125–149.
The automorphism group of a shift of finite type. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**306**]{}, no. 1, (1988) 71–114. Special factors of sequences with linear subword complexity. Developments in language theorem, II (Magdeburg, 1995), 25-34, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1996.
The automorphism group of s shift of subquadratic growth. arXiv:1403.0238.
The automorphism group of a coded system. [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**348**]{} (1996), no. 8, 3173–3191.
Endomorphisms and automorphisms of the shift dynamical system. [*Math. Systems Theory*]{} [**3**]{} (1969), 320–375.
On the automorphism groups of multidimensional shifts of finite type. [*Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems*]{} [**30**]{} (2010), no. 3, 809–840.
Automorphisms of the dimension group and gyration numbers. [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**5**]{} (1993), 191–212. Symbolic dynamics II. Sturmian trajectories. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**62**]{} (1940) 1–42. Endomorphisms of Sturmian systems and the discrete chair substitution tiling system. [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.*]{} [**33**]{} (2013), no. 9, 4173–4186.
Some remarks on the characters of the symmetric group II. [*Can. J. Math.*]{} [**6**]{} (1954) 511–521.
Block Maps between Primitive Uniform and Pisot Substitutions. arXiv:1306.3777.
Topological methods in group theory. Homological group theory (Proc. Sympos., Durham, 1977), pp. 137Ð203, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., [**36**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge-New York, 1979.
Automorphisms of $Z^d$-subshifts of finite type. [*Indag. Math. (N.S.)*]{} [**5**]{} (1994), no. 4, 495–504.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Beginning with the data of a quiver $Q$, and its dimension vector ${{\bf d}}$, we construct an algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q={\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, which is a flat $q$-deformation of the algebra of differential operators on the affine space ${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$. The algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is equivariant for an action by a product of quantum general linear groups, acting by conjugation at each vertex. We construct a quantum moment map for this action, and subsequently define the Hamiltonian reduction $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ with moment parameter $\lambda$. We show that $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ is a flat formal deformation of Lusztig’s quiver varieties, and their multiplicative counterparts, for all dimension vectors satisfying a flatness condition of Crawley-Boevey: indeed the product on $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ yields a Fedosov quantization the of symplectic structure on multiplicative quiver varieties. As an application, we give a description of the category of representations of the spherical double affine Hecke algebra of type $A_{n-1}$, and its generalization constructed by Etingof, Oblomkov, and Rains, in terms of a quotient of the category of equivariant ${\mathcal{D}}_q$-modules by a Serre sub-category of aspherical modules.'
author:
- David Jordan
title: Quantized Multiplicative Quiver Varieties
---
Introduction
============
Let us consider a reductive algebraic group $G$, with Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. Central to the representation theory of $G$ is the following organizing diamond:
$$\label{Uqdiag}\xymatrix{ & U_q(\mathfrak{g}) \ar@{~>}[dl]_{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize quasi-classical }}} \ar@{~>}[dr]^{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize classical}}} & \\
U(\mathfrak{g}) \ar@{~>}[dr]_{\underset{\textrm{graded}}{\textrm{\scriptsize associated }}} && O(G) \ar@{~>}[dl]^{\underset{\textrm{degeneration}}{\textrm{\scriptsize rational }}}\\\
& S(\mathfrak{g}) & }$$
The quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ (more precisely, its locally finite subalgebra $U'_q(\mathfrak{g})$) depends on a quantum parameter $q$, as well as a Rees parameter $t$; degenerating $q$ and $t$ appropriately, we can recover either the universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$, or the coordinate algebra $O(G)$ of the group $G$. The main idea of this thesis is to apply the same organizing diamond to the algebro-geometric constructions surrounding representations of quivers, with the end-goal of producing a new quantization of the coordinate algebra of a multiplicative quiver variety.
Let $Q=(V,E)$ denote a connected quiver, with vertex set $V$, and directed edge set $E$. For $e\in E$, let $\alpha=\alpha(e)$ and $\beta=\beta(e)$ denote the tail and head of $e$, respectively. Fix a function ${{\bf d}}:V\to{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, v\mapsto d_v$ (called a dimension vector), and consider the following affine variety and affine algebraic group, respectively: $${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{{\bf d}}}(Q):=\prod_{e\in E} {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta}), \,\,\, \mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}:=\prod_{v\in V} GL({\mathbb{C}}^{d_v}).$$ We let $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ act on $X\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ by change of basis at each vertex, $$(g.X)_e:= g_{\beta(e)} X_e g_{\alpha(e)}^{-1}.$$ The doubled quiver $\overline{Q}=(V,\overline{E}=E\cup E^\vee)$ is built from $Q$ by adding an adjoint arrow , for each $e\in E$. We have canonical isomorphisms, $$T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta})\cong {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta}) \times {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha}),$$ with the standard symplectic pairing given by: $$(X,Y)={\text{tr}\,}(X_eY_{e^\vee}-Y_eX_{e^\vee}).$$ Taken together, these give an identification $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)\cong{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q})$.
The construction of multiplicative quiver varieties involves a certain open subset $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ$ defined by a non-degeneracy condition, while the construction of quantized quiver varieties involves the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ of polynomial differential operators on ${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$, a quantization of the the symplectic structure on $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$. We begin by seeking an algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, situated as follows: $$\label{Dqdiag}\xymatrix@!C@C=-15pt@R=40pt{ & \mathcal{D}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)) \ar@{~>}[dl]_{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize quasi-classical }}} \ar@{~>}[dr]^{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize classical}}} & \\
{\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)) \ar@{~>}[dr]_{\underset{\textrm{graded}}{\textrm{\scriptsize associated }}} && {\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ) \ar@{~>}[dl]^{\underset{\textrm{degeneration}}{\textrm{\scriptsize rational }}}\\\
& {\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)) & }$$ That is, the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q=\mathcal{D}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ that we construct depends on a parameter $q$, as well as a Rees parameter $t$; by degenerating $q$ and $t$ appropriately, we can recover either the algebra $D({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ or $O(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ)$. We give a straightforward presentation of ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ by generators and relations, and show that it admits a PBW basis of ordered monomials analogous to the usual basis of ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$.
There is more than simply an analogy between the diagrams and : indeed each vertex of receives a “moment map" from the corresponding vertex of . We briefly recall each of these maps here, directing the reader to Section \[prelims\] for further details.
Recall that the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ on $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ is Hamiltonian; on the level of coordinate algebras, this means we have a $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-equivariant homomorphism, $$\mu^\#:S({\mathfrak{g}})\to {\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)),$$ of Poisson algebras, inducing the $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-action, via the Poisson bracket. Likewise, there is a quantized moment map, a $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-equivariant homomorphism, $$\hat\mu^\#:U(\mathfrak{g})\to{\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)),$$ of algebras, inducing the $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-action by via the Lie bracket. Finally, the “group-valued" moment map for the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ on $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ$ is, on the level of coordinate algebras, a $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-equivariant homomorphism, $$\widetilde{\mu}^\#:{\mathcal{O}}(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}})\to{\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ)$$ of quasi-Poisson algebras, which again induces the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ on $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ$.
In Section \[q-moment\], we construct an equivariant homomorphism, $$\mu_q^\#: U'_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})\to{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)),$$ which is a quantum moment map in the sense of [@L], [@VV]: the action of $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$ on ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is given by a variant of the adjoint action. Each of these moment maps is compatible with the simultaneous degenerations of source and target; we can express these relationships in the following diagram (we abbreviate $X={\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$): $$\label{muqdiag}
\xymatrix@!C@=10pt{ & U_q(\mathfrak{g}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{~>}[dl]\ar@{~>}[dddd] \ar@{->}[rr]^{\mu^\#_q}&&\mathcal{D}_q(X) \ar@{~>}[dl] \ar@{~>}[dddd]&\\
U(\mathfrak{g}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{~>}[dddd] \ar@{->}[rr]^{\phantom{===}\hat\mu^\#}&& {\mathcal{D}}(X) \ar@{~>}[dddd]&&\\
&&&&\\
&&&&\\
&O(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{~>}[dl] \ar@{->}[rr]^{\widetilde{\mu}^\#\phantom{==}}|{\phantom{=}} &&O(T^*X^\circ) \ar@{~>}[dl]\\
S(\mathfrak{g}^{{\bf d}})\ar@{->}[rr]^{\mu^\#} &&O(T^*X) &}$$ Each of these moment maps allows us to construct the so-called “Hamiltonian reduction" of the target algebra with respect to a character of the source algebra. The reduction of $O(T^*X)$ by $\mu^\#$ at a central coadjoint orbit $\lambda$ yields the algebra $\Gamma(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q),{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)})$ of global sections of structure sheaf of the quiver variety $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ constructed by Lusztig. Likewise, the reduction of $O(T^*X^\circ)$ by $\widetilde{\mu}^\#$ at a central adjoint orbit $\xi$ of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ yields the algebra $\Gamma(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q),{\mathcal{O}}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)})$ of global sections of the structure sheaf on the multiplicative quiver variety $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ constructed by Crawley-Boevey and Shaw [@C-BS]. The quantized Hamiltonian reduction of ${\mathcal{D}}(X)$ by $\hat\mu^\#$ at a character of $U({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$ yields the a quantization $\widehat{\Gamma}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q), {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)})$ of the symplectic structure on $\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}$. Finally, the quantum Hamiltonian reduction of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(X)$ by $\mu^\#_q$ at a character $\xi$ of $U'_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$ is a new algebra, which we denote $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$. We obtain the following organizing diamond, echoing , : $$\label{Addiag}\xymatrix@!C@C=-15pt@R=40pt{ & A_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q) \ar@{~>}[dl]_{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize quasi-classical }}} \ar@{~>}[dr]^{\underset{\textrm{limit $q\to 1$}}{\textrm{\scriptsize classical}}} & \\
\widehat{\Gamma}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q), {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)}) \ar@{~>}[dr]_{\underset{\textrm{graded}}{\textrm{\scriptsize associated }}} && \Gamma(\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q),{\mathcal{O}}_{\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)}) \ar@{~>}[dl]^{\underset{\textrm{degeneration}}{\textrm{\scriptsize rational }}}\\\
& \Gamma(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q),{\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)}) & }$$ The construction of the algebra $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$, and enumeration of its basic properties, is the primary focus of the this paper. At the end, we discuss degenerations, and give an application to the representation theory of the spherical double affine Hecke algebra of type $A_n$, and those associated to star-shaped quivers.
Outline of results {#sec:IntRes}
------------------
In Section \[construction\], beginning with the data of a quiver $Q$ and its dimension vector ${{\bf d}}$, we construct an algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q={\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. The algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is a braided tensor product of the algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ associated to each edge $e$ of $Q$, while each ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ is a straightforward $q$-deformation of the Weyl algebra associated to the standard affine space ${\operatorname{Mat}}(d_\alpha,d_\beta)$. The relations of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ are given in a formal way designed to make their equivariance properties evident; the reader interested in a hands-on, RTT-type presentation can skip ahead to Sections \[RTTsec1\] and \[RTTsec2\].
Our first theorem is Theorem \[flatness\], which states that the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is a flat $q$-deformation of the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}(\operatorname{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ of differential operators on the matrix space of the quiver $Q$. Our proof is modeled on Theorem 1.5 of [@GZ], and consists of constructing an explicit PBW basis of ordered monomials, which clearly deforms the usual basis of ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. The defining relations for ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ in examples related to quantum groups are similar to the $FRT$-construction of quantum coordinate algebras, and are also closely related to the algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q(GL_N)$ of quantum differential operators on $GL_N$, which have been studied by many authors. In Sections \[RTTsec1\] and \[RTTsec2\], we list out the relations in detail for these examples of interest, and explain their relation to known constructions.
The algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ possesses certain elements $\operatorname{det}_q(e)$, for each edge $e\in E$, which conjugate standard monomials in ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ by powers of $q$ (the proof of this assertion is delayed until Section 4, Corollaries \[qcentral\] and \[oreset\]). We therefore localize ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ at the multiplicative Ore set generated by these $q$-determinants, to obtain an algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q^\circ$, in which certain quantum matrices become invertible.
In Section \[q-Fourier\], we construct a $q$-analog, $\mathcal{F}$, of the classical Fourier transform map on the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, which allows us to prove the independence of ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ on the orientation of $Q$. Our main results in this section are Definition-Propositions \[gencasenoloop\] and \[gencaseloop\], where $\mathcal{F}$ is defined explicitly on generators; necessary relations are checked directly. As a warmup, we work out one-dimensional examples in Definition-Propositions \[easycasenoloop\] and \[easycaseloop\], whose proofs foreshadow the general one.
In Section \[q-moment\], we define a $q$-deformed, braided analog $\mu_q^\#$ of the multiplicative moment map underlying relation . We subsequently define an analog of Hamiltonian reduction in this context, which is closely related to Lu’s notion [@L] for Hopf algebras, and is also inspired by the quantum moment maps appearing in [@VV]. The output of this Hamiltonian reduction is an algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$, which $q$-quantizes the space $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$. The main results of Section 6 are Definition-Propositions \[momentalpha\] and \[momentbeta\], and Propositions \[mommap\] and \[mommaploop\], in which the moment map is defined, and the moment map condition is verified.
In Section \[degeneration\], we consider relations between the algebra $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ and well-known constructions in representation theory - specifically quiver varieties and spherical double affine Hecke algebras. To begin, we study flatness properties of $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ as the parameter $q$ varies. While the flatness of the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is proven directly, the flatness of the algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ is considerably more subtle. This is because the argument we give for ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ relies upon the existence of a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-grading with finite dimensional graded components; this grading does not descend to $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$.
For this reason, we restrict ourselves to situations where the classical moment map $\mu$ is flat (as in Theorem \[CBflat\]), and we consider the question of formal flatness of $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$. That is, we set $q=e^\hbar$, and consider the algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ and $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$, moment map $\mu_q$, and Hamiltonian reduction $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ all in the category of ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-modules. We prove that $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ is a topologically free ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-module, so that the deformation is flat in the formal neighborhood of $q=1$.
Next, we address the question: what algebra does $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ deform? In answering this question, we must explain that there is a unifier in the construction of $\mu_q^\#$, and in its simultaneous relation to (classical, multiplicative, and quantized) moment maps $\mu$. Recall the two variations of Hamiltonian reduction in classical geometry: “quantized Hamiltonian reduction" and “quasi-Hamiltonian reduction". In the former, the moment map is a homomorphism of algebras $$\widehat{\mu}^\#: U({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})\to {\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)),$$ while in the latter, we have a morphism of varieties $\widetilde{\mu}: T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ \to \mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$, or equivalently a map of algebras $$\widetilde{\mu}^\#:{\mathcal{O}}(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}})\to {\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ).$$ In classical geometry, there are analogies between these moment maps, but not a precise connection. We will see that the map $\mu_q^\#$ bears a precise relationship to both maps $\widetilde{\mu}^\#$ and $\widehat{\mu}^\#$, under degeneration.
Recall that the Hopf algebra $U=U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$ has a large co-ideal subalgebra $U'$, consisting of the elements which are locally finite under the adjoint action of $U$ on itself (see [@JL] for details, and for the sense in which $U'$ is “large"). The homomorphism $\mu_q^\#$ maps out of $U'$, and is a $q$-deformed quantum moment map, as considered by Lu [@L] and [@VV]. On the other hand, we have Majid’s covariantized coordinate algebra $A_q(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}})$, a flat deformation of $O(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}})$, and we have the Rosso isomorphism $\kappa: A_q(G)\overset{\sim}{\rightarrow} U'$ (see [@Ma]). Thus, we may also view $\mu_q^\#$ as a quantization of the group-valued moment map underlying equation . We summarize these relationships in the following diagram: $$\xymatrix{ {\mathcal{O}}(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{->}[d]_{\mu^\#}& \ar@{~>}[l]^{q\to 1} A_q(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{<->}[r]_{\kappa}^{\sim} \ar@{->}[d]_{\mu^\#_q}& U'_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}}) \ar@{->}[d]_{\mu^\#_q} \ar@{~>}[r]_{q\to 1} & U({\mathfrak{g}}) \ar@{->}[d]_{\widehat{\mu}}
\\ {\mathcal{O}}(\mathrm{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ)&\ar@{~>}[l]^{\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,q\to 1} {\mathcal{D}}_q \ar@{=}[r]& {\mathcal{D}}_q \ar@{~>}[r]_{q\to 1\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,}& {\mathcal{D}}(\mathrm{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q}))}$$ Thus, taking quasi-Hamiltonian reduction along $\mu^\#$, $q$-deformed quantum Hamiltonian reduction along $\mu_q^\#$, and quantum Hamiltonian reduction along $\widehat{\mu}$, we have the “commutative diagram" of deformations and degenerations of the corresponding Hamiltonian reductions.
As an application, we show in Theorem \[AnDAHA\] that the algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ is isomorphic to the spherical DAHA of type $A_n$, when $Q$ and $d$ are the Calogero-Moser quiver and dimension vector: $$(Q,d)= \overset{1}{\bullet}\rightarrow\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}},$$ which allows us to give a new description of the representation category of the spherical DAHA as a quotient of the category of equivariant ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$-modules by a certain Serre subcategory of aspherical modules. This assertion follows from generalities about flat deformations, together with the fact that the spherical DAHA is the universal deformation of the corresponding rational Cherednik algebra, which itself may be built by quantum Hamiltonian reduction from $\widehat{\Gamma}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q), {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)})$. In fact, because we have restricted to formal parameters $q=e^\hbar$, this result is not very valuable, as the spherical DAHA is actually a trivial deformation over ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$ of the spherical rational Cherednik algebra. However, we expect this isomorphism to hold also numerically, for generic $q$ and $\lambda$.
Likewise, if $Q$ is a so-called star-shaped quiver (meaning all vertices are uni- or bi-valent, except for a single vertex, called the node) we have an isomorphism between $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ and the generalized spherical DAHA, defined in [@EOR]. Star-shaped quivers play a central role in the approach to the Deligne-Simpson problem in [@C-B2], [@C-BS]. These applications suggest that the algebras $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$ may be viewed as further generalizations of the (spherical) DAHA, to an arbitrary quiver $Q$.
Future directions
-----------------
One motivation of this work is to extend the unifying structure of quivers to a myriad of constructions in “quantum" algebraic geometry, such as quantum planes, and their $q$-Weyl algebras, FRT algebras, reflection equation algebras, differential operator algebras on quantum groups, and perhaps most importantly, double affine Hecke algebras.
In particular, for certain explicit quivers and parameters, we are able to identify our algebras $A_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)$ with spherical double affine Hecke algebras of type $A$, and also with generalized double affine Hecke algebras associated to star-shaped quivers (see Example \[starexample\]). We anticipate relations with Gan-Ginzburg algebras [@GG1], as $q$-deformations of Montarani’s constructions [@Mo], which relate symplectic reflection algebras to $D$-modules on quivers. Given the ubiquity of quiver formalism in Lie theory, we expect to be able to apply our deformation procedure in a wide class of examples to obtain deformations of Lie theoretic objects.
When the quantum parameter $q$ is a non-trivial root of unity, the algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ and their reductions $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ obtain large “$q$-centers;” in simple examples, ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is Azumaya over its $q$-center, which turns out to be identified with $O(T^*X^\circ)$. In such examples, the algebra $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ is Azumaya over its $q$-center, which is identified with the corresponding multiplicative quiver variety. We intend to explore this property in general, and thus obtain a second “quasi-classical" degeneration of our algebra, analogous to the well-known “$p$-center" phenomenon for varieties in characteristic $p$.
More generally, we hope to combine the techniques of [@J] with the new examples constucted herein to produce representations of braid groups of punctured, Riemann surfaces of higher genus.
Acknowledgments
---------------
I am very grateful to Pavel Etingof and Kobi Kremnizer, for proposing this line of research, and for innumerable helpful conversations and suggestions throughout my time at MIT; this project would have proceeded nowhere without their guidance. In particular, the definition of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ for non-loops $e$ contained herein was essentially proposed to me by Kobi Kremnizer, who also conjectured a flatness result along the lines of Theorem \[flatness\]. I am grateful to Pavel Etingof for patient explanations about the flatness and degeneration arguments in Section \[flatness-sec\]. I would also like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Adrien Brochier and Damien Calaque, during which a variation of the homomorphism of Definition-Proposition \[gencaseloop\] was discovered. I am grateful to Ivan Losev for a careful reading of a previous draft, which has greatly improved the exposition.
Preliminaries {#prelims}
=============
Moduli spaces of quiver representations
---------------------------------------
Let $Q=(V,E)$ denote a connected quiver, with vertex set $V$, and directed edge set $E$. For $e\in E$, let $\alpha=\alpha(e)$ and $\beta=\beta(e)$ denote the tail and head of $e$, respectively. The subject of much study is the category ${\text{Rep}}\, Q$, of representations of $Q$. An object $X$ of ${\text{Rep}}\,Q$ is an assignment of a finite dimensional vector space $X_v$ over ${\mathbb{C}}$ to each $v\in V$, and a linear operator $X_e: X_{\alpha}\to X_{\beta}$ to each $e \in E$. A morphism $\phi$ between $X$ and $Y$ is a collection of linear maps $X_v\to Y_v$, which satisfy $Y_e\circ\phi_\alpha=\phi_\beta\circ X_e$, for all $e\in E$.
Fix a function ${{\bf d}}:V\to{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, v\mapsto d_v$ (called a dimension vector), and consider the following affine variety and affine algebraic group, respectively:
$${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{{\bf d}}}(Q):=\prod_{e\in E} {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta}), \,\,\, \mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}:=\prod_{v\in V} GL({\mathbb{C}}^{d_v}).$$ We let $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ act on $M\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ by change of basis at each vertex, $$(g.M)_e:= g_{\beta(e)} M_e g_{\alpha(e)}^{-1}.$$
Many important applications of the representation theory of quivers involve the doubled quiver $\overline{Q}=(V,\overline{E}=E\cup E^\vee)$, built from $Q$ by adding an adjoint arrow , for each $e\in E$. We have canonical isomorphisms, $$T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta})\cong {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta}) \times {\operatorname{Mat}}({\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta},{\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha}),$$ with the standard symplectic pairing given by: $$(M,N)={\text{tr}\,}(M_eN_{e^\vee}-N_eM_{e^\vee}).$$ Taken together, these give an identification $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}Q\cong{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}\overline{Q}$. Clearly, $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$ acts by symplectomorphisms; moreover, the action admits a moment map: $$\glossary{$\mu$}\mu: {\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q})\to {\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}},$$ $$M\mapsto\sum_{e\in E}[M_e,M_{e^\vee}],$$ where we set ${\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}}:=\operatorname{Lie}(\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}})$. Thus we may construct the Hamiltonian reduction along $\mu^{-1}(0)$: $$\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}(Q):= {\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q}){\Big/\hspace{-5pt}\Big/}_{\mu,0} \mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}},$$ a Poisson affine algebraic variety. That is, we first impose the condition on $M\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q})$ that: $$\label{ppa}\sum_{e\in E} [M_e, M_{e^\vee}] = 0,$$ and we then take the categorical quotient of the subvariety of such $M$ by the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$. On the level of coordinate functions, we have: $${\mathcal{O}}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}(Q)):=\left(\mathcal{A} \Big / \mathcal{A}\mu^\#({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})\right)^{\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}},$$ where $\mathcal{A}={\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$.
Deformed pre-projective algebras
--------------------------------
The *preprojective algebra*, $\Pi_0(Q)$ of $Q$ [@GP], is the quotient of the path algebra ${\mathbb{C}}\overline{Q}$ by relation, $$\sum_{e\in E} [e,e^\vee] =0,$$ corresponding to equation . The variety $\mathcal{M}^{\mathbf{0}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ may thus be interpreted as a moduli space of ${{\bf d}}$-dimensional semi-simple representations of $\Pi_0(Q)$. More generally, given a vector $\lambda: V\to {\mathbb{C}}$, we may construct the Hamiltonian reduction $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$ along $\mu^{-1}(\sum \lambda_v {\operatorname{id}}_v)$. That is, we first impose the condition on $M\in {\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ that: $$\sum_{e\in E} [M_e,M_{e^{\vee}}] = \sum_{v}\lambda_v{\operatorname{id}}_v,\label{dppa}$$ and then take the categorical quotient of the subvariety of such $M$ by the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$. We assume that $\lambda\cdot d=0$, as otherwise equation implies that $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$ is empty. The *deformed pre-projective algebras*, $\Pi_\lambda(Q)$, were constructed by Crawley-Boevey and Holland in [@C-BH], and have since received wide attention. These algebras are quotients of the path algebra ${\mathbb{C}}\overline{Q}$ by the relation $$\sum_{e\in E} [e,e^\vee] = \sum_{v\in V} \lambda_v \iota_v,$$ corresponding to equation . The variety $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$ may be interpreted as a moduli space of semi-simple representations of $\Pi_\lambda(Q)$.
In the present work, we will be concerned with certain flat non-commutative deformations of the variety $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$. The flatness of our deformations depends, in turn, on the flatness of the classical moment map $\mu$. Fortunately, there is a completely explicit criterion for the flatness of $\mu$, due to Crawley-Boevey. Let $A$ denote the Cartan matrix associated to $Q$, and let $p:{\mathbb{Z}}^V\to{\mathbb{C}}$ denote the function: $$p(d):= 1 - \frac12(d,Ad) = 1+ \sum_{e\in E}d_{\alpha(e)}d_{\beta(e)} - \sum_{v\in V}d_v^2.$$ We have:
[@C-B1]\[CBflat\] The following are equivalent:
1. $\mu$ is a flat morphism of algebraic varieties.
2. $\mu^{-1}(0)$ has dimension $(d,d)-1+2p(d)$.
3. $p(d)\geq \sum_ip(r_i)$, for any decomposition $d=\sum_ir_i$ into positive roots $r_i$.
Moreover, if it happens that $d$ satisfies the strict inequality in (3) for all possible non-trivial decompositions $d=\sum_ir_i$ into positive roots $r_i$, then it is shown in [@C-BEG], Theorem 11.3.1, that the fibers, $\mu^{-1}(\sum_{v}\lambda_v{\operatorname{id}}_v)$, are all reduced and irreducible complete intersections. In this case, $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$ coincides with its smooth resolution for generic $\lambda$, and in particular, both are actually affine.
For Dynkin quivers $Q$, Theorem \[CBflat\] asserts that $\mu$ is flat if and only if ${{\bf d}}$ is a positive root for $Q$; in this case the classical Hamiltonian reduction is zero-dimensional, so these are not interesting examples from the point of view of deformation theory.
For affine Dynkin quivers $Q$, let $\delta$ denote the positive generator of the imaginary root lattice. In this case, Theorem \[CBflat\] asserts that $\mu$ is flat in one of two cases: when ${{\bf d}}=r_i + \delta$, for a root $r_i$ of the ordinary Dynkin quiver associated to $Q$, or when ${{\bf d}}=\delta$. In the former case, the classical Hamiltonian reduction is zero-dimensional, while in the latter case it is two-dimensional, and gives the Kleinian singularity associated with $Q$.
The most interesting examples come from quivers $Q$, which are neither of Dynkin nor affine-Dynkin type. For such quivers, it is shown in [@C-BEG], Lemma 11.3.3, that the strict version of condition (3) above is satisfied by a Zariski-dense set $\Sigma_0$ of dimension vectors ${{\bf d}}\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^V$. Thus, such $Q$ produce a rich family of examples of flat Hamiltonian reductions of positive dimension. Of particular interest are the so-called “Calogero-Moser" quivers obtained by adding a “base" vertex $\tilde{v}$ to an affine Dynkin quiver, whose unique edge connects it to the extending vertex. In this case, the dimension vector $n\delta + \tilde{v}$ satisfies the strict version of condition (3) in Theorem \[CBflat\] for any $n \geq 0$.
Multiplicative deformed pre-projective algebras
-----------------------------------------------
The deformed pre-projective algebra admits a multiplicative deformation, which may be described as follows. Extend $e\mapsto e^\vee$ to an involution on $\overline{E}$, by setting $e^{\vee\vee}:=e$, and define $\epsilon(e)=1$, if $e\in E$, $-1$ else. We choose an ordering on the edges $e\in \overline{E}$, and a function $\xi:V\to{\mathbb{C}}^\times$. First, we restrict our attention to the set $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ$ of $X\in T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)\cong{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(\overline{Q})$ such that, for each $e\in \overline{E}$, the matrices $({\operatorname{id}}_\alpha + X_{e^\vee}X_e)$ are invertible. Further, we impose the following restriction, which is a multiplicative version of equation [^1]: $$\label{mdppa}\overrightarrow{\prod_{e\in \overline{E}}} ({\operatorname{id}}_\alpha + M_{e^\vee}M_e)^{\epsilon(e)}= \sum \xi_v{\operatorname{id}}_v.$$ Taking the categorical quotient by the action of $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$, we obtain the space $\widetilde{\mathcal{M}}_{{\bf d}}^\xi$, which again has an interpretation as moduli of ${{\bf d}}$-dimensional semi-simple representations for a certain localization of ${\mathbb{C}}\overline{Q}$, known as the multiplicative deformed pre-projective algebra. As has been noted in [@C-BS] and [@VdB1; @VdB2], the variety $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{{\bf d}}^\xi$ is in fact an instance of quasi-Hamiltonian reduction along a “group-valued” moment map, $$\widetilde{\mu}:T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)^\circ\to\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$$ $$X \mapsto \overrightarrow{\prod_{e\in E}}({\operatorname{id}}_\alpha + X_{e^\vee}X_e)^{\epsilon(e)},$$ with respect to the central element $(\xi_v{\operatorname{id}}_v)_{v\in V}\in\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$. Quasi-Hamiltonian reduction is a multiplicative analog of Hamiltonian reduction, as defined by Alekseev and Kosmann-Schwarzbach in [@AK-S]. See also [@AMM], [@AK-SM], for foundational development of quasi-Poisson geometry, and group-valued moment maps.
Quantized quiver varieties
--------------------------
Finally, there is a quantization of the variety $\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$ [@GG2], which involves replacing the cotangent bundle to ${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ with its quantization, the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ of differential operators. The algebra ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ quantizes the symplectic form on $T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)$, and one constructs its quantum Hamiltonian reduction $\widehat{\Gamma}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q), {\mathcal{O}}_{\mathcal{M}^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)})$ along the homomorphism, $$\widehat{\mu}^\#:U({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})\to {\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)),$$ $$X\in {\mathfrak{g}}\mapsto L_X,$$ where $L_X$ is the vector field generated by the action of $X$. The reduction is taken with repsect to a character $\lambda:U({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})\to{\mathbb{C}}$. For an exposition of quantum Hamiltonian reduction, see [@L]. For some applications, see [@E1], [@Mo].
The multiplicative Deligne-Simpson problem
------------------------------------------
The applications of quiver varieties and (multiplicative, deformed) pre-projective algebras to diverse areas of mathematics are too many to list here; as such we mention only one important application, due to Crawley-Boevey and Shaw [@C-BS]. Given conjugacy classes $C_1,\ldots,C_n\subset GL(V)$, the Deligne-Simpson problem asks when there exists an irreducible local system on $\mathbb{P}^1\backslash\{p_1,\ldots p_n\}$ with monodromy around each $p_i$ given by a matrix $A_i\in C_i$. Thus, the Deligne-Simpson problem concerns the classification of $n$-tuples of matrices $A_i\in C_i$ without common fixed subspace, satisfying: $$A_1\cdots A_n={\operatorname{id}},$$ up to simultaneous conjugation of the $A_i$.
Crawley-Boevey and Shaw were able to answer this question rather concretely in terms of the root data of a certain star-shaped quiver $Q$, which encodes the conjugacy classes $C_i$. They determine for which $Q$, with the relevant dimension vector ${{\bf d}}$, the variety $\widehat{\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^q}$ is non-empty and, in this case, what is its dimension. Still, the finer geometry of these varieties is not completely well-understood. The connection between multiplicative quiver varieties and fundamental groups of Riemann surfaces is a major motivation for the present work.
In particular, there is a well-known symplectic structure on the space of bundles with flat connections on a compact, closed oriented two-manifold with boundary of genus $g$. A quantization of this symplectic structure has been considered in [@FR], and constructed in [@RS]; our results provide another construction, and a generalization to arbitrary quivers.
Construction of ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ {#construction}
=============================================================================================================================
Discussion
----------
The constructions in this section are phrased in the language of braided tensor categories, while all that is essential for our primary example is a vector space $V$, the tensor flip $
\tau:v{\otimes}w\mapsto w{\otimes}v$, and a Hecke R-matrix, $R:V{\otimes}V\to V{\otimes}V$, satisfying the “quantum Yang Baxter" equation (QYBE), $$\tau_{12}R_{12}\tau_{23}R_{23}\tau_{12}R_{12} = \tau_{23}R_{23}\tau_{12}R_{12}\tau_{23}R_{23}:V{\otimes}V{\otimes}V \to V{\otimes}V{\otimes}V,$$ and the quadratic “Hecke" relations: $$\tau\circ R - R^{-1}\circ \tau = (q-q^{-1}){\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}.$$ There are nevertheless several practical reasons for adopting the tensor categorical formalism over the more concrete data of Hecke $R$-matrices.
First, when deforming algebras with geometrical significance, it is often not clear at the outset precisely how to proceed: the set of “bad" definitions is open dense in the space of all possible definitions. That is, given only the goal of producing some new algebra with similar generators and relations, which “degenerates" to the classical algebra when $q\to 1$, there is far too much flexibility, and many pathologies can arise (as regards flatness, zero-divisors, localizations, etc.). However, in the present work, we require that our algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ enjoy the following properties:
1. ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is a algebraically flat deformation of ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. This means we exhibit an explicit PBW-basis for ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ specializing to the standard monomials when $q=1$. This condition is much stronger than being formally flat.
2. ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ carries an action of the quantum group $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$, which quantizes $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$: $$U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}}):=\bigotimes_{v\in V} U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_v}).$$
3. There exists a “quantum moment map" $\mu_q^\#$, simultaneously quantizing and $q$-deforming the classical moment map $\mu$.
Requirements (1) and (2) suggest that the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ necessarily is an algebra in the braided tensor category ${\mathcal{C}}=U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$-lfmod of locally finite modules for $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$. This drastically restricts which sorts of algebras we may consider, namely to those whose generators and relations express as the image of morphisms in the braided tensor category ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Secondly, in condition (3), we require the moment map itself to be equivariant for the quantum group, which means that it is a homomorphism of algebras in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Since we wish the construction to be uniform for different dimension vectors ${{\bf d}}$, it is natural to allow ourselves only the axioms of a braided tensor category, together with the Hecke relation on the braiding. This turns out to be a useful restriction, as it narrows our focus sufficiently such that the “right" definitions are essentially the only ones we are able to write down.
A third practical benefit from working with braided tensor categories has already surfaced in [@J], [@JM], where we studied interplay between certain algebraic constructions in Lie theory and geometry of spaces of configurations of points on Riemann surfaces. These constructions are greatly clarified by the use of braided tensor categorical language and quantum groups, in the same way that the language of braided tensor categories clarifies the connections between quantum groups and knot invariants.
In addition to the practical motivations above, there are two more substantive motivations for working with braided tensor categories. The first is that there are more braided tensor categories besides $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$-lfmod that we can associate to $Q$. Two particularly tantalizing examples are:
1. Fusion categories associated to quantum groups at roots of unity
2. Deligne’s categories $U_q({\mathfrak{g}}_\nu)$-mod, where $\nu:V\to{\mathbb{C}}$ has as values arbitrary complex numbers, rather than positive integers.
We hope that the methods of this paper will go through in these settings more or less intact, which would open the door for connections to modular categories and invariants of links and knots on higher genus surfaces. The second motivation is related to the notion of a quasi-symmetric tensor category, which is a braided tensor category over ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$ such that the braiding satisfies: $$\sigma_{W,V}\sigma_{V,W}= {\operatorname{id}}_{V{\otimes}W} \mod \hbar.$$ It is well-known how to degenerate such categories into symmetric tensor categories. In case ${\mathcal{C}}$ is the representation category of a quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$, the first-order term in $\hbar$ often carries some interesting data for Lie theory: for instance, the first non-trivial term of $\sigma_{W,V}\sigma_{V,W}$ is essentially the Casimir operator $\Omega\in\operatorname{Sym}^2({\mathfrak{g}})^{\mathfrak{g}}$, while the first non-trivial term of the associator is the unique invariant alternating 3-form, $\phi\in\Lambda^3({\mathfrak{g}})^{\mathfrak{g}}$.
As an application of these ideas one can recover the axioms of quasi-Poisson geometry as first-order degenerations of the axioms for algebras in braided tensor categories. It is our hope that the axioms of “group-valued moment maps" can also be obtained as degenerations of the notion of quantum Hamiltonian reduction.
Reminders on braided tensor categories
--------------------------------------
In this section, we recall some basic constructions involving braided tensor categories, in order to fix notations. As such, we do not discuss all details, but only those we will use explicitly. For clarity’s sake, we supress instances of the associativity and unit isomorphisms in definitions and commutative diagrams, as they can be inserted uniquely, if necessary.
Recall that a tensor category is a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear abelian category ${\mathcal{D}}$, together with a biadditive functor, $${\otimes}: {\mathcal{D}}\times {\mathcal{D}}\to {\mathcal{D}},$$ linear on ${\operatorname{Hom}}$’s, together with a unit $\mathbf{1}\in{\mathcal{C}}$, associativity isomorphism $\alpha$, and unit isomorphisms. These are required to satisfy a well-known list of axioms, which we do not recall here. A tensor functor $F=(F,J)$ between tensor categories ${\mathcal{D}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_2$ is an exact functor $F:{\mathcal{D}}_1\to{\mathcal{D}}_2$ of underlying abelian categories, together with a functorial isomorphism, $$J:F(-){\otimes}F(-)\to F(-{\otimes}-),$$ respecting units and associators in the appropriate sense. The opposite tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}^{\vee}$ is the same underlying abelian category, with tensor product , and associator $\alpha^{-1}$. A braided tensor category is a tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}$, together with a natural isomorphism $\sigma:{\otimes}\to{\otimes}^{op},$ satisfying the so-called hexagon relations.
### Deligne’s external product of abelian categories {#extprod}
Recall that a ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear abelian category ${\mathcal{D}}$ is called *locally finite*, if all ${\operatorname{Hom}}$ spaces are finite dimensional, and every object $V\in{\mathcal{D}}$ has finite length. We use the symbol ${\boxtimes}$ to denote Deligne’s tensor product of locally finite categories (see, e.g. [@EGNO]). In this article, we will consider semisimple abelian categories; in this case, the external tensor product ${\mathcal{D}}_1{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}_2$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_2$ is just a semisimple abelian category with simple objects $X{\boxtimes}Y$, where $X$ and $Y$ are simples in ${\mathcal{D}}_1$, ${\mathcal{D}}_2$. External tensor products may be defined for non-semisimple categories - this will be needed when considering $q$ to be a root of unity - but we will not need them here.
Let $A$ be a (possibly infinite-dimensional) ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra. Then the category $A$-fmod of finite dimensional $A$-modules is a locally finite ${\mathbb{C}}$-linear abelian category. For two such algebras $A$ and $B$, we have a natural equivalence, $$A\textrm{-fmod}{\boxtimes}B\textrm{-fmod} \sim (A{\otimes}B)\textrm{-fmod}.$$ In all our examples the external tensor products of categories we consider are of this sort.
The Deligne tensor product ${\mathcal{D}}_1{\boxtimes}\cdots{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}_n$ of (braided) locally finite tensor categories is again a (braided) locally finite tensor category, with structure functors defined diagonally: we set ${\otimes}:={\otimes}_1{\boxtimes}\cdots{\boxtimes}{\otimes}_n$ (and $\sigma:=\sigma_1{\boxtimes}\cdots{\boxtimes}\sigma_n$).
Primary objects
---------------
In this section we construct the algebras ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ as algebras in a braided tensor category ${\mathcal{C}}$ associated to $Q$.
### Quiver notation {#sec:QuivNot}
We resume the notation for quivers from the Introduction. We choose, once and for all, an ordering on $\overline{E}=E\cup E^{\vee}$: we will emphasize dependence on this ordering in later definitions with an over-arrow decoration, e.g $\overrightarrow{\otimes}, \overrightarrow{\prod}$. For $v\in V$, we define $E^\alpha_v$ and $E^\beta_v$ as the subsets of non-loop edges $e\in E$ such that $\alpha(e)=v$ or $\beta(e)=v$, respectively; we define $E_v^\circ$ as the subset of self-loops based at $v$. Each obtains an induced ordering from $E$.
For each $v\in V$, we fix a locally finite braided tensor category ${\mathcal{C}}_v$, and a distinguished object $W_v\in{\mathcal{C}}_v$. This data we encode in the function ${{\bf d}}$, by defining ${{\bf d}}(v):=(W_v,{\mathcal{C}}_v)$. Thus, ${{\bf d}}$ is a generalized dimension vector, specifying which object is associated to each vertex.
We let ${\mathcal{C}}:={\underset{v\in V}{\boxtimes}}{\mathcal{C}}_v$, with tensor product and braiding defined diagonally. We regard any object $X_v\in {\mathcal{C}}_v$ as an object in ${\mathcal{C}}$ by putting the tensor unit $\mathbf{1}_w:=\mathbf{1}_{{\mathcal{C}}_w}$ in the omitted tensor components. Strictly speaking, ${\mathcal{C}}$ depends on an implicit choice of ordering on $V$; however the categories associated to different orderings are canonically equivalent by the obvious functors of transposition of factors; it is the ordering on edges which is more significant in these constructions.
### Defining relations
The defining relations for the algebras ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ are most naturally expressed as the image of certain canonical morphisms built from the braiding. We define those morphisms here for use later. For $e\in \overline{E}$, we let $\operatorname{Mat}(e):=W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\beta \in {\mathcal{C}}$. Choose a parameter $t\in{\mathbb{C}}$.
For $e\in E$ with $\alpha(e)\neq\beta(e)$, we define: $$R(e): W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\alpha^*{\boxtimes}W_\beta{\otimes}W_\beta \to \operatorname{Mat}(e){\otimes}\operatorname{Mat}(e),$$ $$R(e):=\sigma_{W_\alpha^*,W_\alpha^*} - \sigma_{W_\beta,W_\beta}.$$ $${S}(e,e^\vee):W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\alpha {\boxtimes}W_\beta^* {\otimes}W_\beta\to {\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee){\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus {\operatorname{Mat}}(e){\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee) \oplus {\mathbb{C}},$$ $$S(e,e^\vee):= \sigma_{W_\alpha^*,W_\alpha} - \sigma^{-1}_{W_\beta,W_\beta^*} - t\cdot({\operatorname{ev}}_{W_\alpha}{\boxtimes}{\operatorname{ev}}_{W_\beta}),$$ where $\alpha=\alpha(e)=\beta(e^\vee)$, $\beta=\beta(e)=\alpha(e^\vee)$.
For $e\in E$ with $\alpha(e)=\beta(e)$, we define: $$R(e): W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\alpha{\otimes}W_\alpha \to \operatorname{Mat}(e){\otimes}\operatorname{Mat}(e),$$ $$R(e):=\sigma_{W_\alpha,W_\alpha^*}^{-1}\circ(\sigma_{W_\alpha^*,W_\alpha^*} - \sigma_{W_\alpha,W_\alpha}).$$ $$S(e,e^\vee):W_\alpha^*{\otimes}W_\alpha^* {\otimes}W_\alpha {\otimes}W_\alpha\to {\operatorname{Mat}}(e){\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee) \oplus {\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee){\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}(e),$$ $$S(e,e^\vee):= \sigma^{-1}_{W_\alpha,W_\alpha^*}(\sigma_{W_\alpha,W_\alpha} - \sigma^{-1}_{W_\alpha^*,W_\alpha^*}).$$
Recall that, for any object $X$ in a tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}$, the tensor algebra, $$T(X):=\bigoplus_{k=0}^{\infty} X^{{\otimes}k}$$ is an naturally an algebra in ${\mathcal{D}}$. Given $Y\subset T(X)$, we let $\langle Y \rangle$ denote the two-sided ideal in $T(X)$ generated by $Y$.
For $e\in E$, we define the two-sided ideals: $$I(e):=\langle\operatorname{Im}R(e)\rangle \subset T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)),\,\, \textrm{and}$$ $$I(e,e^\vee):=\langle\operatorname{Im}S(e,e^\vee)\rangle\subset T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee)).$$
### The braided coordinate and differential operator algebras of $Q$
The edge coordinate algebra ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$ is the quotient of the tensor algebra $T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e))$ by its two-sided quadratic ideal $I(e)$.
\[bqca\]The braided quiver coordinate algebra ${\mathcal{O}}_q={\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the braided tensor product of algebras, $${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)):= \overrightarrow{\bigotimes_{e\in E}} {\mathcal{O}}_q(e).$$
The edge differential operator algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ is the quotient of the tensor algebra $T(\operatorname{Mat}(e)\oplus \operatorname{Mat}(e^\vee))$ by its two sided quadratic ideal $$\mathcal{I}:=I(e) + I(e^\vee) + I(e,e^\vee).$$
\[bqa\] The braided differential operator algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the braided tensor product of algebras, $${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)):= \overrightarrow{\bigotimes_{e\in E}} {\mathcal{D}}_q(e).$$
Recall that for the tensor product of algebras in a braided tensor category the component subalgebras do not commute trivially; rather, they commute by the braiding: $$\mu_{A{\otimes}B}:=(\mu_A{\otimes}\mu_B)\circ \sigma_{B,A}:A{\otimes}B{\otimes}A {\otimes}B \to A{\otimes}B.$$ Note, however, that edge algebras do commute trivially if they share no common vertex, since in this case they occupy distinct ${\boxtimes}$-components of ${\mathcal{C}}$. However, we have an isomorphism $A{\otimes}B\to B{\otimes}A$ of ${\mathcal{C}}$-algebras given by $\sigma_{B,A}^{-1}$; thus ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ are defined independently of the ordering of $v\in E$, up to isomorphism.
\[teq1\] The dependence on the parameter $t$ appearing in the definition of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_d(Q))$ is inessential in the following sense: for $t_1,t_2\neq 0$, the two algebras obtained by using $t_1$ or $t_2$ are isomorphic, by a simple rescaling of the generators (this phenomenon is common in the undeformed setting as well). Thus, to ease notation, we set $t=1$, for the remainder of the paper. The exception, however comes when we compute degenerations in Section \[sDAHA\], when we will work with formal power series in $\hbar$, and will set $t$ to $\hbar$, to compute the degeneration.
Quantum groups and an RTT-type presentation for ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ {#RTTpres}
=======================================================================================
In this section, we unfold the definitions of ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ in our primary examples of interest, namely those coming from ${\mathcal{C}}_v=U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_v})$-lfmod, so that ${\mathcal{C}}=U_q({\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}})$-lfmod. We will see that for certain simple quivers $Q$, ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ are related to well-known constructions in the theory of quantum groups. To begin, let us recall the quasi-triangular Hopf algebra $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_N)$. The discussion here has been adapted from [@JM], [@KS], where the relation to the Serre presentation is explained.
The $R$-matrix on ${\mathbb{C}}^N$
----------------------------------
We fix, for the remainder of this article, the following endomorphism $R$, of ${\mathbb{C}}^N{\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}^N$:
$$\label{eqn:R}\glossary{$R,R^{ij}_{kl}$}
R:= {q}\sum_{i}E_i^i\otimes E_i^i
+\sum_{i\neq j}E_i^i\otimes E_j^j+
({q}-{q}^{-1})\sum_{i>j}E_i^j\otimes E_j^i.$$
We note that $R$ satisfies the QYBE, and the Hecke condition from Section \[discussion\]. We define $R^{kl}_{ij},(R^{-1})^{kl}_{ij}\in{\mathbb{C}}$, for $i,j,k,l=1,\ldots,N$ by: $$\begin{aligned}
R(e_{i}\otimes e_{j})
=\sum_{k,l}R_{ij}^{kl}(e_{k}\otimes e_{l}),\quad
R^{-1}(e_{i}\otimes e_{j})
=\sum_{k,l}(R^{-1})_{ij}^{kl}(e_{k}\otimes e_{l}).\end{aligned}$$ We have: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{ij}_{kl} &= q^{\delta^i_j}\delta^i_k\delta^j_l + (q-q^{-1})\theta(i-j)\delta^i_l\delta^j_k,\\
(R^{-1})^{ij}_{kl}&= q^{-\delta^i_j}\delta^i_k\delta^j_l - (q-q^{-1})\theta(i-j)\delta^i_l\delta^j_k,
$$ where $\delta^i_j=1$ if $i=j, 0$ else, and $\theta(k)=1$ if $k>0, 0$ else.
The Drinfeld-Jimbo quantum group $U_{q}(\mathfrak{gl}_N)$ {#sec:QG}
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $\widetilde{U}$ denote the free algebra with generators $l^{+i}_j$, and $l^{-k}_l$, where $i,j,k,l=1\ldots N$. We organize the generators into matrices $L^+, L^-\in {\operatorname{Mat}}_N(\widetilde{U})\cong \widetilde{U}{\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}_N({\mathbb{C}})$:
$$L^+=\sum_{i,j} l^{+i}_j{\otimes}E^j_i, \quad L^-=\sum_{k,l}l^{-k}_l{\otimes}E^l_k.$$ For $M\in{\operatorname{Mat}}_N(\tilde{U})$, we define: $$M_1:=M{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}},\,\, M_2={\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}M \in {\operatorname{Mat}}_N(\tilde{U}){\otimes}{\operatorname{Mat}}_N(\tilde{U}).$$
The Drinfeld-Jimbo quantum group $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_N)$ is the quotient of $\widetilde{U}$ by the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
{\label{l-rel1}}
&L_{1}^{\pm}L_{2}^{\pm}R=RL_{2}^{\pm}L_{1}^{\pm}, \quad
L_{1}^{-}L_{2}^{+}R=RL_{2}^{+}L_{1}^{-},\\
{\label{l-rel2}}
&l_{i}^{+i}l_{i}^{-i}=l_{i}^{-i}l_{i}^{+i}=1, \quad i=1, \ldots, N,\\
{\label{l-rel3}}
&l^{+i}_j=l^{-j}_i=0, \quad i>j.\end{aligned}$$ $U$ is a Hopf algebra with the antipode $S$, coproduct $\Delta$ and counit $\epsilon$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
S(L^{\pm})=(L^{\pm})^{-1},\quad \Delta(l_{j}^{\pm i})=\sum_{k}l_{k}^{\pm i}\otimes l_{j}^{\pm k},\quad
\text{ and }\quad \epsilon(l_{j}^{\pm i})=\delta_{j}^i.\end{aligned}$$
Each of the relations in line above is actually an $N^2\times N^2$ matrix of relations. For instance equation asserts, for all $i,j,m,n\in 1\cdots N$, the relations: $$\sum_{k,l} l^{+i}_kl^{+j}_lR^{kl}_{mn} = \sum_{o,p} R^{ij}_{op}l^{+p}_ml^{+o}_n.$$ We shall use such notation frequently in this and future sections without further comment.
The vector representation $\rho: U \to \operatorname{End}(\mathbb{C}^{N})$ is defined on generators by: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{V}(l_{j}^{+i})=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}R_{\beta j}^{\alpha i}E_\alpha^\beta, \quad
\rho_{V}(l_{j}^{-i})=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}(R^{-1})^{i\alpha}_{j\beta}E_\alpha^\beta.\end{aligned}$$
The locally finite part $U'$ of $U$
-----------------------------------
The Hopf algebra $U$ acts on itself via the adjoint action: $$x \rhd y := x_{(1)}yS(x_{(2)}).$$
*The locally finite subalgebra* $U'$ is the subalgebra of $U$ of vectors which generate a finite dimensional vector space under the adjoint action.
We will make use of the following explicit description of $U'$. We define $\widetilde{l}^i_j\in U$ by $\widetilde{l}^i_{j} := \sum_k l^{+i}_{k}S(l^{-k}_{j})$. We define $\widetilde{L}:=L^+S(L^-)$, so that .
(see [@KS])\[lfdesc\]
1. $U'$ is generated by the $\widetilde{l}^i_{j}$, and the inverse $\operatorname{det}_q^{-1}=l^{-1}_{1}\ldots l^{-N}_{N}$ of the $q$-determinant.
2. $U'$ is a left co-ideal: we have $\Delta(U')\subset U{\otimes}U'$. The coproduct on $U'$ is given by: $$\Delta(\widetilde{l}^i_{j})=\sum_{s,t} l^{+i}_{s}S(l^{-t}_{k})\otimes \widetilde{l}^s_{t},\,\,\,\Delta(\operatorname{det}^{-1}_q)=\operatorname{det}^{-1}_q\otimes \operatorname{det}^{-1}_q$$
Let $U^+$ denote the subalgebra generated by the $\widetilde{l}^i_{j}$. Item (2) above implies that $U^+$ is a co-ideal subalgebra in $U'$.
Braided quiver coordinate algebra {#RTTsec1}
---------------------------------
Fix a quiver $Q=(V,E)$, and a dimension vector ${{\bf d}}:V\to{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$. We specialize ${\mathcal{C}}_v=U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_v})$-mod, with $W_v={\mathbb{C}}^{d_v},$ its defining representation. In this case, the matrix representation $(R^v)^{ij}_{kl}$ of the universal $R$-matrix is defined relative to the standard basis of ${\mathbb{C}}^{d_v}$, so that $\sigma_{W_v,W_v}(w_i{\otimes}w_j)=(R^v)^{kl}_{ij}w_l{\otimes}w_k$.
Recall that the identities $(S{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}})(R)=R^{-1}$ and $(S{\otimes}S)(R)=R$ imply the formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{W_v^*,W_v}(v^i{\otimes}v_j)&= \sum_{\alpha,\beta}(R^{-1})^{i\alpha}_{\beta j} v_\alpha{\otimes}v^\beta,\\
\sigma_{W_v,W_v^*}^{-1} (v^i{\otimes}v_j)&=\sum_{\alpha,\beta}R^{i\alpha}_{\beta j}v_\alpha{\otimes}v^\beta,\\
\sigma_{W_v^*,W_v^*}(v^i{\otimes}v^j) &= \sum_{\alpha,\beta}R^{ij}_{\alpha\beta} v^\beta{\otimes}v^\alpha.\\
$$ In the definitions to follow, we introduce the following four matrices (where the $a(e)^i_j$ are formal symbols):
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{RTTnot}R:= \sum_{i,j} R^{ij}_{kl}(E^k_i{\otimes}E^l_j),\quad R_{21}:= \sum_{i,j} R^{ji}_{lk}(E^k_i{\otimes}E^l_j),\\ A_1^e:=\sum_{ij} a(e)^i_j(E^j_i{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}), \quad A_2^e:=\sum_{ij} a(e)^i_j({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}E^j_i).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The following is a more concrete reformulation of Definition \[bqca\]:
\[RTTbqca\]The braided quiver coordinate algebra, ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, is the algebra generated by elements $a(e)^i_j$, for $e\in E$, $i=1,\ldots d_{\alpha(e)}$, and $j=1,\ldots,d_{\beta(e)}$, subject to:
1. Relations between generators on the same edge: $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{e}{\rightarrow}\overset{w}{\bullet}:&&
R^vA^e_2A^e_1&=A^e_1A^e_2R_{21}^w,\\
\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{e}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&& R^v_{21}A^e_1R^vA^e_2 &= A^e_2R_{21}^vA^e_1R^v,\end{aligned}$$
2. Relations between generators on distinct edges (assume $e<f$): $$\begin{aligned}
{\bullet}\overset{f}{\rightarrow}\bullet\quad\bullet\overset{e}{\rightarrow}{\bullet}:&& A^f_1A^e_2 &= A^e_2A^f_1\\
\overset{v}{\bullet}\underset{f}{\overset{e}{\rightrightarrows}}\overset{w}{\bullet}:&& A^f_1A^e_2 &= R^v A^e_2A^f_1R^w\\
\overset{v}{\bullet}\underset{f}{\overset{e}{\rightleftarrows}}\overset{w}{\bullet}:&&
A^f_1R^vA^e_2&=A^e_2(R^w)^{-1}A^f_1\\
{\bullet}\overset{e}{\rightarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{f}{\rightarrow}\bullet:&&
A^f_1A^e_2&= A^e_2(R^v)^{-1}A^f_1,\\
\bullet\overset{e}{\leftarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{f}{\leftarrow}\bullet:&&
A^f_1R^vA^e_2&=A^e_2A^f_1\\
{\bullet}\overset{e}{\rightarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{f}{\leftarrow}\bullet:&&
A^f_1A^e_2&=A^e_2A^f_1R^v\\
{\bullet}\overset{e}{\leftarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{f}{\rightarrow}\bullet:&&A^f_1A^e_2&=R^vA^e_2A^f_1,\\
\bullet \overset{e}{\rightarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet} \overset{f}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&&A^f_1A^e_2&=A^e_2(R^v)^{-1}A^f_1R^v\\
\bullet \overset{e}{\leftarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet} \overset{f}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&&A^f_1R^vA^e_2&=R^vA^e_2A^f_1\\
\bullet \overset{f}{\rightarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet} \overset{e}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&&A^f_1R^vA^e_2&=A^e_2A^f_1R^v\\
\bullet \overset{f}{\leftarrow}\overset{v}{\bullet} \overset{e}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&&A^f_1A^e_2&=R^vA^e_2(R^v)^{-1}A^f_1\\
\overset{e}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}\overset{v}{\bullet} \overset{f}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&&A^f_1R^vA^e_2(R^v)^{-1}&=R^vA^e_2(R^v)^{-1}A^f_1\\
$$
Braided quiver differential operator algebra {#RTTsec2}
--------------------------------------------
To the notation of equation , we add: $$D^e_1:= \sum_{k,l} \partial(e)^k_l(E^l_k{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}),\quad D^e_2:= \sum_{k,l} \partial(e)^k_l({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}E^l_k),\quad \Omega:=\sum_{i,j} E^i_j{\otimes}E^j_i.$$
The braided quiver differential operator algebra, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, is the algebra generated by elements $a(e)^i_j$ and $\partial(e)^k_l$, for $e\in E,$ with $i,l=1,\ldots,d_{\alpha(e)},$ and $j,k=1,\ldots, d_\beta(e)$, subject to:\[Dqdefn\]
1. The generators $a(e)^i_j$ satisfy the same relations amongst themselves as $a(e)^i_j$ in (1) and (2) of Definition \[RTTbqca\].
2. The generators $\partial(e)^k_l$ satisfy the same relations amongst themselves as $a(e^\vee)^k_l$ in (1) and (2) of Definition \[RTTbqca\].
3. For $e\neq f$, the generators $a(e)^i_j$ and $\partial(e)^k_l$ satisfy the same cross relations as $a(e)^i_j$ and $a(e^\vee)^k_l$, respectively in (2) of Definition \[RTTbqca\].
4. For generators $a(e)^i_j$ and $\partial(e)^k_l$ on the same edge, we have the cross relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{e}{\rightarrow}\overset{w}{\bullet}:&&
D^e_2(R^v)^{-1}A^e_1&=A^e_1R^wD^e_2 + \Omega,\\
\overset{v}{\bullet}\overset{e}{{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}}:&& R_{21}^vD^e_1R^vA^e_2 &= A^e_2R_{21}^vD^e_1(R_{21}^v)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$
Familiar examples
-----------------
Definition \[bqca\] encompasses many standard examples in the theory of quantum groups when applied to small quivers; these are illustrated below. To simplify notation, we do not specify ranges of free indices in equations, when the range is clear from context.
\[Kron\] The Kronecker quiver. Let $Q=\overset{\alpha}{\bullet}\xrightarrow{e}\overset{\beta}{\bullet}$. Choose dimensions $d_\alpha$, $d_\beta$ and let ${\mathcal{C}}_\alpha=U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_\alpha})$, and ${\mathcal{C}}_\beta=U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_\beta})$. Let $V_\alpha={\mathbb{C}}^{d_\alpha}$, $V_\beta={\mathbb{C}}^{d_\beta}$. Then ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free algebra with generators $a^i_j$, with $i=1,\ldots, d_\alpha,$ and $j=1,\ldots, d_\beta$, by the relations: $$\sum_{k,l}R^{ji}_{kl}a^l_ma^k_n=\sum_{k,l}a^j_l a^i_k R^{kl}_{mn},$$ or equivalently: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eFRT-relns}
a^i_ma^j_n &= q^{\delta_{mn}}a^j_na^i_m + \theta(m-n)(q-q^{-1})a^j_ma^i_n, &(i>j),\\
a^i_ma^i_n &= q^{-1}a^i_na^i_m, &(m>n).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free algebra with generators $a^i_j,\partial^k_l$ with $i, l=1,\ldots,d_\alpha,$ and $j,k=1,\ldots,d_\beta$, by the relations: $$\sum_{k,l}R^{ij}_{kl}a^l_ma^k_n=\sum_{k,l}a^i_la^j_kR^{kl}_{mn}, \quad \sum_{k,l}R^{ij}_{kl}\partial^l_m\partial^k_n=\sum_{k,l}\partial^i_l\partial^j_kR^{kl}_{mn}$$ $$\sum_{k,l}\partial^i_k (R^{-1})^{jk}_{lm}a^l_n = \sum_{k,l}a^j_k R^{ki}_{nl}\partial^l_m +q\delta^i_n\delta^j_m,$$
Equivalently, the generators $a^i_j$ and $\partial^k_l$ satisfy relations amongst themselves, and the cross relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^i_ma^j_n &= q^{\delta_{in}+\delta_{jm}}a^j_n\partial^i_m + \delta_{in}q^{\delta_{jm}}(q-q^{-1})\sum_{p>i}a^j_p\partial^p_m + \delta_{jm}(q^2-1)\sum_{p>j}\partial^i_pa^p_n + \delta_{in}\delta_{jm}\end{aligned}$$ We observe that ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ is the *equivariant FRT algebra* (see Proposition \[Oeflat\]), while ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is, apparently, new.
The quantum plane. Let $Q$ be the Kronecker quiver with $d_\alpha=1$, and $d_\beta=N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The defining representation for $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_1)$ has $R_{V,V}=q\in{\mathbb{C}}^\times$, so that setting $x_j:=a^1_j$, we have that ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is a quotient of the free algebra generated by $x_1,\ldots x_N$ by the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
x_ix_j&=q^{-1}x_{j}x_{i},& (i>j).\label{qplane}\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free algebra generated by $x_j,\partial^k$, with $j,k=1,\ldots, N$, by the relations , and: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial^i\partial^j&=q\partial^j\partial^{i},&(i>j)\\
\partial^ix_j &= qx_j\partial^i&(i\neq j).\\\end{aligned}$$ $$\partial^ix_i = q^2x_i\partial^i + (q^2-1)\sum_{k>i}x_k\partial^k +q.$$
In this case, the relations essentially reduce to the relations for the “quantum Weyl algebra" from [@GZ].
\[JordanQuiver\] The Jordan normal form quiver. Let $Q$ have a single vertex $v$, and loop $e:v\to v$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}=U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_N)$-mod, and $V={\mathbb{C}}^N$. Then ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free algebra with generators $a^i_j$, for $i,j=1,\ldots N$, with relations: $$\sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ji}_{kl}a^l_pR^{pk}_{mo}a^o_n = \sum_{p,q,s,t}a^j_pR^{pi}_{sq}a^q_tR^{ts}_{mn},$$ or equivalently: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OqJord}
\\
a^i_ma^j_n &= q^{\delta_{in}+\delta_{mn}-\delta_{mj}}a^j_na^i_m + q^{\delta_{im}-\delta_{jm}}(q-q^{-1})\theta(n-m)a^j_ma^i_n \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad(i>j)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} + q^{\delta_{mn}-\delta_{jm}}\delta_{in}(q-q^{-1})\sum_{p>i}a^j_pa^p_m - \delta_{mj}(1-q^{-2})\sum_{p>j}a^i_pa^p_n\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} + q^{-\delta_{jm}}\delta_{im}(q-q^{-1})^2\theta(n-m)\sum_{p>i}a^j_pa^p_n.\nonumber\\
a^i_ma^i_n &= q^{\delta_{in}-\delta_{im}-1}a^j_na^i_m + q^{-1-\delta_{jm}}\delta_{in}(q-q^{-1})\sum_{p>i}a^i_pa^p_m \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad (m>n)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Likewise, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free algebra with generators $a^i_j,\partial^k_l$, for $i,j,k,l=1,\ldots, N$, and relations: $$\sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ji}_{kl}a^l_pR^{pk}_{mo}a^o_n = \sum_{p,q,s,t}a^j_pR^{pi}_{sq}a^q_tR^{ts}_{mn},$$ $$\sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ji}_{kl}\partial^l_pR^{pk}_{mo}\partial^o_n = \sum_{p,q,s,t}\partial^j_pR^{pi}_{sq}\partial^q_tR^{ts}_{mn},$$ $$\sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ji}_{kl}\partial^l_pR^{pk}_{mo}a^o_n = \sum_{k,l,o,p}a^j_lR^{li}_{pk}\partial^k_o(R^{-1})^{po}_{nm}.$$ Equivalently, the $a^i_j$ and $\partial^i_j$ satisfy the relations amongst themselves, and the cross relations (for $i, j, m, n$ distinct): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DqJord}\\
\partial^i_ma^j_n &= q^{\delta_{i,n}-\delta_{m,n}-\delta_{m,j}-\delta_{i,j}}a^j_n\partial^i_m - \theta(j-i)q^{\delta_{i,m}-\delta_{m,j} -\delta_{i,j}}(q-q^{-1})\partial^j_ma^i_n\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} - \theta(m-n)(q-q^{-1})q^{\delta_{i,m}-\delta_{m,j}-\delta_{i,j}}a^j_m\partial^i_n
-(q-q^{-1})q^{\delta_{m,j}}\delta_{m,j}\sum_{p>k}\partial^i_pa^p_n\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} - (q-q^{-1})^2q^{-\delta_{m,j}-\delta_{i,j}}\delta_{i,m}\theta(j-i)\sum_{p>k}\partial^j_pa^p_n\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} - (q-q^{-1})q^{-\delta_{m,n}-\delta_{m,j}-\delta_{i,j}}\delta_{i,n}\sum_{p>i}a^j_p\partial^p_m\nonumber\\
&\phantom{===} + (q-q^{-1})^2q^{-\delta_{m,j}-\delta_{i,j}}\theta(m-n)\delta_{i,m}\sum_{p>i}a^j_p\partial^p_n\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
In this case, ${\mathcal{O}}_{q}$ is the well-known reflection equation algebra [@Do], [@Ma], [@Mu], while ${\mathcal{D}}_{q}$ is the algebra $\mathbb{D}^+$ of polynomial quantum differential operators on quantum $GL_n$, as studied in [@VV].
New examples
------------
New examples of interest are detailed below. For two ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebras $A, B$, we let $A\ast B$ denote their free product, and we use the notation $\displaystyle{\overset{\ast}{\prod_{i\in I}}A_i}$ for iterated free products.
The Calogero-Moser quiver. Let $Q$ and $d$ be the Calogero-Moser quiver and dimension vector, $(Q,d)= \overset{1}{\bullet}\rightarrow\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}$. Then ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free product, ${\mathcal{O}}_q(\overset{1}{\bullet}\rightarrow\overset{n}{\bullet}) \ast {\mathcal{O}}_q(\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}})$, by the relations: $$\sum_{k,l} x_k R^{k i}_{j l}a^l_m = \sum_{k,l} a^i_k x_l R^{l k}_{jm}.$$ Likewise, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free product, ${\mathcal{D}}_q(\overset{1}{\bullet}\rightarrow\overset{n}{\bullet}) \ast {\mathcal{D}}_q(\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}})$, by the relations: $$\sum_{k,l}x_k R^{k i}_{j l}a^l_m = \sum_{k,l}a^i_k x_l R^{l k}_{jm}, \quad
\sum_{k,l}x_k R^{k i}_{j l}\partial^l_m = \sum_{k,l}\partial^i_k x_l R^{l k}_{jm}$$ $$\partial^ia^j_m = \sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ij}_{kl}a^l_o(R^{-1})^{k o}_{p m} \partial^p, \quad
\partial^i\partial^j_m = \sum_{k,l,o,p}R^{ij}_{kl}\partial^l_o(R^{-1})^{k o}_{p m} \partial^p$$
\[starexample\] Star shaped quiver. Let $Q$ be the star-shaped quiver, with legs of length $l_1,\ldots,l_m$, and with nodal vertex $v_0$. We adopt the following labelling convention on $Q$. The vertex set of $Q$ is: $$V:=\{v_{\alpha\beta}\,\,|\,\,\alpha=1, \ldots, m,\,\beta=0, \ldots l_i\},$$where each $v_{\alpha\beta}$ is on the $\alpha$th leg, at a distance of $\beta$ edges from the node, and $v_0=v_{\alpha,0}$, for all $\alpha=1\,\ldots, m$. The edge set of $Q$ is: $$E:=\{e_{\alpha,\beta}:v_{\alpha,\beta+1}\to v_{\alpha,\beta}\,\,|\,\,\alpha=1,\ldots m, \beta=0,\ldots, l_\alpha-1\}.$$ The labelling is depicted below:
$$\xymatrix{ & \ar@{->}[ddl]_{e_{10}} v_{1,1} & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{11}} \cdots & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{1,l_1-1}} v_{1,l_1}\\
& \ar@{->}[dl]^{e_{20}} v_{2,1} & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{21}} \cdots & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{2,l_2-1}} v_{2,l_2}\\
v_0 & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
& \ar@{->}[ul]_{e_{m0}} v_{m,1} & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{m1}} \cdots & \ar@{->}[l]_{e_{m,l_m-1}} v_{m,l_m}}$$
We choose for the ordering on the edges the natural lexicographic ordering on the indices. We set $d_v=1$ for all $v\neq v_0$, and $d_{v_0}=n$; we call such ${{\bf d}}$ the Calogero-moser dimension vector for $Q$. By Example \[Kron\], for $\alpha=1,\ldots m$, $\beta=1\ldots l_i-1$, each edge algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e_{ij})$ has two generators, which we denote $x_{\alpha}$ and $\partial_{\beta}$. Likewise, each edge algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e_{i,0})$ has $2n$ generators, which we denote $y_{\alpha1}, \ldots, y_{\alpha n}$, $\xi_\alpha^1, \ldots, \xi_\alpha^n$. Then, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the quotient of the free product, $\displaystyle{\overset{\ast}{\prod_{e_{\alpha\beta}\in E}}{\mathcal{D}}_q({\bullet}\xrightarrow{e_{\alpha\beta}}\bullet)},$ by the relations that all generators without a common vertex commute, and cross-relations on the remaining edges: $$x_{\alpha,\beta-1}x_{\alpha\beta}=qx_{\alpha\beta}x_{\alpha,\beta-1},\quad \partial_{\alpha,\beta-1}\partial_{\alpha\beta}=q^{-1}\partial_{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha,\beta-1}$$ $$\partial_{\alpha\beta}x_{\alpha,\beta-1}=qx_{\alpha,\beta-1}\partial_{\alpha\beta},\quad
x_{\alpha\beta}\partial_{\alpha,\beta-1}=q^{-1}\partial_{\alpha,\beta-1}x_{\alpha\beta},$$ $$y_{\beta i}y_{\alpha j} = \sum_{k,l}y_{\alpha k}y_{\beta l}R^{lk}_{ij},\quad\xi^i_\beta \xi^j_\alpha = \sum_{k,l} R^{ij}_{kl}\xi^l_\beta \xi^k_\beta, \quad (\textrm{for } \alpha<\beta),$$ $$\xi^i_\alpha y_{\beta j}=\sum_{k,l}y_{\beta k}R^{ki}_{jl}\xi_\alpha^l,\quad \xi_\beta^iy_{\alpha j} = \sum_{k,l} y_{\alpha k} (R^{-1})^{ik}_{lj}\xi_\beta^l.$$
It has been suggested to us by B. Webster that the case when $Q$ is arbitrary non-Dynkin, but $d_v=1$ for all $v$ should yield quantizations of hypertoric varieties associated to $Q$. We hope to study such examples in the future.
Monomial notation
-----------------
In order to denote monomials in the generators of ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$, we introduce the following shorthand. Let $I$ be an ordered list of triples $I=(e_i\in E, m_i\in\{1,\ldots d_{\alpha(e)}\},n_i\in\{1,\ldots,d_\beta(e)\})_i$, and $J$ an ordered list of triples $J=(f_i\in E^\vee,o_i\in \{1,\ldots d_{\beta(e)}\},p_i\in\{1,\ldots,d_\alpha(e)\})_i$, we denote the products $$\begin{aligned}
a_I&:=a(e_{1})^{m_1}_{n_1}\cdots a(e_k)^{m_k}_{n_k}\\
\partial_J&:=\partial(f_1)^{o_1}_{p_1}\cdots \partial(f_l)^{o_l}_{p_l}.\end{aligned}$$ When there is no risk of confusion, we omit the specification of the edge in the notation (e.g, we write $a^i_j$ instead of $a(e)^i_j$). The list $I$ will be said to be ordered, if for all $i<j$, either $e_i<e_j$. or $e_i=e_j$ and $m_i<m_j$, or $e_i=e_j,m_i=m_j$ and $n_i\leq n_j$. Likewise the list $J$ will be said to be ordered, if for all $i<j$, either $f_i<f_j$. or $f_i=f_j$ and $o_i<o_j$, or $f_i=f_j,o_i=o_j$ and $p_i\leq p_j$. Monomials $a_I\partial_J$, for $I,J$ ordered, will be called *standard monomials*.
Flatness of the algebras ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ {#flatness-section}
================================================================
In the present section, we prove that the algebras ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ constructed in previous sections are flat noncommutative deformations of their classical counterparts, the algebras ${\mathcal{O}}(\operatorname{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ and ${\mathcal{D}}(\operatorname{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. More precisely, we show that the set of standard monomials form a basis of ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$.
\[Oeflat\] We have the following descriptions for ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$:
1. If $\alpha(e)\neq \beta(e)$, then $O_q(e)$ is twist equivalent to the FRT algebra via the tensor equivalence $\sigma{\boxtimes}{\operatorname{id}}:{\mathcal{C}}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{C}}\to{\mathcal{C}}^{\vee}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{C}}$.
2. If $\alpha(e)=\beta(e)$, then $O_q(e)$ is isomorphic to the reflection equation algebra.
The ${\mathcal{C}}^{\vee}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{C}}$-algebra ${\mathcal{O}}'_q(e)$, twist-equivalent to ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$, has the same underlying vector space as ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$, with multiplication given by $m':=m\circ (R^{-1}{\boxtimes}{\operatorname{id}}),$ where $m$ denotes the product in ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$. In particular, ${\mathcal{O}}'_q(e)$ is generated by elements $\tilde{a}^i_j$, $i=1,\ldots, n, j=1,\ldots, m$, with relations: $$R^{ij}_{op}\tilde{a}^o_m\tilde{a}^p_n=a^i_ma^j_n=(R^{ji}_{op})^{-1}a^o_ka^p_lR^{lk}_{mn}=\tilde{a}^j_k\tilde{a}^i_lR^{lk}_{mn},$$ which are the relations of the FRT algebra. On the other hand if $\alpha=\beta$, we have seen in Example \[JordanQuiver\] that we recover the relations of the reflection equation algebra.
${\mathcal{O}}_q$ is defined as a braided tensor product of the edge algebras ${\mathcal{O}}_q(e)$, which are flat by Proposition \[Oeflat\], together with the well-known flatness of the FRT and RE algebras (see, e.g. [@KS]). More precisely, we have:
The algebra ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ is a flat deformation of the algebra ${\mathcal{O}}(\operatorname{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. A basis of ${\mathcal{O}}_q$ is given by the set of standard monomials $a_I$.
In fact, the analogous statement holds for ${\mathcal{D}}_q$, as well. The proof is modeled on the proof of Theorem 1.5 of [@GZ], which is a special case. We have:
The algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is a flat deformation of the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}(\operatorname{Mat}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. A basis of ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is given by the set of standard monomials $a_I$, $\partial_J$. \[flatness\]
Since we have defined ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ as a braided tensor product of its edge algebras, we need only to prove flatness for each edge algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$. By Theorem \[Oeflat\], it suffices to prove that ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)\cong {\mathcal{O}}_q(e){\otimes}{\mathcal{O}}_q(e^\vee)$, as a vector space. We make use of the following lemma, which generalizes [@GZ], Lemma 1.6.
In the tensor algebra $T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus {\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))$, we have the following containments:
1. $T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee)) I(e) \subset I(e) T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee)) + I(e,e^\vee)$.
2. $I(e^\vee)T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)) \subset T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e))I(e^\vee) +I(e,e^\vee)$.
We prove (1) by direct computation; (2) then follows by a similar proof, due to the symmetry in the definition of $I(e,e^\vee)$. For the first claim, it suffices to show that, for all $o,p,i,j,m,n$, we have $$\partial^o_p(R^{ij}_{kl}a^l_ma^k_n-a^i_la^j_kR^{kl}_{mn})\in I(e)T(e^\vee) + I(e,e^\vee).$$ This is equivalent to showing that $A^{suo}_{nmv}\in I(e)T(e^\vee) + I(e,e^\vee)$, for all $u,s,o,v,m,n$, where: $$A^{suo}_{nmv}:=(R^{-1})^{ut}_{jv}(R^{-1})^{sp}_{it}\partial^o_p(R^{ij}_{kl}a^l_ma^k_n-a^i_la^j_kR^{kl}_{mn}),$$ as these differ by an invertible linear transformation, and so generate the same subspace. We let $$\begin{aligned}
A & := \sum_{u,s,o,v,m,n} A^{suo}_{nmv}(E^n_s {\otimes}E^m_u {\otimes}E^v_o)\\
&= D_3R^{-1}_{13}R^{-1}_{23}R_{12}A_2A_1 - D_3R^{-1}_{13}R^{-1}_{23}A_1A_2R_{21},\end{aligned}$$ in the notation of Section \[sec:QG\], so that the matrix coefficients of $A$ are precisely the $A^{suo}_{nmv}$. We compute: $$\begin{aligned}
A &= D_3\underbrace{R^{-1}_{13}R^{-1}_{23}R_{12}}_{QYBE}A_2A_1 - \underbrace{D_3R^{-1}_{13}A_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)}R^{-1}_{23}A_2R_{21}\\
&= R_{12}\underbrace{D_3R^{-1}_{23}A_2}_{I(e,e^\vee)}R^{-1}_{13}A_1 - A_1R_{13}\underbrace{D_3R^{-1}_{23}A_2}_{I(e,e^\vee)}R_{21} - \Omega_{13} R^{-1}_{23}A_2R_{21}\\
&= R_{12}A_2R_{23}\underbrace{D_3R^{-1}_{13}A_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)} + R_{12}\Omega_{23} R^{-1}_{13}A_1 - A_1A_2\underbrace{R_{13}R_{23}R_{21}}_{QYBE}D_3\\
&\phantom{===} - A_1R_{13}\Omega_{23}R_{21} - \Omega_{13}R^{-1}_{23}A_2R_{21}\\
&= R_{12}A_2A_1R_{23}R_{13}D_3 + R_{12}A_2R_{23}\Omega_{13} + \underbrace{R_{12}\Omega_{23} R^{-1}_{13}}_{\textrm{cancel inv.}}A_1 - A_1A_2R_{21}R_{23}R_{13}D_3\\
&\phantom{===} - A_1R_{13}\Omega_{23}R_{21} - \Omega_{13}R^{-1}_{23}A_2R_{21}\\
&= (R_{12}A_2A_1 - A_1A_2R_{21})R_{23}R_{13}D_3 + \underbrace{(R_{12}-R_{21}^{-1})}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}}A_2R_{23}\Omega_{13} + \Omega_{23}A_1\\
&\phantom{===} - A_1R_{13}\Omega_{23}R_{21}\\
&= (R_{12}A_2A_1 - A_1A_2R_{21})R_{23}R_{13}D_3 + (q-q^{-1})\Omega_{12}A_2R_{23}\Omega_{13} + \Omega_{23}A_1\\
&\phantom{===} - A_1R_{13}\Omega_{23}R_{21}\\
&= (R_{12}A_2A_1 - A_1A_2R_{21})R_{23}R_{13}D_3\\
&\phantom{===} A_1\Omega_{23}\underbrace{((q-q^{-1})R_{12}\Omega_{12} + 1
- R_{12}R_{21})}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}}\\
&= (R_{12}A_2A_1 - A_1A_2R_{21})R_{23}R_{13}D_3.\\\end{aligned}$$ Comparing matrix coefficients, the above reads: $$A^{suo}_{nmv} =R^{kl}_{nj}R^{io}_{ml}(R^{su}_{pa}a^a_ia^p_k - a^s_pa^u_t R^{tp}_{ik}) \partial^j_v \subset I(e)O_{e^\vee},$$ as claimed.
To finish the proof of the theorem, we first observe that , where . Every element of $S$ can be uniquely reduced to a sum $\sum C_{IJ} a_I\partial_J$, where $C_{IJ}\in{\mathbb{C}}$, by relations $I(e,e^\vee)$, by straightforward application of the diamond lemma. Thus the multiplication $m:T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)){\otimes}T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee)) \to S$ is a linear isomorphism. By the lemma, the two-sided ideal $\langle I(e){\otimes}1 + 1{\otimes}I(e^\vee)\rangle\subset S$ lies in the image under $m$ of the linear subspace $I(e){\otimes}T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))+ T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)){\otimes}I(e^\vee)$, which implies that $$m:T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e))/I(e){\otimes}T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))/I(e^\vee)\to {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$$ is a linear isomorphism, as desired.
The identification ${\mathcal{O}}_q\cong {\mathcal{D}}_q/(\sum_{e\in E}{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee)){\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ as objects of ${\mathcal{C}}$ makes ${\mathcal{O}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ a ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$-module in ${\mathcal{C}}$, $q$-deforming the usual $\mathbb{G}^{{\bf d}}$-equivariant action of ${\mathcal{D}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ on ${\mathcal{O}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$.
Independence of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ on the orientation of $Q$ {#q-Fourier}
==============================================================================================
The algebra of differential operators on a finite dimensional vector space, $V=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_n\rangle$ with dual basis $V^*=\langle f_1,\ldots, f_n\rangle$, has a Fourier transform automorphism $\mathcal{F}$, induced by the symplectomorphism on the symplectic vector space $V\oplus V^*$, $e_i \mapsto f_i$, $f_i\mapsto -e_i$. In this section we show that a certain localization ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$ of the edge differential operator algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ admit analogous isomorphisms, which may be extended to (a localization ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_d(Q))^\circ$ of) ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_d(Q))$, by the identity on the other ${\mathcal{D}}_q(f)$ subalgebras. In particular, this implies that the algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ does not depend on the orientation of $Q$, up to isomorphism. The results of this section should also be compared to Section 2 of [@C-BS], of which they are a quantization.
Braided Fourier transform on ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ when $e$ is not a loop
------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Easy case:
$e=\overset{1}{\bullet}\to \overset{1}{\bullet}$. We work this example out for the sake of clarity, before considering the general situation. In this case, we have:
$${\mathcal{D}}_q(e) = {\mathbb{C}}\langle\partial,a\rangle \Big/ \langle \partial q^{-1} a = aq\partial + 1\rangle.$$
We introduce the elements: $$g^\alpha:=(1+(q-q^{-1})\partial a), \quad g^\beta:=(1+(q-q^{-1})a\partial).$$
We have the relations:
1. $g^\alpha \partial = \partial g^\beta$,
2. $g^\beta a = a g^\alpha$,
3. $g^\alpha a = q^2a g^\alpha$,
4. $g^\alpha\partial = q^{-2} \partial g^\alpha.$
Items (1) and (2) are self-evident. For (3), we compute: $$\begin{aligned}
g^\alpha a &= (1+(q-q^{-1})\partial a) a\\
&= (1 + (q-q^{-1})(q^2 a\partial + q))a\\
&= q^2(1+(q-q^{-1})a\partial)a\\
&= q^2a(1+(q-q^{-1})\partial a)\\
&=q^2a g^\alpha,\end{aligned}$$ as desired. The computation for (4) is similar to (3).
We note in passing that (3) and (4) are special cases of Corollary \[qcentral\], which is proven independently.
We let ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$ denote the non-commutative localization of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ at the multiplicative Ore set $S:=\{g_\alpha^kg_\beta^l \,\, | \,\, k,l\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\}$.
\[easycasenoloop\]There exists a unique isomorphism: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}: {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ\to{\mathcal{D}}_q({e^\vee})^\circ,\\
a \mapsto \partial,\quad \partial \mapsto -ag_\alpha^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly we have a homomorphism $\mathcal{F}: T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus {\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))\to {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$ given on generators as above. We have only to check that the relations defining ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ are mapped to zero by $\mathcal{F}$. We compute: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(\partial q^{-1} a - aq\partial - 1) &= -ag_\alpha^{-1}q^{-1}\partial +\partial q a g_\alpha^{-1} - 1\\
&= -qa\partial g_\alpha^{-1} + q\partial a g_\alpha^{-1} - 1\\
&= q(\partial a - a\partial)g_\alpha^{-1}- 1\\
&= (1+(q-q^{-1})\partial a)g_\alpha^{-1} - 1 =0,\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
### General case:
$e=\overset{n}{\bullet}\to \overset{m}{\bullet}$. Following the notation of Section \[RTTpres\] equation , we introduce the matrices: $$g^\alpha:=(I + (q-q^{-1})DA), \quad g^\beta:=(I+(q-q^{-1})AD).$$
\[manyrelns\] We have the relations:
1. $g^\alpha D = D g^\beta$,
2. $g^\beta A = A g^\alpha$,
3. $g^\alpha_1R^\beta D_2 = (R^\beta)_{21}^{-1}D_2g^\alpha_1,$
4. $g^\beta_1(R^\alpha)_{21}^{-1}A_2 = R^\alpha A_2g^\beta_1$,
5. $g^\beta_1D_2R^\alpha_{21} = D_2(R^\alpha)^{-1}g^\beta_1,$
6. $g^\alpha_1 A_2(R^{\beta})^{-1} = A_2 R^\beta_{21}g^\alpha_1,$
7. $g^\beta_1g^\alpha_2 = g^\alpha_2 g^\beta_1$.
Items (1) and (2) are self-evident. For (3), we compute:
$$\begin{aligned}
g^\alpha_1 R^\beta D_2 &= (I+ (q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)R^\beta D_2\\
&= R^\beta D_2+ (q-q^{-1})D_1D_2(R^{\alpha})^{-1}A_1 - (q-q^{-1})D_1\Omega\\
&= R^\beta D_2 + (q-q^{-1})(R^\beta)_{21}^{-1}D_2D_1A_1 - (q-q^{-1})D_1\Omega\\
&= (R^\beta-(q-q^{-1})\Omega^\beta)D_2 + (q-q^{-1})(R^\beta)_{21}^{-1}D_2D_1A_1\\
&= (R^\beta)_{21}^{-1}D_2(I+(q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)\\
&= (R^\beta)_{21}^{-1}D_2 g^\alpha_1.\end{aligned}$$
Similar computations prove (4)-(6). For (7), we compute:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{[g_1^\beta,g_2^\alpha]}{(q-q^{-1})^{2}} &= A_2D_2D_1A_1 - D_1A_1A_2D_2\\
&= A_2R_{21}^\beta \underbrace{(R^\beta)_{21}^{-1} D_2D_1}_{I(e^\vee)}A_1 - D_1A_1A_2D_2\\
&= \underbrace{A_2R_{21}^\beta D_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)}\underbrace{D_2 (R^\alpha)^{-1}A_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)} - D_1A_1A_2D_2\\
&= (D_1(R^\alpha)_{21}^{-1}A_2 -\Omega)( A_1R^\beta D_2 + \Omega) -D_1A_1A_2D_2\\
&= \underbrace{D_1(R^\alpha)_{21}^{-1}A_2A_1R^\beta D_2}_{\textrm{cancel this}} - \Omega A_1R^\beta D_2 + D_1(R^\alpha)_{21}^{-1}A_2\Omega - 1 - \underbrace{D_1A_1A_2D_2}_{\textrm{with this}}\\
&= \Omega(D_2(R^\alpha)^{-1}A_1 -A_1R^\beta D_2 - \Omega)\\
&=0.\end{aligned}$$
We let ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$ denote the non-commutative localization of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ at the quantum determinant $\det_q$ of the matrices $g_\alpha$ and $g_\beta$.
In Section \[q-moment\], Corollary \[qcentral\] (which is independent of the present section), we prove that the powers of $\det_q$ form a multiplicative Ore set in ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$, so that the localization is straightforward to construct (in particular, ${\mathcal{D}}^\circ_q(e)$ gives rise to a flat deformation of the localized cotangent bundle to ${\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(e)$, which appears in [@C-BS].
\[gencasenoloop\] There exists a unique isomorphism: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}: {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ \to {\mathcal{D}}_q(e^\vee)^\circ,\\
A\mapsto D, D\mapsto -A(g^{\alpha(e^\vee)})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly we have a homomorphism $\mathcal{F}:T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))\to {\mathcal{D}}(e)^\circ$ given on generators by the above formula. We have to check that the relations defining ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ are mapped to zero by $\mathcal{F}$. In the formulas below, for each edge $e\in E$, and its adjoint edge $e^\vee \in E^\vee,$ we abbreviate $\alpha=\alpha(e)=\beta(e^\vee)=\beta^\vee$, $\beta=\beta(e)=\alpha(e^\vee)=\alpha^\vee$. We first compute the image of the relations between the $a(e)^i_j$:
$$\mathcal{F}(R^\alpha A_2A_1 - A_1A_2R^\beta_{21}) = R^{\beta^\vee} D_2D_1 - D_1D_2 R_{21}^{\alpha^\vee} = 0.$$
Next, we compute the image of the relations between the $\partial(e)^i_j$:
$$\begin{aligned}
S&:=\mathcal{F}(R^\beta D_2D_1 - D_1D_2 R^\alpha_{21})\\
&=R^{\alpha^\vee} \underbrace{A_2(g^{\alpha^\vee}_2)^{-1}}_{\textrm{\ref{manyrelns} (2)}}A_1(g^{\alpha^\vee}_1)^{-1} - A_1(g^{\alpha^\vee}_1)^{-1}\underbrace{A_2(g^{\alpha^\vee}_2)^{-1}}_{\textrm{\ref{manyrelns} (2)}}R_{21}^{\beta^\vee}\\
&=R^{\alpha^\vee} (g^{\beta^\vee}_2)^{-1}\underbrace{A_2A_1}_{I(e)}(g^{\alpha^\vee}_1)^{-1} - A_1(g^{\alpha^\vee}_1)^{-1}(g^{\beta^\vee}_2)^{-1}A_2 R_{21}^{\beta^\vee}\\
&=\underbrace{R^{\alpha^\vee} (g^{\beta^\vee}_2)^{-1}R^{\alpha^\vee}_{21}A_1}_{\ref{manyrelns}\, (5)}\underbrace{A_2(R^{\beta^\vee})^{-1} (g^{\alpha^\vee}_1)^{-1}}_{\ref{manyrelns}\,(6)} - A_1(g^{\beta^\vee}_1)^{-1}(g^{\alpha^\vee}_2)^{-1}A_2 R_{21}^{\beta^\vee}\\
&=A_1g_2^{-1}g_1^{-1}A_2R^\alpha_{21} - A_1g_1^{-1}g_2^{-1}A_2 R_{21}^{\alpha}\\
&=0, \end{aligned}$$
by part (7) of Proposition \[manyrelns\]. Finally, to compute the image, $\mathcal{F}(D_2R^{-1}A_1-A_1RD_2 - \Omega)$, of the cross relations, we flip tensor factors, and compute: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(D_1(R_{21})^{-1}A_2-A_2R_{21}D_1 - \Omega)
&=-A_1\underbrace{g_1^{-1}R_{21}^{-1}D_2}_{\ref{manyrelns}\,(3)} + D_2R_{21}A_1g_1^{-1} - \Omega\\
&= (D_2R_{21}A_1-\underbrace{A_1RD_2}_{I(e,e^\vee)})g_1^{-1} - \Omega\\
&= (\Omega + D_2(\underbrace{R_{21}-R^{-1}}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}})A_1)g_1^{-1} - \Omega\\
&= (\Omega + D_2(q-q^{-1})\Omega A_1)g_1^{-1} - \Omega\\
&=\Omega\left((I+(q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)g_1^{-1} - I\right)\\
&=0,\end{aligned}$$ by definition of $g_1$.
Braided Fourier transform on ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ when $e$ is a loop
--------------------------------------------------------------------
### Easy case:
$e=\overset{1}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}$. We again consider the $d_v=1$ case first for the sake of clarity, before moving on to the general situation. In this case, we have: $$D_q(e)={\mathbb{C}}\langle \partial, a\rangle \Big/ \langle a\partial = q^2\partial a\rangle.$$
We let $D_q(e)^\circ$ denote the noncommutative localization at the multiplicative Ore set $S:=\{a^k\partial^l \,\,|\,\, k,l\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\}$.
\[easycaseloop\] There exists a unique homomorphism: $$\mathcal{F}:D_q(e)^\circ \to D_q(e^\vee)^\circ,$$ $$a \mapsto \partial, \partial\mapsto \partial a^{-1}\partial^{-1}.$$ Moreover, $\mathcal{F}$ is an isomorphism.
Clearly we have a homomorphism $\mathcal{F}:T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))\to {\mathcal{D}}(e)^\circ$ given on generators by the formulas above. We have to check that the relations defining ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ are mapped to zero by $\mathcal{F}$. We compute:
$$\mathcal{F}(a\partial - q^2\partial a) = \partial(\partial a^{-1}\partial^{-1}) - q^2 (\partial a^{-1} \partial^{-1})\partial= q^2\partial a^{-1}-q^2\partial a^{-1}=0.$$
### General case:
$e=\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}$.
We let $D_q(e)^\circ$ denote the non-commutative localization at the quantum determinant $\operatorname{det}_q$ of the matrices $D$ and $A$.
It is well-known that the powers of $\operatorname{det}_q$ form a multiplicative Ore set in ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$, so that the localization is straightforward.
\[gencaseloop\] There exists a unique isomorphism: $$\mathcal{F}: {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ\to{\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ,$$ $$A \mapsto D, D\mapsto DA^{-1}D^{-1}.$$
Clearly we have a homomorphism $\mathcal{F}:T({\operatorname{Mat}}(e)\oplus{\operatorname{Mat}}(e^\vee))\to {\mathcal{D}}(e)^\circ$ given on generators by the formulas above. We have to check that the relations defining ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ are mapped to zero by $\mathcal{F}$. Clearly the relations between the $a(e)^i_j$ are sent to zero, as $\mathcal{F}(A)=D$ still satisfies the reflection equations. We compute the image of the relations between the $\partial(e)^i_j$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(D_2R_{21}D_1R) &= D_2A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}R_{21}D_1A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}R\\
&= D_2A_2^{-1}\underbrace{D_2^{-1}R_{21}D_1R}_{I(e^\vee)}R^{-1}A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}R\\
&= D_2\underbrace{A_2^{-1}R_{21}D_1R}_{I(e,e^\vee)}\underbrace{D_2^{-1}R^{-1}A_1^{-1}}_{I(e,e^\vee)}D_1^{-1}R\\
&= D_2R_{21}D_1\underbrace{R_{21}^{-1}A_2^{-1}R^{-1}A_1^{-1}}_{I(e)}\underbrace{R_{21}^{-1}D_2^{-1}R^{-1}D_1^{-1}R}_{I(e^\vee)}\\
&= \underbrace{D_2R_{21}D_1R}_{I(e^\vee)}R^{-1}A_1^{-1}\underbrace{R_{21}^{-1}A_2^{-1}R^{-1}D_1^{-1}R_{21}^{-1}}_{I(e,e^\vee)}D_2^{-1}\\
&= R_{21}D_1\underbrace{RD_2R^{-1}A_1^{-1}}_{I(e,e\vee)}D_1^{-1}R_{21}^{-1}A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}\\
&= R_{21}D_1A_1^{-1}\underbrace{R_{12}D_2R_{21}D_1^{-1}R_{21}^{-1}}_{I(e^\vee)}A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}\\
&= R_{21}D_1A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}R_{12}D_2A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}\\
&= \mathcal{F}(R_{21}D_1RD_2).\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we compute the image of the cross relations. We find: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}(A_1RD_2)
&=\underbrace{D_1R D_2}_{I(e^\vee)}A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}\\
&=R D_2\underbrace{RD_1R^{-1}A_2^{-1}}_{I(e,e^\vee)}D_2^{-1}\\
&=R D_2A_2^{-1}\underbrace{R_{21}D_1RD_2^{-1}}_{I(e,e^\vee)}\\
&=R D_2A_2^{-1}D_2^{-1}R_{21}D_1R\\
&= \mathcal{F}(RD_2R_{21}A_1R).\end{aligned}$$
Independence of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))^\circ$ on the orientation of $Q$.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a quiver $Q$, and $e\in E$, let $\tau_e(Q)$ denote the quiver obtained from $Q$ by reversing the orientation of $e$.
Let $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ be quivers whose underlying undirected graphs are isomorphic. Choose an isomorphism, by which we can identify the sets $V_1$, $V_2$ of vertices, and $\widetilde{E}_1$, $\widetilde{E}_2$ of undirected edges. We have the following:
Let $e_1,\ldots, e_n$ be a sequence of edges of $Q_1$, such that $\tau_{e_n}\cdots\tau_{e_1}(Q_1)\cong Q_2$ as oriented graphs. Then there is an induced isomorphism, $${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_1))^\circ \cong {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_2))^\circ.$$
Clearly, it suffices to assume that the orientations on $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ differ at exactly one edge. In this case, the isomorphism ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)\to {\mathcal{D}}_q(e^\vee)$ constructed in the previous section can be extended to an isomorphism ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_1))\to{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_2))$, as the relations between ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ (resp, ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e^\vee)$) and the rest of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_1))$ (resp, ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q_2))$) are just the tensor product relations, which are preserved by $\mathcal{F}$, which is a morphism in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Construction of the $q$-deformed quantum moment map {#q-moment}
===================================================
In this section we construct the $q$-analog of the moment map in the classical geometric construction of the quiver variety.
Bialgebras and Hopf algebras in braided tensor categories
---------------------------------------------------------
We recall some basic constructions involving Hopf algebras in braided tensor categories, which we will use later.
A bialgebra in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a 5-tuple, $$(A\in{\mathcal{C}},\,\,\mu:A{\otimes}A\to A,\,\,\eta:\mathbf{1}\to A,\,\,\Delta: A\to A{\otimes}A,\,\, \epsilon:A\to\mathbf{1}),$$ such that $(A,\mu,\eta)$ is a unital algebra in ${\mathcal{C}}$, $(A,\Delta,\epsilon)$ is a co-unital coalgebra in ${\mathcal{C}}$, $\Delta$ is a homomorphism to the tensor product algebra $A{\otimes}A$. Homomorphisms are defined in the obvious way, and we denote by ${\mathcal{C}}$-biAlg the category of bialgebras in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
A Hopf algebra in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a bialgebra in ${\mathcal{C}}$, with a (necessarily unique) convolution inverse $S$ to the identity, called the antipode: either composition, $$S\ast {\operatorname{id}}: A \xrightarrow{\Delta} A{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{S{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}} A{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{\mu} A,$$ $${\operatorname{id}}\ast S: A \xrightarrow{\Delta} A{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{{\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}S} A{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{\mu} A,$$ coincides with the convolution unit $\eta\circ\epsilon:A\to A$. We define the category as the full subcategory of ${\mathcal{C}}$-biAlg consisting of bialgebras with antipode.
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra (in ${\operatorname{Vect}}$), $A$ be an algebra, and $\phi:H\to A$ be a homomorphism of algebras. To simplify notation, we omit the explicit application of $\phi$ here and in the definitions to follow. $H$ acts on $A$ via the induced adjoint action, $h\rhd a= h_{(1)}aS(h_{2}) \in A$. For ${\mathcal{C}}$-Hopf-Alg, there is an analogous construction:
Let $H\in{\mathcal{C}}$-Hopf-Alg, and let $A\in {\mathcal{C}}$-Alg. Let $\phi:H\to A$ be a homomorphism of ${\mathcal{C}}$-algebras. The regular action of $H{\otimes}H$ on $A$ is defined by: $$\operatorname{act}_2:H {\otimes}H{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{{\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}\sigma_{H,A}} H{\otimes}A{\otimes}H \xrightarrow{{\operatorname{id}}_H{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}_A{\otimes}S} H{\otimes}A{\otimes}H \xrightarrow{\mu\circ({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}\mu)} A.$$ The adjoint action of $H$ on $A$ is given by $${\text{ad}\,}: H{\otimes}A\xrightarrow{\Delta{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}} H{\otimes}H{\otimes}A \xrightarrow{\operatorname{act}_2} A.$$
It is a standard exercise to check that these are indeed actions, i.e. that $${\text{ad}\,}\circ(\mu_H{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}_A) = {\text{ad}\,}\circ({\operatorname{id}}_H{\otimes}{\text{ad}\,}):H{\otimes}H{\otimes}A\to A.$$
Hopf algebra of matrix coefficients
-----------------------------------
For a locally finite braided tensor category ${\mathcal{D}}$, we have its algebra $A({\mathcal{D}})$ of matrix coefficients, whose general construction dates back to work of Lyubashenko and Majid [@LyMa], [@Ma]. We recall the construction here.
We have the functor of tensor product, $$\mathcal{T}:{\mathcal{D}}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}\to {\mathcal{D}},$$ $$V{\boxtimes}W\mapsto V{\otimes}W.$$ The braiding endows $\mathcal{T}$ with the structure of a tensor functor: $$J: \mathcal{T}(X{\boxtimes}U){\otimes}\mathcal{T}(V{\boxtimes}W) = X{\otimes}U{\otimes}V {\otimes}W \xrightarrow{\sigma_{U,V}}X{\otimes}V{\otimes}U {\otimes}W = \mathcal{T}((X{\boxtimes}U){\otimes}(V{\boxtimes}W)).$$ $\mathcal{T}$ has a right adjoint $\mathcal{T}^\vee$ taking values in the Ind-category of ${\mathcal{D}}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}$. We define $A({\mathcal{D}}):= \mathcal{T}^\vee (\mathbf{1_{\mathcal{D}}})$, and call it the algebra of matrix coefficients (for reasons which will become clear below). $A({\mathcal{D}})$ is thus defined uniquely, up to canonical isomorophism, as the representing object for the functor of co-invariants, $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{D}}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}}(-{\boxtimes}-,A({\mathcal{D}}))\cong {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{D}}}(-{\otimes}-,\mathbf{1}).$$ This description allows us to construct $A({\mathcal{D}})$ explicitly as an Ind-algebra in ${\mathcal{D}}{\boxtimes}{\mathcal{D}}$. We let $\widetilde{A}({\mathcal{D}})$ be the sum over all objects of ${\mathcal{D}}$, $$\widetilde{A}({\mathcal{D}}):=\bigoplus_{V\in{\mathcal{D}}} V^*{\boxtimes}V,$$ and let $A({\mathcal{D}})$ be the quotient $\widetilde{A}({\mathcal{D}})/Q$, where $Q$ denotes the sum over all morphisms, $$Q:= \sum_{\phi:V\to W} \operatorname{im}(\Delta_\phi) \subset \widetilde{A}({\mathcal{D}}), \textrm{ where }$$ $$\Delta_\phi := ({\operatorname{id}}{\boxtimes}\phi - \phi^*{\boxtimes}{\operatorname{id}}):W^*{\boxtimes}V\to W^*{\boxtimes}W\oplus V^*{\boxtimes}V.$$
To see that $A({\mathcal{D}})$ does indeed satify the desired universal property, we observe that we have natural isomorphisms: $${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathcal{D}}}(X{\boxtimes}Y,A({\mathcal{D}}))\cong {\operatorname{Hom}}(X,Y^*) \cong {\operatorname{Hom}}(X{\otimes}Y,\mathbf{1}),$$ because we can write any morphism $\phi\in{\operatorname{Hom}}(Y,V)$ as $\phi\circ{\operatorname{id}}_Y,$ and can then apply the relations of $Q$ to reduce the sum over all $V$ to the single summand $V=Y$.
We have natural morphisms $i_V: V^*{\boxtimes}V\to A$, and also $\mathcal{T}(i_v):V^*{\otimes}V\to \mathcal{T}(A)$, for all $V\in {\mathcal{C}}$. We will abuse notation and call $\mathcal{T}(i_v)$ simply by $i_V$ when context is clear.
The algebra structure on $A$ is given on generating objects $V^*{\boxtimes}V$, $W^*{\boxtimes}W$ by $$(V^*{\boxtimes}V){\otimes}_2 (W^*{\boxtimes}W) = V^*{\otimes}W^*{\boxtimes}V{\otimes}W \xrightarrow{\sigma_{V^*,W^*}} W^*{\otimes}V^*{\boxtimes}V{\otimes}W \xrightarrow{i_{V{\otimes}W}} A.$$ The algebra structure on $\mathcal{T}(A)$ is given on generating objects $V^*{\otimes}V$, $W^*{\otimes}W$ by $$(V^*{\otimes}V){\otimes}(W^*{\otimes}W) \xrightarrow{\sigma_{(V^*{\otimes}V),W^*}} (W^*{\otimes}V^*){\otimes}(V{\otimes}W) \xrightarrow{i_{V{\otimes}W}} \mathcal{T}(A).$$ The unit of $A$, (resp. $\mathcal{T}(A)$) is the subspace $\mathbf{1}^*{\boxtimes}\mathbf{1}$ (resp. $\mathbf{1}\cong \mathbf{1}^*{\otimes}\mathbf{1}$).
The adjoint pair of functors ($\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}^\vee)$ are braided tensor categorical analogs of the restriction and induction functors, $(\operatorname{Res}^{G\times G}_G,\operatorname{Ind}^{G\times G}_G)$, of finite groups, and the construction given above is analogous to constructing the $G-G$-bimodule ${\mathbb{C}}[G]$ as $\operatorname{Ind}^{G\times G}_G {\mathbb{C}}$.
In case ${\mathcal{D}}=U$-mod, for some quasi-triangular Hopf algebra $H$, the algebra $A({\mathcal{D}})$ identifies as a vector space with the subspace of $H^*$ spanned by functionals $c_{f,v},$ for $v\in V, f\in V^*$ defined by $c_{f,v}(h):=f(hv)$. Choosing a basis $v_1,\ldots v_n$ and its dual basis $f_1,\ldots, f_n$, one has the functionals $c_{f_i,v_j}(h)$, which are the $i,j$th matrix entry of the map $H\to {\operatorname{Mat}}_n({\mathbb{C}})$ of the representation $V$.
$\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{D}}))$ becomes a Hopf algebra in ${\mathcal{D}}$ with coproduct, counit, and antipode defined on each subspace $V^*{\otimes}V$ by: $$\Delta|_{V^*{\otimes}V}: V^*{\otimes}V \xrightarrow{{\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}{\operatorname{coev}}{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}} V^*{\otimes}V{\otimes}V^*{\otimes}V \xrightarrow{i_V{\otimes}i_V} \mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{D}})){\otimes}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{D}})),$$ $$\epsilon|_{V^*{\otimes}V}: V^*{\otimes}V \xrightarrow{{\operatorname{ev}}} \mathbf{1},$$ $$S|_{V^*{\otimes}V}:V^*{\otimes}V \xrightarrow{\sigma_{V^*{\otimes}V}} V{\otimes}V^* \xrightarrow{\theta_V{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}} V^{**}{\otimes}V^* \xrightarrow{i_{v_{^*}}} \mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{D}})).$$
For the category ${\mathcal{C}}:={\boxtimes}_{v\in V}{\mathcal{C}}_v$ of Section \[sec:QuivNot\], we have $A({\mathcal{C}}):={\boxtimes}_{v\in V}A({\mathcal{C}}_v)$, and $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}})):={\boxtimes}_{v\in V}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$, which becomes a ${\mathcal{C}}$-Hopf algebra with structure morphisms defined diagonally.
### The quantum determinant $\det_q$
When ${\mathcal{D}}$ is the braided tensor category of type I $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}_N)$-modules, the algebra $\mathcal{T}(A)$ of the previous section contains a central element called the quantum determinant. It is defined as follows:
The quantum determinant $\det_q$ is the unique generator of the one-dimensional subspace $\mathcal{T}((\Lambda^N_q({\mathbb{C}}^N))^*{\boxtimes}\Lambda^N_q({\mathbb{C}}^N))$, with normalization $ev_{\Lambda^N_q}(\det_q)=1$.
The element $\det_q$ is central and group-like in $\mathcal{T}(A(\mathcal{D}))$.
That $\det_q$ is group-like is clear from the fact that $\Lambda^N_q({\mathbb{C}}^N))$ is one-dimensional. It’s centrality follows from the fact that $\sigma_{\Lambda^N_q({\mathbb{C}}^N)),V}$ is a scalar matrix for any $V$.
The construction of $\det_q$ above does not yield a clear formula for $\det_q$ in terms of the standard generators $a^i_j$. We have been unable to find such a formula in the literature, for the reflection equation algebra, although a formula for the corresponding element in the FRT algebra is well-known.
### Explicit presentation of $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$.
We have the following well-known presentation for $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$.
We have an isomorphism: $$\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v)) \cong \mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))^+[(\operatorname{det}_q)^{-1}], \textrm{ where }$$ $$\label{refleqns}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))^+:=\langle l^i_j,\,\, i,j=1,\ldots, d_v \,\, | \,\, R^{ij}_{kl}l^l_m R^{mk}_{no}l^o_p=l^i_lR^{lj}_{km}l^m_oR^{ok}_{np}\rangle.$$
In particular, there is a well-known isomorphism of algebras, $$\kappa:\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))\to U_q'(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_v})$$ $$l^i_j \mapsto \widetilde{l}_{ij}.$$ We note in passing that $\kappa(\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}))^+)=U^+$. Henceforth, we identify $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$ with $U'_q(\mathfrak{gl}_{d_v})$ and $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))^+$ with $U^+$ via the isomorphism $\kappa$.
Quantum moment map for ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ when $e$ is not a loop
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the next two sections, we construct quantum moment maps, $\mu_v^e:U_v\to{\mathcal{D}}_e$ for each edge $e\in E$, and $v=\alpha(e),\beta(e)$. As might be expected, the construction is quite different depending on whether or not $e$ is a loop. As such, we treat the two cases in different sections.
First, we recall from [@VV] the notion of a quantum moment map for a coideal subalgebra, a mild generalization of that in [@L]. Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra, with $H'$ a left coideal subalgebra; that is, $H'$ is a subalgebra, and $\Delta(H')\subset H\otimes H'$. Then a moment map for an $H$-algebra $A$ is a homomorphism $\mu:H'\to A$, such that $$\mu(h)a= (h_{(1)}\rhd a)\mu(h_{(2)}),$$ where we denote the action of $h\in H$ on $a\in A$ by $h\rhd a$ to distinguish it from the multiplication in $A$.
\[edgemomdef\] Let $e\in E$, and $v=\beta(e)\neq\alpha(e)$. The *edge map* $\mu^e_v:U_v^+\to {\mathcal{D}}_e$ given on generators by:[^2] $$\mu^e_v(l^i_j) = (\delta^i_j+(q-q^{-1})\sum_k\partial^i_ka^k_j),$$ defines a homomorphism of algebras in ${\mathcal{C}}$.\[momentbeta\]
Following the notation of Section \[sec:QG\], we let $M$ denote the matrix: $$M:= \sum_{i,j} \mu^e_v(l^i_j) E^j_i.$$ We have $M= I + (q-q^{-1})DA$. We need to show that the elements $\mu^e_v(l^i_j)\in{\mathcal{D}}_e$ satisfy the reflection equation relations . We compute, in matrix notation: $$\begin{aligned}
M_2R_{21}M_1R_{12} &= (I + (q-q^{-1})D_2A_2)R_{21}(I+(q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)R_{12}\\
&=R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_2A_2\underbrace{R_{21}R_{12}}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}} + R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12})\\&\phantom{===} + (q-q^{-1})^2D_2\underbrace{A_2R_{21}D_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A_1R_{12}\\
&=R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_2A_2 + (q-q^{-1})\underbrace{D_2A_2\Omega_{12}R_{12}}_{\textrm{cancel this}} + R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12})\\&\phantom{===} + (q-q^{-1})^2(D_2D_1\underbrace{R_{21}^{-1}A_2A_1R_{12}}_{I(e)} - \underbrace{D_2\Omega_{12}A_1R_{12})}_{\textrm{with this}}\\
&=R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_2A_2 + R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12}) + (q-q^{-1})^2D_2D_1A_1A_2\\
$$ On the other hand, we compute: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{21}M_1R_{12}M_2 &= R_{21}(I+(q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)R_{12}(I+(q-q^{-1})D_2A_2)\\
&= R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12} + \underbrace{R_{21}R_{12}}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}}D_2A_2) \\
&\phantom{===} + (q-q^{-1})^2R_{21}D_1\underbrace{A_1R_{12}D_2}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A_2\\
&= R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_2A_2 + (q-q^{-1})\underbrace{\Omega_{12}R_{12}D_2A_2}_{\textrm{cancel this}} + R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12}) \\
&\phantom{===} + (q-q^{-1})^2(\underbrace{R_{21}D_1D_2R_{12}^{-1}}_{I(e^\vee)}A_1A_2 - \underbrace{R_{21}D_1\Omega_{12}A_2}_{\textrm{with this}})\\
&= R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_2A_2 + R_{21}D_1A_1R_{12}) + (q-q^{-1})^2D_2D_1A_1A_2\\
&=M_2R_{21}M_1R_{12},\end{aligned}$$ as desired. Thus the homomorphism $\mu^e_v$ is well defined.
\[mommap\] Let $v=\beta(e)\neq\alpha(e)$. Regard $\mu_v^e$ above as a map from $U^+$ via the isomorphism $\kappa$. Then $\mu_v^e$ is a quantum moment map: $$\mu^e_v(x)y=(x_{(1)}\rhd y) \mu^e_v(x_{(2)}),$$ for all $x\in U^+, y\in{\mathcal{D}}^\circ_e$.
It suffices to check this on the generators $\widetilde{l}^i_{j}$ of $U^+$, and the generators $a^m_n$, $\partial^o_p$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_e$. By definition of the $U^+$ action on $V$, we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(1)}\rhd a^m_n)\mu^e_v((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(2)}) &=((l^{+i}_{k}S(l^{-l}_{j}))\rhd a^m_n)(\delta^k_l + (q-q^{-1}) \partial^k_oa^o_l)\\
&=R^{qi}_{pk}R^{lp}_{jn}a^m_q(\delta^k_l + (q-q^{-1}) \partial^k_oa^o_l).\end{aligned}$$
In the matrix notation of Section \[sec:QG\], we set $$\begin{aligned}
N&:=\sum_{i,j,n,m}((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(1)}\rhd a^m_n)\mu^e_v((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(2)})E^j_i{\otimes}E^n_m\\
&=\sum_{i,j,n,m}(R^{qi}_{pk}R^{lp}_{jn}a^m_q(\delta^k_l + (q-q^{-1}) \partial^k_oa^o_l)) E^j_i{\otimes}E^n_m.\end{aligned}$$
Then, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
N&=A_2R_{21}(I+(q-q^{-1})D_1A_1)R_{12}\\
&=A_2R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})\underbrace{A_2R_{21}D_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A_1R_{12}\\
&=A_2R_{21}R_{12} + (q-q^{-1})(D_1\underbrace{R^{-1}_{21}A_2A_1R_{12}}_{I(e)} - \Omega_{12}A_1R_{12})\\
&=A_2(\underbrace{R_{21}R_{12} - \Omega_{12}R_{12}}_{\textrm{Hecke reln.}}) + (q-q^{-1})D_1A_1A_2\\
&=A_2 + (q-q^{-1})D_1A_1A_2\\
&=M_1A_2\end{aligned}$$ Comparing matrix coefficients, we find: $$((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(1)}\rhd a^m_n)\mu^e_v((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(2)}) = \mu^e_v(\widetilde{l}^i_{j})a^m_n,$$ as desired. The computation for $\partial^o_p$ is similar.
\[qcentral\]The image $\mu^e_v(\operatorname{det}_q)$ of the quantum determinant in $U^+$ satisfies the equation: $$\mu_v^e(\operatorname{det}_q) a^I\partial_J = q^{2(|J|-|I|)}a^I\partial_J\mu_v^e(\operatorname{det}_q),$$
Recall that $\operatorname{det}_q$ is grouplike in $U^+$. Thus the moment map condition reads: $$\mu_v^e(\operatorname{det}_q)a^I\partial_J=(\operatorname{det}_q\rhd a^I\partial_J)\mu_v^e(\operatorname{det}_q).$$ The element $\operatorname{det}_q$ acts on $V\in{\mathcal{C}}_v$ by the scalar $q^2$, and $V^*\in{\mathcal{C}}_v$ by the scalar $q^{-2}$, so the claim follows.
\[momentalpha\] Let $e\in E$, and $v=\alpha(e)\neq\beta(e)$. The elements $\overline\mu^e_v(l^i_j)$, $$\overline\mu^e_v(l^i_j) = (\delta^i_j+(q-q^{-1})\sum_k a^i_k\partial^k_j),$$ satisfy the relation: $$\overline{M_2}R_{12}^{-1}\overline{M_1}R_{21}^{-1} = R_{12}^{-1}\overline{M_1}R_{21}^{-1}\overline{M_2},$$ where $\overline{M}$ denotes the matrix: $$\overline{M}:=\sum_{i,j} \overline{\mu}^e_v(l^i_j)E^j_i.$$
We observe that the defining relations of ${\mathcal{D}}_e$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_{e^\vee}$ are related by interchanging each $a^i_j$ with $\partial^i_j$, and replacing $R_\alpha,R_\beta$ with $(R_\alpha)_{21}^{-1}$, $(R_\beta)_{21}^{-1}$, so that this relation follows from Definition-Proposition \[momentbeta\] .
\[oreset\] Let $v=\beta\neq\alpha$ (resp, $v=\alpha\neq\beta$). The powers of the $q$-determinant in the variables $\mu^v_e(l^i_j)$ (resp, $\overline{\mu}^e_v(l^i_j)$) form a multiplicative Ore set.
This follows as in Corollary \[qcentral\].
The localized edge differential operator algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$ is the localization of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ at the multiplicative Ore sets generated by the $q$-determinants in the elements $\mu^e_\beta(l^i_j)$ and $\overline{\mu}^e_\alpha(l^k_l)$.
Let $e\in E$, and $v=\alpha(e)\neq \beta(e)$. The *edge map* $\mu_v^e:U_v^+\to {\mathcal{D}}_e^\circ$ given on generators by:[^3] $$\mu_v^e(l^i_j)=(\delta^i_j+(q-q^{-1})\sum_k a^i_k\partial^k_j)^{-1},$$ defines a homomorphism of algebras in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
The entries of the inverse matrix in the definition lie in the localized algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)^\circ$, where we have inverted the $q$-determinant. That $\mu_v^e$ defines a homomorphism follows from Proposition \[momentalpha\], by taking the inverses of both sides.
The edge maps $\mu^e_\alpha$ and $\mu^e_\beta$ extend uniquely to homomorphisms $\mu^e_\alpha:U_\alpha\to{\mathcal{D}}_e^\circ$ and $\mu^e_\beta:U_\beta\to{\mathcal{D}}_e^\circ$.
We will henceforth refer only to this extended homomorphism, and not its restriction to $U^+$.
Quantum moment map for ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ when $e$ is a loop
--------------------------------------------------------------
Let $v=\alpha(e)=\beta(e)$. The localized edge algebra ${\mathcal{D}}_q^\circ(e)$ is the localization of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$ at the $q$-determinants in the variables $a^i_j$ and $\partial^i_j$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$.
There is a unique homomorphism, $$\mu^e_v:\mathcal{T}(A(C_v))\to{\mathcal{D}}_q(e),$$ $$l^i_j \mapsto (DA^{-1}D^{-1}A)^i_j$$
First, we claim that there is a unique homomorphism of algebras in ${\mathcal{C}}$, $$\phi: \mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v)){\otimes}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))\to {\mathcal{D}}_q(e)$$ $$(l^i_j{\otimes}l^k_l) \mapsto (DA^{-1}D^{-1})^i_j a^k_l .$$ Once we have constructed $\phi$, we can simply define $\mu^e_v:=\phi\circ\Delta$.
An algebra homomorphism $\phi =f{\otimes}g$ out of $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v)){\otimes}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$ is the same as a pair $f,g$ of algebra homomorphism out of $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$, such that the images of $f$ and $g$ braided-commute. That is, we require the following relations on $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v)){\otimes}\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))$: $$(1{\otimes}x)(y{\otimes}1) = r^- y{\otimes}r^+ x,$$
where we use the shorthand $R=r^+\otimes r^-$ (sum is implicit). On generators $x=l^i_j$, $y=l^k_l$, this condition reads: $$(1{\otimes}l^i_j)(l^k_l{\otimes}1) = \widetilde{R}^{mk}_{jn} R^{op}_{ml}R^{in}_{qr}(R^{-1})^{qs}_{tp}(l^r_s{\otimes}l^t_o),$$ or equivalently, $$(1{\otimes}l^i_j)R^{jn}_{mk}(l^k_l{\otimes}1) = R^{in}_{qr}(l^r_s{\otimes}1)(R^{-1})^{qs}_{tp}(1{\otimes}l^t_o) R^{op}_{ml}.$$
Thus the condition we require on $f$ and $g$ is: $$g(l^i_j)R^{jn}_{mk}f(l^k_l) = R^{in}_{qr}f(l^r_s)(R^{-1})^{qs}_{tp}g(l^t_o) R^{op}_{ml}$$ or, in the matrix notation of Section \[sec:QG\]: $$G_1RF_2=RF_2 R^{-1} G_1R,\label{FG}$$ where $F$ and $G$ denote the matrices: $$F:=\sum_{i.j} f(l^i_j)E^j_i, \quad G := \sum_{i.j}g(l^i_j)E^j_i.$$ The maps $f,g: \mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}))\to{\mathcal{D}}_e^\circ$, $f(l^i_j)= (DA^{-1}D^{-1})^i_j$ and $g(l^i_j)=A^i_j$ are each homomorphisms (they are the natural inclusion of $\mathcal{T}(A({\mathcal{C}}))$, and its composition with Fourier transform, respectively). It remains to check relation . We have:
$$\begin{aligned}
RF_2 R^{-1} G_1R &= RDA^{-1}\underbrace{D^{-1}R^{-1}AR}_{I(e,e^\vee)}\\
&= RD\underbrace{A^{-1}RAR}_{I(e)}D^{-1}\\
&= \underbrace{RDRAR}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A^{-1}D^{-1}\\
&= ARDA^{-1}D^{-1}\\
&= G_1RF_2,\end{aligned}$$
as desired.
\[mommaploop\] Let $v=\beta(e)=\alpha(e)$. Regard $\mu_v^e$ above as a map from $U^+$ via the isomorphism $\kappa$. Then $\mu_v^e$ is a quantum moment map for all $x\in U^+, y\in {\mathcal{D}}_e^\circ$.
It suffices to check this on the generators $\widetilde{l}^i_{j}$ of $U^+$, and the generators $a^m_n$, $\partial^o_p$ of ${\mathcal{D}}_e$. By definition of the $U^+$ action on $V$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(1)}\rhd a^m_n)\mu^e_v((\widetilde{l}^i_{j})_{(2)}) &=((l^{+i}_{k}S(l^{-l}_{j}))\rhd a^m_n)(DA^{-1}D^{-1}A)^k_l\\
&=(R^{-1})^{mi}_{qs}\widetilde{R}^{tq}_{jx}a^x_oR^{os}_{pk}R^{lp}_{tn}(DA^{-1}D^{-1}A)^k_l.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the moment map condition reads: $$(DA^{-1}D^{-1}A) {\otimes}A = (R^{-1})^{mi}_{qs}\widetilde{R}^{tq}_{jx}a^x_oR^{os}_{pk}R^{lp}_{tn}(DA^{-1}D^{-1}A)^k_l E^j_i {\otimes}E^n_m,$$ or equivalently, moving the $R^{-1}$ and $\widetilde{R}$ to the LHS, and re-writing the RHS in matrix notation: $$R_{21}D_1A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}A_1R A_2 = A_2R_{21}D_1A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}A_1R_{12}.$$
We simplify the RHS: $$\begin{aligned}
RHS &= \underbrace{A_2R_{21}D_1}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}A_1R\\
&= R_{21}D_1\underbrace{R A_2 R_{21}A_1^{-1}}_{I(e)}D_1^{-1}A_1R\\
&= R_{21}D_1 A_1^{-1}\underbrace{R A_2 R_{21}D_1^{-1}}_{I(e,e^\vee)}A_1R\\
&= R_{21}D_1 A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}R_{21}^{-1}\underbrace{A_2R_{21}A_1R}_{I(e)}\\
&= R_{21}D_1 A_1^{-1}D_1^{-1}A_1RA_2,\\\end{aligned}$$ and thus the moment map condition is satisfied.
Quantum moment map for ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous section, we defined moment maps $\mu^e_v:U_v\to{\mathcal{D}}_e$ for every pair $(e,v)$, with $e$ attached to $v$. In this section, we combine the edge maps into a homomorphism $\mu^\#_q:A({\mathcal{C}})\to {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$, quantizing the moment map defined in the classical case. First, we have:
For all $v, v'\in V$ distinct, and for all $e\in E_v, e'\in E_{v'}$, we have: $$\mu_v^e(l^i_j)\mu_{v'}^{e'}(l^k_l)=\mu_{v'}^{e'}(l^k_l)\mu_v^e(l^i_j).$$
We claim that, for any $e$ emanating from $v$ and for any $w\neq v$, the image of $\mu^e_v$ is contained in a trivial isotypic component of ${\mathcal{C}}_{w}$. This is obvious if $e$ is a loop, and for $e$ not a loop, it follows from the following, more canonical description of $\mu^e_v:$ $$\mu^e_v(l^i_j) = {\operatorname{ev}}(v^i{\otimes}v_j) + (q-q^{-1})v^i{\otimes}v_j {\boxtimes}{\operatorname{coev}}(\mathbf{1}).$$ Since ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is defined as a braided tensor product over its edge algebras ${\mathcal{D}}_e$, elements in the image of $\mu^e_v$ commute with those in the image of any $\mu^f_w$, via the braiding. As the trivial representation braids trivially with any representation, the claim follows.
At this point, we note that the ordering on $\overline{E}$ is not used in any construction, but rather the induced ordering on each $\overline{E_v}$. This is consistent with similar observations in [@C-BS], [@VdB2].
The vertex moment map $\mu_v^\#: A({\mathcal{C}}_v)\to{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the composition: $$\mu_v^\#:A({\mathcal{C}}_v)\xrightarrow{\Delta^{(|E_v|)}}A({\mathcal{C}})^{{\otimes}|E_v|}\xrightarrow{ \underset{e\in E_v}{\bigotimes}\mu^e_v} \bigotimes_{e\in E_v} {\mathcal{D}}_e \subset {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)).$$
The moment map $\mu_q^\#:T(A({\mathcal{C}}))\to {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ is the external tensor product, $$\mu_q^\#:=\underset{v\in V}{\boxtimes}\mu^\#_v: T(A({\mathcal{C}}))\cong \underset{v\in V}{\boxtimes}A({\mathcal{C}}_v)\to{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)).$$
It follows by Propositions \[mommap\] and \[mommaploop\] that $\mu_q^\#$ is indeed a moment map in the sense of [@L].
Construction of the quantized multiplicative quiver variety {#finalconstruction}
===========================================================
In this section, we are finally in a position to define the quantized multiplicative quiver variety. First, we recall certain characters of $A({\mathcal{C}}_v)$, where . For a complete classification of the characters of $A({\mathcal{C}}_v)$, see [@Mu].
Quantum trace characters
------------------------
First, we observe that for all $\rho\in{\mathbb{C}}$, there exists a unique homomorphism of algebras: $$\operatorname{tr}_\rho: T(A({\mathcal{C}}_v))\to{\mathbb{C}},$$ $$l^i_j\mapsto \rho \delta^i_j.$$
It is easily checked that the left coideal subalgebra $U'\subset U$ is stable under $\operatorname{tr}_\rho$, in the following sense: for $x\in U'$, we have $x_{(1)}\operatorname{tr}_\rho(x_{(2)})\in U'$. Thus for any $\xi:V\to{\mathbb{C}}^\times$, we may define the character, $$\operatorname{tr}_{\xi}:=\bigotimes_{v\in V} \operatorname{tr}_{\xi_v}:T(A({\mathcal{C}}))\to{\mathbb{C}}.$$ We set $\mathcal{I}_\xi:=\ker \operatorname{tr}_{\xi} \subset U$.
Multiplicative quantized quiver variety
---------------------------------------
Fix a quiver $Q$, its dimension vector ${{\bf d}}$, and character $\xi: V\to {\mathbb{C}}^\times$. The multiplicative, quantized quiver variety, $\mathcal{A}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$, is the quantum Hamiltonian reduction of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ by the moment map $\mu_q^\#$. That is, $$\mathcal{A}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q) := {\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(\mathbf{1}, {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)) \Big/ {\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)) \mu_q^\#(\mathcal{I}_\xi)\right).$$
We let ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$-mod$_{\mathcal{C}}$ denote the category of ${\mathcal{D}}_q$-modules in the category ${\mathcal{C}}$.
The following is a localization theorem for the algebras $\mathcal{A}_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)$, whose proof is identical to that of [@GG2], Corollary 7.2.4. We refer the reader to the excellent exposition there.
We have an essentially surjective functor, $$\mathbb{H}:{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))\textrm{-mod}_{\mathcal{C}}\to \mathcal{A}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)\textrm{-mod},$$ $$M\mapsto{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathbf{1},M),$$ inducing an equivalence of categories, $$\mathbb{H}:{\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))\textrm{-mod}_{\mathcal{C}}/ \mathrm{Ker}\, \mathbb{H}\to \mathcal{A}^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)\textrm{-mod}.$$
Here, $\mathrm{Ker}\, \mathbb{H}$ denotes the Serre subcategory of aspherical ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$-modules, i.e. those modules whose space of invariants is zero. The functor $\mathbb{H}$ is called the functor of Hamiltonian reduction.
The degeneration of $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ {#degeneration}
========================================
The Kassel-Turaev biquantization of $S({\mathfrak{g}})$
-------------------------------------------------------
In order to compute the quasi-classical limit of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$ and its moment map $\mu_q^\#$, we need to recall from [@KT] the theory of biquantization of Lie bialgebras. For ${\mathfrak{g}}=\mathfrak{sl}_N$, the constructions we now recall here was also given by J. Donin [@Do]. We begin with definitions.
A co-Poisson algebra is a cocommutative coalgebra $C$, together with a Lie co-bracket $\delta:C\to C\wedge C$ satisfying the compatibility condition: $$({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}\Delta)\circ\delta = (\delta{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}}+ (\sigma{\otimes}{\operatorname{id}})\circ({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}\delta))\circ\Delta.$$
A bi-Poisson bialgebra is a commutative, cocommutative bialgebra $A$, together with a Poisson bracket and co-bracket, satisfying the compatibility conditions:
1. $\Delta(\{a,b\}) = \{\Delta(a),\Delta(b)\}$,
2. $\delta(ab) = \delta(a)\Delta(b) + \Delta(a)\delta(b)$,
3. $\delta(\{a,b\}) = \{\delta(a),\Delta(b)\} + \{\Delta(a),\delta(b)\}.$
Recall that for any vector space $V$, the symmetric algebra $S(V)$ is a bialgebra with coproduct: $$\Delta(v)=v{\otimes}1 + 1{\otimes}v.$$ A Lie bialgebra structure on ${\mathfrak{g}}$ gives rise to a bi-Poisson bialgebra structure on the symmetric algebra $S({\mathfrak{g}})$ by declaring the Poisson bracket and co-bracket be the unique extensions to $S({\mathfrak{g}})$ of the Lie bracket and co-bracket on ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Consider ${\mathfrak{g}}=\mathfrak{gl}_N$, and let $$r:=\sum_{i<j} E^i_j{\otimes}E^j_i + \frac12 \sum_i E^i_i{\otimes}E^i_i\in {\mathfrak{g}}{\otimes}{\mathfrak{g}}$$ denote the classical $r$-matrix for $\mathfrak{gl}_N$, associated to the trace form. Of particular interest for us is the Lie bialgebra structure on $\mathfrak{gl}_N$, with cobracket $\delta: {\mathfrak{g}}\to {\mathfrak{g}}{\otimes}{\mathfrak{g}}$ given by: $$\delta(x) := [r,x{\otimes}1 + 1{\otimes}x],$$
In [@KT], Kassel and Turaev constructed a ${\mathbb{C}}[[u,v]]$ bialgebra $A({\mathfrak{g}})=A_{u,v}({\mathfrak{g}})$, which is a biquantization of $S({\mathfrak{g}})$. This means, firstly, that we have the following commutative diagram of bialgebras: $$\begin{CD}
A({\mathfrak{g}}) @>>> A({\mathfrak{g}})/(v)\\
@VVV @ VVV\\
A({\mathfrak{g}})/(u) @>>> A({\mathfrak{g}})/(u,v)\end{CD}$$ Secondly, we have natural isomorphisms of coalgebras, algebras, and bialgebras, respectively: $$A({\mathfrak{g}})/(v)\cong S({\mathfrak{g}})[[u]],\quad A({\mathfrak{g}})/(u)\cong S({\mathfrak{g}})[[v]],\quad A({\mathfrak{g}})/(u,v)\cong S({\mathfrak{g}}).$$ In this sense, $A({\mathfrak{g}})$ simultaneously quantizes the Poisson bracket and co-bracket on $S({\mathfrak{g}})$: $v$ is the deformation parameter for the coproduct, and $u$ is the deformation parameter for the product.
Recall that the Etingof-Kazhdan quantization [@EK] of the Lie bialgebra ${\mathfrak{g}}$ is a Hopf algebra $U_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})$, isomorphic as an algebra to $U({\mathfrak{g}})$, but with coproduct which quantizes the co-bracket of ${\mathfrak{g}}$. Let $V_u({\mathfrak{g}}):=A({\mathfrak{g}})/(v)$, and let $A_{\hbar,\hbar}({\mathfrak{g}})$ denote the quotient of $A_{u,v}({\mathfrak{g}})$ by the ideal $(v-u)$ (in the quotient, we rename $\hbar:=u=v$ for notational convenience). While we will not need to recall the full details of the construction of $A({\mathfrak{g}})$, we will need the following descriptions of its quotients:
[@KT] \[KTthm\]
1. $A_{\hbar,\hbar}({\mathfrak{g}})$ is the Etingof-Kazhdan quantization $U_{\hbar^2}({\mathfrak{g}})$ of ${\mathfrak{g}}$.[^4]
2. $V_u({\mathfrak{g}}) \cong T({\mathfrak{g}}) \Big / \langle X{\otimes}Y - Y{\otimes}X = u[X,Y] \,\, | \,\, X,Y\in {\mathfrak{g}}\rangle.$
Claim (1) is not explicitly stated in [@KT] but follows easily from the definition of $A_{u,v}({\mathfrak{g}})$ given in Section 6, [*loc. cit.*]{}. Claim (2) is Theorem 2.6. Note that, by (2), we have an ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra homomorphism, $$i:V_u({\mathfrak{g}})\to U({\mathfrak{g}})[[u]],$$ $$X\in {\mathfrak{g}}\mapsto u X.$$
It follows by the PBW theorem that $i$ is an injection. We may therefore identify $V_u({\mathfrak{g}})$ with the Rees algebra of $U({\mathfrak{g}})$, where the latter is filtered by declaring the generating subspace ${\mathfrak{g}}$ to be degree 1.
Let $\mathcal{U}_\hbar$ denote the ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-Hopf algebra (a.k.a QUE algebra) obtained by setting $q=e^\hbar$ in Section \[sec:QG\]. We have the following well-known proposition:
There exists an isomorphism $\alpha: \mathcal{U}_\hbar\to U[[\hbar]]$ of QUE algebras, such that $\alpha={\operatorname{id}}\mod \hbar$. Moreover, we have $\alpha(\mathcal{U}_\hbar')=V_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})$.
Recall that the generators $\tilde{l}^i_j$ of $\mathcal{U}_\hbar$ may be obtained as the matrix coefficients of the double-braiding: $$({\operatorname{id}}{\otimes}\rho_{{\mathbb{C}}^N})(R_{21}R) = \sum_{kl} \tilde{l}^k_l {\otimes}E^l_k.$$ The claim now follows from the fact that $\alpha{\otimes}\alpha(R_{21}R)\in V_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})^{{\otimes}2}$.
Flatness is preserved by quantum Hamiltonian reduction {#flatness-sec}
------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section, we assume $Q$ and ${{\bf d}}$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \[CBflat\], so that the classical moment map $\mu:T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q)\to{\mathfrak{g}}^{{\bf d}}$ is flat. We set $q=e^\hbar$, and consider all algebras and categories defined in terms of $q$ to be defined over ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$, and complete in the $\hbar$-adic topology. As a consequence of the flatness of $\mu$, we prove that the algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)$ is a flat formal deformation of its classical ($\hbar=0$) limit. We note that similar results have been proven in [@Lo], Lemma 3.6.1, and [@Br].
To begin, we recall the following lemma from ring theory (see, e.g. [@B], Chapter 2, Proposition 3.12):
Let $A_0$, be a graded ring, and $M_0$ a flat $A_0$-module. Let $A$ be a ring with an exhaustive, increasing filtration, and $M$ an $A$-module with compatible filtration, such that $gr(A)\cong A_0$, and $gr(M)\cong M_0$ as $A_0$-modules. Then $M$ is a flat $A$-module.
\[assgrflat\] Let $A_0, B_0$ be a graded rings, with a flat homomorphism $\phi_0:B_0\to A_0$ (i.e. $\phi$ makes $A_0$ into a flat left $B_0$-module). Let $A,B$ be rings equipped with exhaustive, increasing filtrations, such that $gr(A)=A_0, gr(B)=B_0$. Then any filtered homomorphism $\phi:B\to A$ lifting $\phi_0$ is flat.
\[A0lem\] Let $A_0$ be a graded Poisson algebra with a Poisson action of a reductive group $G$, and $\mu_0 :S{\mathfrak{g}}\to A_0$ be a moment map for this action. Let A be a filtered algebra with $gr(A)=A_0$, and $\mu: U({\mathfrak{g}})\to A$ a quantum moment map that lifts $\mu_0$ (so that the adjoint action is completely reducible). If $\mu_0$ is flat, then so is $\mu$ (i.e. A is flat as a left $U({\mathfrak{g}})$-module), and $gr(A//{\mathfrak{g}})=A_0//{\mathfrak{g}}$.
The flatness of $A$ as a left $U({\mathfrak{g}})$-module is an application of Lemma \[assgrflat\], with $B_0=S({\mathfrak{g}})$ and $B=U({\mathfrak{g}})$. The Hamiltonian reduction $A//{\mathfrak{g}}$ proceeds in two steps: first we construct the quotient $A/J$ of $A$ by its left ideal $J=A\mu(U({\mathfrak{g}}))\subset A$, and then we take the subspace of invariants in the quotient. We show that each step is compatible with the filtration, and commutes with the associated graded construction.
The module $A/J$ inherits a filtration, and by flatness of $\mu$, we have $gr(A/J)=A_0/J_0$, where $J_0=A_0\mu_0(S({\mathfrak{g}}))$. Since the adjoint action of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ on $A$ is completely reducible, and $J$ is ${\mathfrak{g}}$ invariant, we have that the quotient $A/J$ embeds as a ${\mathfrak{g}}$-submodule of $A$, and likewise $J^{\mathfrak{g}}$ embeds as a submodule of $A^{\mathfrak{g}}$. Thus we have $(A/J)^{\mathfrak{g}}\cong A^{\mathfrak{g}}/J^{\mathfrak{g}}$. Finally, the action of ${\mathfrak{g}}$ preserves the filtration on $A$, so we have: $$gr(A/J)^{\mathfrak{g}}\cong gr(A^{\mathfrak{g}}/J^{\mathfrak{g}}) \cong (A_0/ J_0)^{\mathfrak{g}}= A_0//{\mathfrak{g}},$$ as desired.
\[defmod\] Let $\mu_h$ be a deformation of the classical moment map $\mu$, $\mu_\hbar: U_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})\to A_\hbar$, where $A_\hbar$ is a flat deformation of $A$. Assume that the adjoint action is completely reducible. Then $\mu_\hbar$ is flat, and $A_\hbar//U_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})$ is a flat formal deformation (equivalently, it is torsion-free in $\hbar$).
First, we show that $\mu_\hbar$ is flat. For this, we recall another lemma from ring theory. While the proof is standard, we include it here for the sake of completeness.
Let $S$ be a (not necessarily commutative) flat formal deformation of the algebra $S_0={\mathbb{C}}[x_1,\ldots, x_n]$. Let $\chi:S\to{\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$ be a character, specializing to $\chi_0:S_0\to {\mathbb{C}}$. Finally, suppose that $M$ is an $S$-module, topologically free over ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$, such that $M_0=M/\hbar M$ is flat over $S_0$. Then $M{\otimes}_S\chi$ is a flat formal deformation of $M_0{\otimes}_{S_0}\chi_0$.
We denote by ${\mathbb{C}}$ the one dimensional ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-module, where $\hbar$ acts by zero. We have only to check: $$\operatorname{Tor}^i_{{\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]}(M{\otimes}_S\chi,{\mathbb{C}})\overset{?}{=}0.$$ Notice that we have an isomorphism, natural in $M$: $$M{\otimes}_S\chi{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]}{\mathbb{C}}\cong M{\otimes}_{{\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]}{\mathbb{C}}{\otimes}_{S_0}\chi_0 \cong M_0{\otimes}_{S_0}\chi_0.$$ Thus, we have: $$\operatorname{Tor}^i_{{\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]}(M{\otimes}_S\chi,{\mathbb{C}})\cong \operatorname{Tor}^i_{S_0}(M,\chi_0)=0,$$ by assumption of flatness on $M$.
We now turn to proving the flatness of $A_\hbar//U_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})$. We note that Hamiltonian reduction involves fixing a scalar action of $\mathfrak{gl}_N$, so that $A//G$ is completely reducible as a $U({\mathfrak{g}})$-module. By the flatness of $\mu_\hbar$, $A_\hbar/J_\hbar$ is a flat ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-module. Finally, complete reducibility gives an isomorphism $(A_\hbar/J_\hbar)^{U_\hbar({\mathfrak{g}})}\cong (A/J)^{\mathfrak{g}}[[\hbar]]$, as ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-modules, because completely reducible ${\mathfrak{g}}$-modules do not admit non-trivial deformations.
\[Ilambdaflat\] Let $t=\hbar$, and let $\xi_{v}:=e^{\hbar^2\lambda_{v}}$, for some $\xi:V\to{\mathbb{C}}$. Then quasi-classical limit of the ideal $\mathcal{I}_\xi$ is the classical moment ideal, i.e. the defining ideal of the closed set $\mu^{-1}(\sum \lambda_v{\operatorname{id}}_v)$.
The ideal $\mathcal{I}_\xi$ is generated by elements $\mu_q^\#(u)$, for $u\in \mathcal{U}_\hbar'$. Fix a $v\in V$, and let $r=|E_v|$. We compute the image of $l^i_j\in \mathcal{U}_\hbar(\mathfrak{gl}^{d_v})$ under the map $\mu_v$ (see Section \[sec:QuivNot\] for notation concerning quivers): $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(l^i_j)&= \sum_{i_1,\ldots, i_r=1}^{d_v}\mu_v^{e_1}(l^i_{i_1})\mu_v^{e_2}(l^{i_1}_{i_2})\cdots \mu_v^{e_r}(l^{i_r}_j)\\
&= \delta^i_j + \hbar^2 \left(\sum_{e\in E^\beta_v}\sum_k \partial^i_ka^k_j - \sum_{e\in E^\alpha_v}\sum_k a^i_k\partial^k_j + \sum_{e\in E^{\circ}_v}\sum_k\left(\partial^i_ka^k_j - a^i_k\partial^k_j\right)\right) + O(\hbar^3).\end{aligned}$$ Thus the coefficient in $\hbar^2$ is precisely the LHS of equation . On the other hand, we easily compute that ${\text{tr}\,}_\xi(l^i_j)=\delta^i_j + \hbar^2\lambda_v \delta^i_j$. Thus equating $\hbar^2$ coefficients, we obtain Equation .
The algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)$ is a topologically free ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-module, which is a flat formal deformation of ${\mathcal{O}}(\mathcal{M}_{{\bf d}}^\lambda$.
First, we note that in the formal setting ${\mathcal{D}}_q^\circ$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ coincide, as the $\operatorname{det}_q(e)$ are invertible formal power series. We have shown in Theorem \[flatness\] that ${\mathcal{D}}_q$ is a flat formal deformation of ${\mathcal{O}}(T^*{\operatorname{Mat}}_{{\bf d}}(Q))$. By applying Proposition \[Ilambdaflat\], we see that the ideal $\mathcal{I}_\xi$ deforms the classical moment ideal $I_\lambda$; the deformation is flat by our assumptions on dimension vectors, and thus $A_{{\bf d}}^\xi(Q)$ is a flat formal deformation of ${\mathcal{O}}({\operatorname{Mat}}_d(Q)){\Big/\hspace{-5pt}\Big/}_{\hspace{-.05in}\xi} \mathbb{G}$ by Lemma \[defmod\].
Spherical DAHA’s as quantized multiplicative quiver varieties {#sDAHA}
=============================================================
In this section we describe how to recover the spherical DAHA of type $A_{n-1}$ as the algebra $A_{{\bf d}}^\lambda(Q)$, where $Q$ is the Calogero-Moser quiver, $(Q,d)= \overset{1}{\bullet}\rightarrow\overset{n}{\bullet}{ \mathrel{\raisebox{.1em}{ \reflectbox{\rotatebox[origin=c]{-90}{$\circlearrowright$}}}}}.$ We also explain that the spherical generalized DAHA of type $Q$ is the algebra $A^\lambda_{{\bf d}}(Q)$, when $Q$ is a star-shaped quiver. As we have remarked in the Introduction, the results presented in this section, with formal parameters, are not very strong; in particular it would be interesting to upgrade the claims of this section to include generic numerical values of $q$, and also to study the parameter correspondence between the parameter $\lambda$ and the parameter $\mathbf{c}$ appearing in the definition of Cherednik algebras (see, e.g, [@EG], [@EOR]).
([@GG2]) The classical moment map, $$\mu: \mathrm{Mat}_n\times\mathrm{Mat}_n\times {\mathbb{C}}^n\times ({\mathbb{C}}^n)^*\to \mathfrak{gl}_n({\mathbb{C}})\times {\mathbb{C}},$$ $$(A,B,i,j)\mapsto ([A,B]+i{\otimes}j,j(i)),$$ on the Calogero-Moser matrix space is flat.
We make use of the following lemma, which is proven in [@CEE], using KZ functors, and in [@Ch1], [@Ch2] by direct computation.
The spherical DAHA of type $A_{n-1}$ is isomorphic as a ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-algebra to the spherical Cherednik algebra of type $A_{n-1}$.
([@EG], Theorem 2.16) The spherical Cherednik algebra is the universal deformation of the algebra of invariant differential operators on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$ for the action of $S_n$.
\[AnDAHA\] The algebra $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ is isomorphic to the spherical DAHA of type $A_{n-1}$.
Both algebras $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ and the spherical DAHA of type $A_{n-1}$ are deformation quantizations of the Calogero-Moser variety. Moreover, the spherical DAHA is the universal such deformation. It follows that there exists a surjective homomorphism of ${\mathbb{C}}[[\hbar]]$-algebras from spherical DAHA to $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$. This map is the identity modulo $\hbar$, and is thus an isomorphism.
Let $Q$ be a star-shaped quiver, and ${{\bf d}}$ be the Calogero-Moser dimension vector of Example \[starexample\]. Then the algebra $A^\xi_{{\bf d}}(Q)$ is isomorphic to the spherical GDAHA associated to $Q$.
This is proven in the same way as Theorem \[AnDAHA\].
[^1]: here, $\overrightarrow{\prod}$ denotes ordered product; see Section \[sec:QuivNot\].
[^2]: We have set $t=1$ in the definition of ${\mathcal{D}}_q({\operatorname{Mat}}_d(Q))$, for ease of notation (see Remark \[teq1\]). It is easily checked that defining $\mu^e_v(l^i_j):=\delta^i_j +t(q-q^{-1})\partial^i_ka^k_j$ yields a moment map for other choices of $t$. This will be needed in Section \[sDAHA\].
[^3]: For $t\neq 1$, we set instead (see Definition \[edgemomdef\], Remark \[teq1\]).
[^4]: For ${\mathfrak{g}}=\mathfrak{gl}_N$, this agrees with the Drinfeld-Jimbo quantization of $\mathfrak{gl}_N$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, Mail Stop B283, Los Alamos, NM 87544\
E-mail:
title: Aspects of heavy flavor jet physics in heavy ion collisions
---
Introduction
============
Theoretical and experimental studies of heavy flavor are central to high-energy nuclear physics. They provide new avenues to explore Quantum Chromodynamics and new diagnostics of the transport properties of nuclear matter matter [@Andronic:2015wma]. In these proceedings I will focus on open heavy flavor and jets that contain charm ($c$) and beauty ($b$) quarks in particular. Theoretical investigation of heavy-flavor tagged jet production in heavy ion collisions has been somewhat limited [@Huang:2013vaa; @Senzel:2016qau; @Li:2017wwc; @Dai:2018mhw], even though experimental effort in this direction is ramping up [@Chatrchyan:2013exa; @Sirunyan:2018jju; @hassan:hal-01846896; @Adare:2015kwa]. At transverse momenta $p_T \geq 100$ GeV the suppression of $b$-jets in nucleus-nucleus (A+A) reactions relative to the proton-proton (p+p) baseline was found to be similar to the one for inclusive jets. In the quest to identify observables that are sensitive to the heavy heavy quark mass, groomed soft-dropped momentum sharing distributions in heavy ion collisions show promise at transverse momenta $\leq 50$ GeV [@Li:2017wwc]. An alternative strategy is to exploit the fact that multi-jet events are abundant in high energy hadronic collisions and devise observables, such as dijet mass, that amplify the effects of quenching [@Kang:2018wrs].
Until recently, calculations of heavy flavor jet observables were limited to the traditional charm and beauty quark energy loss approach, see for example [@Djordjevic:2003zk]. It is now possible to evaluate $b$-jet and $c$-jet cross sections using the technique of semi-inclusive jet functions [@Li:2018xuv]. This theoretical development was enabled by the recent derivation of the semi-inclusive jet functions for heavy flavor jets in the vacuum [@Dai:2018ywt], and the in-medium splitting kernels for heavy flavor to first order in opacity [@Kang:2016ofv]. Phenomenological results give a good description of the LHC experimental measurements with improved control over theoretical uncertainties. Effective field theories for heavy jet substructure are also being developed, first in p+p collisions [@Lee:2019lge]. This serves as a motivation to revisit and further improve the Altarelli-Parisi splitting functions in nuclear matter that are the key ingredients in high-precision calculations in the theory of strong interactions and in Monte-Carlo event generators for heavy ion physics [@Sievert:2019cwq]. The evaluation of correlation effects due to coherent multiple scattering on parton branching processes is discussed.
These developments are outlined below in more detail: the dijet mass calculations are shown in Section 2. Section 3 summarizes the semi-inclusive jet function approach to $b$- and $c$-jets. Parton branching calculations beyond the soft gluon emission limit to higher order in opacity follow in Section 4. Conclusions are given in Section 5.
Back-to-back dijets and dijet mass modification
===============================================
Back-to-back light and heavy flavor dijet measurements are important for the accurate study of jet production and propagation in a dense QCD medium. They can test the path length, color charge, and mass dependence of quark and gluon energy loss in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) produced in ultra-relativistic nucleus collisions. Traditional studies of dijets in heavy ion physics have focused on observables such as the dijet momentum imbalance shift - the normalized distribution of the imbalance variable $z_J = p_{2T}/p_{1T}$. In the absence of a QGP one expects that the transverse momenta of the two jets are approximately balanced. On the other hand, in heavy ion collisions one of the jets may lose more energy than the other, resulting in a downshift of the peak in $z_J$ distribution because of strong in-medium interactions. This is shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig:dijets\], and while the shapes in A+A and p+p reactions are easy to differentiate, the changes in the average momentum imbalance $\langle z_J \rangle $ are subtle, on the order if 10%.
![Left: the dijet imbalance $z_J$ distributions for inclusive jets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are compared to CMS collaboration data [@Sirunyan:2018jju]. The band corresponds to a range of coupling strengths between the jet and the medium: $g_{\rm med}=1.8-2.0$. Right: nuclear modification factor plotted as a function of dijet invariant mass $m_{12}$ for $b$-tagged (right) dijet production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV at sPHENIX. We fix $g_{\rm med}=2.0$, and the band corresponds to a range of masses of the propagating system between $m_b$ and $2m_b$. Figures are reproduced from Ref. [@Kang:2018wrs].[]{data-label="fig:dijets"}](CMS-zj-inclusive.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left: the dijet imbalance $z_J$ distributions for inclusive jets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV are compared to CMS collaboration data [@Sirunyan:2018jju]. The band corresponds to a range of coupling strengths between the jet and the medium: $g_{\rm med}=1.8-2.0$. Right: nuclear modification factor plotted as a function of dijet invariant mass $m_{12}$ for $b$-tagged (right) dijet production in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 200$ GeV at sPHENIX. We fix $g_{\rm med}=2.0$, and the band corresponds to a range of masses of the propagating system between $m_b$ and $2m_b$. Figures are reproduced from Ref. [@Kang:2018wrs].[]{data-label="fig:dijets"}](sPHENIX-RAA-b-tagged-mass-band.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
As an example of observable where jet quenching effects “add” rather than “subtract” we look at the dijet invariant mass $m_{12}^2 = (p_1 + p_2)^2$ . It can be written in terms of the jets’ transverse momentum and rapidity as follows $$m_{12}^2 = m_1^2 + m_2^2 + 2\left[m_{1T}m_{2T}\mathrm{cosh}(\Delta \eta) - p_{1T}p_{2T}\mathrm{cos}(\Delta \phi)\right],$$ where $m_i^2 = p_i^2$ and $m_{iT} = \sqrt{m_i^2 + p_{iT}^2}$ are the invariant mass squared and the transverse mass for one of the jets; $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta \phi $ are the differences in the rapidities and the azimuthal angles, respectively. We can evaluate the dijet mass distribution from the double differential dijet cross section as follows $$\frac{d\sigma}{dm_{12}} = \int dp_{1T} dp_{2T} \frac{d\sigma}{dp_{1T}dp_{2T}} \delta\left(m_{12} - \sqrt{\langle m_1^2\rangle + \langle m_2^2\rangle + 2p_{1T}p_{2T}\langle\mathrm{cosh(\Delta \eta)} - \mathrm{cos}(\Delta \phi)\rangle} \right),
\label{eq:mass}$$
We find that the suppression of the dijet invariant mass can be as large as a factor of 10 at both RHIC and the LHC. For reference, the typical suppression of inclusive jets is typically a factor of 2. The nuclear modification is characterized by enhanced sensitivity to the coupling between the jet and the medium, for example a 10% variation in $g$ can lead to more than a factor of 2 difference in the suppression, denoted $R_{AA}$. Heavy quark mass effects are also more pronounced. One example is shown in the right panel of Figure \[fig:dijets\], where the reduction in $R_{AA}$ toward smaller dijet masses is purely driven by the large heavy quark mass $m_b$. The steeply falling spectra at RHIC energies facilitate such differentiation, but dijet masses can also be very effectively studied at the LHC.
Inclusive $b$-jet production from semi-inclusive jet functions
==============================================================
Inclusive jet production in both proton-proton (p+p) and heavy ion (p+A, A+A) collisions is a multiscale problem, suited to effective field theory treatment. The differential jet cross section versus $p_T$ and $\eta$ in hadronic collisions can be expressed as convolution of the parton distribution functions (PDFs), the hard part, and the semi-inclusive jet functions (SiJFs): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:main}
\frac{d\sigma_{pp\to J +X}}{dp_T d\eta} =& \frac{2p_T}{s}\sum_{a,b,c} \int_{x_a^{\rm min}}^1 \frac{dx_a}{x_a} f_a(x_a,\mu) \int_{x_b^{\rm min}}^1 \frac{dx_b}{x_b} f_b(x_b,\mu)
\nonumber \\ &\times
\int_{z_{\rm min}}^1
\frac{dz_c}{z_c^2}
\frac{d\hat{\sigma}_{ab\to c}(\hat{s}, p_T/z_c, \hat{\eta}, \mu)}{dv dz} J_{ J/c}(z_c, w_J \tan(R^\prime/2), m_Q, \mu)~. \end{aligned}$$ Here $f_{a,b}$ are the PDFs, $d\hat{\sigma}_{ab\to c}(\hat{s}, p_T, \hat{\eta}, \mu)/dv dz$ is the hard function for the sub-process $a b \to c $, and $J_{ J/c}$ is the jet function. It describes the probability of a parton $c$ with transverse momentum $p_T/z_c$ to fragment into a jet $J$ with $p_T$. The $\ln R$ resummation for jet production can be achieved by evolving the SiJFs from the jet scale $\mu_J$ to the factorization scale $\mu$. The renormalization group equations are the usual time-like DGLAP evolution equations.
![Left: comparison of predicted heavy flavor jet cross section $R_{\rm pA}$ in proton-nucleus collisions to CMS measurements [@Sirunyan:2016fcs; @Khachatryan:2015sva] of $c$-jets (top) and $b$-jets (bottom) at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV. Right: the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $b$-jets for different centrality classes (0-100%, 0-10% and 30-50% ), as indicated in the legend. Data is from CMS measurements [@Chatrchyan:2013exa]. Figures are reproduced from Ref. [@Li:2018xuv]. []{data-label="fig:RpA"}](RpA_b_c.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Left: comparison of predicted heavy flavor jet cross section $R_{\rm pA}$ in proton-nucleus collisions to CMS measurements [@Sirunyan:2016fcs; @Khachatryan:2015sva] of $c$-jets (top) and $b$-jets (bottom) at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV. Right: the nuclear modification factor $R_{AA}$ of $b$-jets for different centrality classes (0-100%, 0-10% and 30-50% ), as indicated in the legend. Data is from CMS measurements [@Chatrchyan:2013exa]. Figures are reproduced from Ref. [@Li:2018xuv]. []{data-label="fig:RpA"}](pbpb_RAA_pt.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
High energy jet production in p+A reactions places constraints on cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects. Within the statistical and systematic uncertainties many experimental measurements are consistent with a range of possibilities - from no nuclear effects to $\pm10\%$ cross section modification. The model described here takes into account the initial-state CNM energy loss. It is compared to data from 5.02 TeV p+Pb collisions [@Sirunyan:2016fcs; @Khachatryan:2015sva] in the left panel of Figure \[fig:RpA\]. In nucleus-nucleus collisions the semi-inclusive jet functions receive corrections from in-medium energy dissipation and QGP-induced branching. For example, the NLO medium correction to the $Q\to J_{Q}$ SiJF is $$\begin{aligned}
J^{\text{med},(1)}_{J_Q/Q}(z, p_T R,m, \mu) =& \int_{z(1-z) p_T R }^{\mu} d q_\perp P^{\rm med}_{QQ}(z, m, q_\perp)
- \delta(1-z) \int_0^1 dx \int_{x(1-x) p_T R}^{\mu} d q_\perp P^{\rm med}_{QQ}(x, m, q_\perp)
\nonumber \\
= & \left[\int_{z(1-z) p_T R}^{\mu} d q_\perp P^{\rm med}_{QQ}(z, m, q_\perp) \right]_+~.\end{aligned}$$ In the above equation, the terms correspond to the contribution with a radiation outside of the jet cone and the combination of the real radiation inside the jet cone and the virtual loop corrections. $P^{\rm med}_{QQ}(z, m, q_\perp)$ is the medium-induced heavy quark splitting kernel.
Numerical calculations of $b$-jet suppression are compared to data [@Chatrchyan:2013exa] in the right panel of Figure \[fig:RpA\]. $R_{\rm AA}$ decreases (indicating larger suppression) with increasing collision centrality. The attenuation factor is less dependent on the centrality when compared to the light jet modification. The predictions agree very well with the data for both the inclusive cross sections and the nuclear modification factors.
In-medium splitting functions to any order in opacity
=====================================================
Advances in the theoretical understanding and experimental measurements of reconstructed jets and heavy flavor necessitate more precise control over in-medium branching processes. An important step in this direction is to obtain in-medium splitting kernels beyond the soft gluon approximation and to higher orders in opacity - the correlation between multiple scattering centers in the nuclear medium. In Ref. [@Sievert:2018imd] a lightcone wavefunction techniques were combined with recurrence relations to allow for the calculation medium-induced splitting processes to an arbitrary order in opacity. One should note that it was argued that full numerical evaluation of such processes is necessary, as corrections to simple analytic limits are large [@Feal:2018sml].
The original work, which focused on the single $q \rightarrow qg$ chanel, has now ben extended to include all 4 lowest order branching processes in the medium ($q \rightarrow qg$, $g\rightarrow gg$, $q \rightarrow g q$, $g \rightarrow q\bar{q}$). The type of single-Born and double-Born interactions between the propagating partonic system and the nuclear medium that we consider are shown in the left panel of Figure \[f:ReactFF\]. Having derived the universal color and kinematic structure of these interactions, the recursion relations between the components of the splitting functions can be cast in the form of a matrix equation, which has a particularly simple triangular form because of their causal structure. We have written a Mathematica code to solve this equation to any desired order in opacity. Even though the number of terms in the splitting kernels grows rapidly at higher orders in opacity, we can evaluate these expressions numerically. One should note that the convergence of the VEGAS algorithm that approximates the probability distribution function of the integrand becomes slower and the calculation of the second order corrections uses 10 times larger number of random samples than that used in the leading order calculation. The one-dimensional parton splitting distribution $\frac{dN}{dx}$ is shown in the right panel of Figure \[f:ReactFF\] for a $100 \; \mathrm{GeV}$ jet. For light partons the corrections from second order in opacity in the small $x$ and large $x$ regions are all negative and of order $30\% - 70\%$. In the region of $x \sim 0.5$ the second order correction is positive and boosts the branching probability. This can also be clearly seen in the insets of the figure. For heavy quarks 2$^{\rm nd}$ order in opacity corrections are noticeably smaller in most parts of the available phase space.
Conclusions
===========
In summary, I covered a range of subjects related to the theory and phenomenology of heavy flavor jets in heavy ion reactions - from the formal aspects of parton shower formation to the practical issue of identifying new observables with better sensitivity to jet quenching effects that can enhance the existing tool chest of the field. Heavy flavor jets studies represent the convergence of the now well-developed heavy meson and light jet theory and measurements. I expect that their role as precision diagnostics of nuclear matter will continue to grow in the future, especially as they are being backed up by new theoretical developments.
[10]{}
A. Andronic et al., *[Heavy-flavour and quarkonium production in the LHC era: from proton-proton to heavy-ion collisions]{}*, [*Eur. Phys. J.* [**C76**]{} (2016) 107](https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3819-5) \[[[1506.03981]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03981)\].
J. Huang, Z.-B. Kang and I. Vitev, *[Inclusive b-jet production in heavy ion collisions at the LHC]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B726**]{} (2013) 251](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2013.08.009) \[[[1306.0909]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0909)\].
F. Senzel, J. Uphoff, Z. Xu and C. Greiner, *[The different energy loss mechanisms of inclusive and b-tagged reconstructed jets within ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B773**]{} (2017) 620](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.022) \[[[1602.05086]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05086)\].
H. T. Li and I. Vitev, *[Inverting the mass hierarchy of jet quenching effects with prompt $b$-jet substructure]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B793**]{} (2019) 259](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.04.052) \[[[1801.00008]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00008)\].
W. Dai, S. Wang, S.-L. Zhang, B.-W. Zhang and E. Wang, *[Transverse Momentum Balance and Angular Distribution of $b\bar{b}$ Dijets in Pb+Pb collisions]{}*, [[ 1806.06332]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06332).
collaboration, *[Evidence of b-Jet Quenching in PbPb Collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.* [**113**]{} (2014) 132301](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.029903,
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.132301) \[[[ 1312.4198]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4198)\].
collaboration, *[Comparing transverse momentum balance of b jet pairs in pp and PbPb collisions at $ \sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.02 $ TeV]{}*, [*JHEP* [**03**]{} (2018) 181](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2018)181) \[[[ 1802.00707]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00707)\].
H. Hassan, *[Charm jet production and properties in pp, p-Pb, and PbPb collisions measured with ALICE at the LHC]{}*, in *[19th International Workshop on Charm Physics (CHARM 2018)]{}*, (Novosibirsk, Russia), May, 2018, <https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01846896>.
collaboration, *[An Upgrade Proposal from the PHENIX Collaboration]{}*, [[ 1501.06197]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06197).
Z.-B. Kang, J. Reiten, I. Vitev and B. Yoon, *[Light and heavy flavor dijet production and dijet mass modification in heavy ion collisions]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D99**]{} (2019) 034006](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.034006) \[[[1810.10007]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.10007)\].
M. Djordjevic and M. Gyulassy, *[Heavy quark radiative energy loss in QCD matter]{}*, [*Nucl. Phys.* [**A733**]{} (2004) 265](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.12.020) \[[[nucl-th/0310076]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0310076)\].
H. T. Li and I. Vitev, *[Inclusive heavy flavor jet production with semi-inclusive jet functions: from proton to heavy-ion collisions]{}*, [[1811.07905]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07905).
L. Dai, C. Kim and A. K. Leibovich, *[Heavy Quark Jet Fragmentation]{}*, [*JHEP* [**09**]{} (2018) 109](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2018)109) \[[[ 1805.06014]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06014)\].
Z.-B. Kang, F. Ringer and I. Vitev, *[Effective field theory approach to open heavy flavor production in heavy-ion collisions]{}*, [*JHEP* [**03**]{} (2017) 146](https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2017)146) \[[[ 1610.02043]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02043)\].
C. Lee, P. Shrivastava and V. Vaidya, *[Predictions for energy correlators probing substructure of groomed heavy quark jets]{}*, [[1901.09095]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09095).
M. D. Sievert, I. Vitev and B. Yoon, *[A complete set of in-medium splitting functions to any order in opacity]{}*, [[1903.06170]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.06170).
collaboration, *[Measurements of the charm jet cross section and nuclear modification factor in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{{s}_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B772**]{} (2017) 306](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.06.053) \[[[1612.08972]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08972)\].
collaboration, *[Transverse momentum spectra of inclusive b jets in pPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = $ 5.02 TeV]{}*, [*Phys. Lett.* [**B754**]{} (2016) 59](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2016.01.010) \[[[1510.03373]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03373)\].
M. D. Sievert and I. Vitev, *[Quark branching in QCD matter to any order in opacity beyond the soft gluon emission limit]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D98**]{} (2018) 094010](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.094010) \[[[1807.03799]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03799)\].
X. Feal and R. Vazquez, *[Intensity of gluon bremsstrahlung in a finite plasma]{}*, [*Phys. Rev.* [**D98**]{} (2018) 074029](https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074029) \[[[1811.01591]{}](https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.01591)\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study elliptic gradient estimates for a nonlinear $f$-heat equation, which is related to the gradient Ricci soliton and the weighted log-Sobolev constant of smooth metric measure spaces. Precisely, we obtain Hamilton’s and Souplet-Zhang’s gradient estimates for positive solutions to the nonlinear $f$-heat equation only assuming the Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor is bounded below. As applications, we prove parabolic Liouville properties for some kind of ancient solutions to the nonlinear $f$-heat equation. Some special cases are also discussed.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Shanghai Maritime University, 1550 Haigang Avenue, Shanghai 201306, P. R. China'
author:
- 'Jia-Yong Wu'
title: Elliptic gradient estimates for a nonlinear heat equation and applications
---
[^1]
Introduction {#Int1}
============
Background
----------
This is a sequel to our previous work [@[Wu2]]. In that paper we proved elliptic gradient estimates for positive solutions to the $f$-heat equation on smooth metric measure spaces with only the Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor bounded below. We also applied the results to get parabolic Liouville theorems for some ancient solutions to the $f$-heat equation. In this paper we will investigate elliptic gradient estimates and Liouville properties for positive solutions to a nonlinear $f$-heat equation (see equation below) on complete smooth metric measure spaces.
Recall that an $n$-dimensional smooth metric measure space $(M^n,g,e^{-f}dv)$ is a complete Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ endowed with a weighted measure $e^{-f}dv$ for some $f\in C^\infty(M)$, where $dv$ is the volume element of the metric $g$. The associated $m$-Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor [@[BE]] is defined by $$Ric_f^m:=Ric+\nabla^2 f-\frac{1}{m}df\otimes df$$ for some constant $m>0$, where $Ric$ and $\nabla^2$ denote the Ricci tensor and the Hessian of the metric $g$. When $m=\infty$, we have the ($\infty$-)Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor $$Ric_f:=Ric+\nabla^2 f.$$ The Bochner formula for $Ric_f^m$ can be read as (see also [@[Wu2]]) $$\label{weighBoch}
\begin{split}
\frac 12\Delta_f|\nabla u|^2&=|\nabla^2
u|^2+\langle\nabla\Delta_f u, \nabla u\rangle+Ric_f(\nabla u, \nabla u)\\
&\geq\frac{(\Delta_f u)^2}{m+n}
+\langle\nabla\Delta_f u, \nabla u\rangle+Ric_f^m(\nabla u, \nabla u)
\end{split}$$ for any $u\in C^\infty(M)$. When $m<\infty$, could be viewed as the Bochner formula for the Ricci tensor of an $(n+m)$-dimensional manifold. Hence many geometric and topological properties for manifolds with Ricci tensor bounded below can be possibly extended to smooth metric measure spaces with $m$-Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor bounded below, see for example [@[LD]; @[Lott]]. When $m=\infty$, the ($\infty$-)Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor is related to the gradient Ricci soliton $$Ric_f=\lambda\, g$$ for some constant $\lambda$, which plays an important role in Hamilton’s Ricci flow as it corresponds to the self-similar solution and arises as limits of dilations of singularities in the Ricci flow [@[Hami]]. A Ricci soliton is said to be shrinking, steady, or expanding according to $\lambda>0$, $\lambda=0$ or $\lambda<0$. On the gradient estimate, the smooth function $f$ is often called a potential function. We refer [@[Cao1]] and the references therein for further discussions.
On smooth metric measure space $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$, the $f$-Laplacian $\Delta_f$ is defined by $$\Delta_f:=\Delta-\nabla f\cdot\nabla,$$ which is self-adjoint with respect to the weighted measure. The associated $f$-heat equation is defined by $$\label{weiheat}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\Delta_f \,u$$ If $u$ is independent of time $t$, then it is $f$-harmonic function. In the past few years, various Liouville properties for $f$-harmonic functions were obtained, see for example [@[Bri]], [@[LD]], [@[LD2]], [@[MuWa]], [@[WW]], [@[Wu]], [@[WuWu0]], [@[WuWu]], and the references therein. Recently, the author [@[Wu2]] proved elliptic gradient estimates and parabolic Liouville properties for $f$-heat equation under some assumptions of ($\infty$-)Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor.
In this paper, we will study analytical and geometrical properties for positive solutions to the equation $$\label{equ1}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\Delta_f\, u+au\ln u,$$ where $a\in\mathbb{R}$, on complete smooth metric measure spaces $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ with only the Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor bounded below. Here we assume $M$ has no boundary. It is well-known that all solutions to its Cauchy problem exist for all time. Under the assumption of $Ric_f$, we shall prove local elliptic (Hamilton’s type and Souplet-Zhang’s type) gradient estimates for positive solutions to the nonlinear $f$-heat equation . As applications, we prove parabolic Liouville properties for the nonlinear $f$-heat equation .
Historically, gradient estimates for the harmonic function on manifolds were discovered by Yau [@[Yau]] and Cheng-Yau [@[Cheng-Yau]] in 1970s. It was extended to the so-called Li-Yau gradient estimate for the heat equation by Li and Yau [@[Li-Yau]] in 1980s. In 1990s, Hamilton [@[Ham93]] gave an elliptic type gradient estimate for the heat equation on closed manifolds, which was later generalized to the non-compact case by Kotschwar [@[Kots]]. In 2006, Souplet and Zhang [@[Sou-Zh]] proved a localized Cheng-Yau type estimate for the heat equation by adding a logarithmic correction term. Integrating Hamilton’s or Souplet-Zhang’s gradient estimates along space-time paths, their estimates exhibit an interesting phenomenon that one can compare the temperature of two different points at the same time provided the temperature is bounded. However, Li-Yau gradient estimate only provides the comparison at different times.
Equation has some relations to the geometrical quantities. On one hand, the time-independent version of with constant function $f$ is linked with gradient Ricci solitons, for example, see [@[Ma]; @[Yang]] for detailed explanations. On the other hand, the steady-state version of is closely related to weighted log-Sobolev constants of smooth metric measure spaces (Riemmann manifolds case due to Chung-Yau [@[Chu-Yau]]). Recall that, weighted log-Sobolev constants $S_M$, associated to a closed smooth metric measure space $(M^n,g,e^{-f}dv)$, are the smallest positive constants such that the weighted logarithmic-Sobolev inequality $$\int_M u^2\ln(u^2)\,e^{-f}dv\leq S_M\int_M |\nabla u|^2\,e^{-f}dv$$ holds for all smooth function $u$ on $M$ satisfying $\int_M u^2 e^{-f}dv=V_f(M)$. In particular, the case of Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$ equipped with the Gaussian measure $$e^{-f}dv:=(4\pi)^{-\frac n2}\exp\left(-\frac{|x|^2}{4}\right)dx$$ is inequivalent to the original log-Sobolev inequality due to L. Gross [@[Gross]].
If function $u$ achieves the weighted log-Sobolev constant and satisfies $\int_M u^2 e^{-f}dv=V_f(M)$, that is, $$S_M=\frac{\int_M|\nabla u|^2\,e^{-f}dv}{\int_M u^2\ln u^2\,e^{-f}dv}
=\inf_{\phi\not=0}\frac{\int_M|\nabla\phi|^2\,e^{-f}dv}{\int_M\phi^2\ln\phi^2\,e^{-f}dv}.$$ Using the Lagrange’s method with respect to weighted measure $e^{-f}dv$, we have $$\frac{-2\Delta_f u}{\int_Mu^2\ln u^2\,e^{-f}dv}
-\frac{\int_M|\nabla u|^2\,e^{-f}dv}{(\int_Mu^2\ln u^2\,e^{-f}dv)^2}\left(2u\ln u^2+2u\right)
+c_1u=0$$ for some constant $c_1$. By the definition of $S_M$, this can be reduced to $$\label{vary}
-\Delta_f u-S_M(u\ln u^2+u)+c_2u=0$$ for the constant $$c_2=\frac{c_1}{2}\int_Mu^2\ln u^2\,e^{-f}dv.$$ Notice that multiplying by $u$ and integrating it with respect to the weighted measure $e^{-f}dv$, we have $$\int_M |\nabla u|^2\,e^{-f}dv-S_M\int_M u^2(\ln u^2+1)\,e^{-f}dv
+c_2\int_Mu^2\,e^{-f}dv=0,$$ which implies $S_M=c_2$. Therefore can be simplified as $$\label{sobl}
\Delta_f\, u+S_M\, u\ln u^2=0,$$ which is an elliptic version of . For , if $Ric^m_f\geq 0$, using instead of the classical Bochner formula for the Ricci tensor and following Chung-Yau’s arguments [@[Chu-Yau]], we immediately get $$\sup u\leq e^{(n+m)/2},\quad\quad |\nabla\ln u|^2+S_M\ln u^2\leq(n+m)S_M$$ and $$S_M \geq\min\left\{\frac{\lambda_1}{8e}, \frac{1}{(n+m)d^2}\right\},$$ where $\lambda_1$ and $d$ denote the first nonzero eigenvalue of the $f$-Laplacian and the diameter of $(M^n,g,e^{-f}dv)$.
Main results
------------
Our first result gives a local Hamilton’s gradient estimate for any positive solution to the equation .
\[main\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space. For any point $x_0\in M$ and $R\geq2$, $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq0$ in $B(x_0,R)$. Let $0<u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D$, be a smooth solution to the equation in $Q_{R,T}\equiv B(x_0,R)\times[t_0-T,t_0]\subset M\times(-\infty,\infty)$, where $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ and $T>0$.
1. If $a\geq0$, then there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that $$\label{heor1}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}\leq c(n) \sqrt{D}\left(\frac{1}{R}+\sqrt{\frac{|\alpha|}{R}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t{-}t_0{+}T}}+\sqrt{K}{+}\sqrt{c_1(n,K,a,D)}\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2, T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$, where $c_1(n,K,a,D)=\max\{2(n-1)K+a(2+\ln D),\,0\}$.
2. If $a<0$, further assuming that $\delta\leq u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $\delta>0$, then there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that $$\label{heor2}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}\leq c(n) \sqrt{D}\left(\frac{1}{R}+\sqrt{\frac{|\alpha|}{R}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t{-}t_0{+}T}}+\sqrt{K}+\sqrt{c_2(n,K,a,\delta)}\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2, T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$, where $c_2(n,K,a,\delta)=\max\{2(n-1)K+a(2+\ln\delta),\,0\}$.
Here, $\alpha:=\max_{\{x|d(x,x_0)=1\}}\Delta_f\,r(x)$, where $r(x)$ is the distance function to $x$ from base point $x_0$.
Cao, Fayyazuddin Ljungberg and Liu [@[CFL]] proved Li-Yau type gradient estimates for equation with constant function $f$; our results belong to the elliptic type. An distinct feature of Theorem \[main\] is that the gradient estimates hold only assuming the ($\infty$-)Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor is bounded below (without any assumption on $f$).
We also remark that our proof is a little different from Yau’s original proof [@[Yau]]. In Yau’s case, the proof is to compute the evolution of quantity $\ln u$, then multiply by a cut-off function and apply the maximum principle. In our case, we compute the evolution of quantity $u^{1/3}$ instead of $\ln u$. Moreover, our proof not only applies some arguments of Souplet-Zhang [@[Sou-Zh]], where the maximum principle in a local space-time supported set is discussed, but also uses some proof tricks of Bailesteanua-Cao-Pulemotov [@[BCP]], Li [@[Lij]] and Wei-Wylie’s comparison theorem [@[WW]].
An immediate application of Theorem \[main\] is the parabolic Liouville property for the nonlinear $f$-heat equation. Similar results appeared in [@[Jiang]].
\[app1\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space with $Ric_f\geq 0$.
1. When $a>0$, if $u(x,t)$ is a positive ancient solution to equation (that is, a solution defined in all space and negative time) such that $0<u(x,t)\leq e^{-2}$, then $u$ does not exist.
2. When $a<0$, let $u(x,t)$ be a positive ancient solution to equation . If $e^{-2}\leq u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D<1$, then $u$ does not exist; if $e^{-2}\leq u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D\geq 1$, then $u\equiv 1$.
3. When $a=0$, if $u(x,t)$ is a positive ancient solution to equation such that $u(x,t)=o\Big(\big[r^{1/2}(x)+|t|^{1/4}\big]^2\Big)$ near infinity, then $u$ is constant.
Theorem \[app1\] immediately implies the following result.
\[app1b\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional closed smooth metric measure space with $Ric_f\geq 0$. If positive smooth function $u(x)$ achieves the weighted log-Sobolev constant $S_M$ and satisfies $$\int_M u^2 e^{-f}dv=V_f(M),$$ then $u(x)>e^{-2}$.
For more interesting special cases and applications of Theorem \[main\], see Section \[sec3\] for furthermore discussion.
Our second result gives a Souplet-Zhang’s elliptic gradient estimate for positive solutions to the nonlinear $f$-heat equation . The proof mainly adopts the arguments of Bailesteanua-Cao-Pulemotov [@[BCP]], Souplet-Zhang [@[Sou-Zh]] and Brighton [@[Bri]] (see also [@[Wu2]]).
\[main0\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space. For any point $x_0\in M$ and $R\geq 2$, $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq0$ in $B(x_0,R)$. Let $0<u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D$, be a smooth solution to $f$-heat equation in $Q_{R,T}\equiv B(x_0,R)\times[t_0-T,t_0]\subset M\times(-\infty,\infty)$, where $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ and $T>0$.
1. If $a\geq0$, then there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that $$\label{heork1}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{u}\leq c(n)\left(\sqrt{\frac{1{+}|\alpha|}{R}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}+\sqrt{K}+\sqrt{a(\kappa+1)}\right)
\left(1+\ln \frac Du\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2, T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$, where $\kappa=\max\{|\ln D|, 1\}$.
2. If $a<0$, then there exists a constant $c(n)$ such that $$\label{heork2}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{u}\leq c(n)\left(\sqrt{\frac{1{+}|\alpha|}{R}}{+}\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}{+}\sqrt{K}{+}\sqrt{c_3(n,a,K)}{+}\sqrt{-a\kappa}\right)
\left(1{+}\ln \frac Du\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2, T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$. where $c_3(n,a,K)=\max\{a+(n-1)K, 0\}$, and $\kappa=\max\{|\ln D|, 1\}$.
Here, $\alpha:=\max_{\{x|d(x,x_0)=1\}}\Delta_f\,r(x)$, where $r(x)$ is the distance function to $x$ from base point $x_0$.
If $a=0$, theorem recovers the result in [@[Wu2]]. We point out that, similar to Theorem \[main\], gradient estimates of Theorem \[main0\] also hold provided that only the Bakry-Emery Ricci tensor is bounded below.
In [@[Wu2010]] the author proved similar estimates when $m$-Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor is bounded below. He also remarked that $m$-Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor could be replaced by ($\infty$-)Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor (see Remark 1.3 (ii) in [@[Wu2010]]). Professor Xiang-Dong Li pointed out to me that the remark is not accurate because of the lack of global $f$-Laplacian comparison except some special constraint of $f$ is given. However, Theorem \[main0\] corrects my previous remark and provides an answer to this question.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec2\], we will give some auxiliary lemmas and introduce a space-time cut-off function. These results are prepared to prove Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[main0\]. In Section \[sec3\], we will give completely detail proofs of Theorem \[main\] by the classical Yau’s gradient estimate technique. Then we will apply Theorem \[main\] to prove Theorem \[app1\] and Corollary \[app1b\]. Meanwhile we will also discuss some special cases of Theorem \[main\]. In Section \[sec4\], we will adopt the arguments of Theorem 1.1 in [@[Wu2]] to prove Theorem \[main0\].
Basic lemmas {#sec2}
============
In this section, we will give some useful lemmas, which are prepared to prove Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[main0\] in the following sections. Consider the nonlinear $f$-heat equation $$\label{maineq}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}=\Delta_f\, u+au\ln u,$$ where $a$ is a real constant, on an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$. For any point $x_0\in M$ and any $R>0$, let $$0<u(x,t)\leq D$$ for some constant $D$, be a smooth solution to in $Q_{R,T}:\equiv B(x_0,R)\times[t_0-T,t_0]\subset M\times(-\infty,\infty)$, where $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ and $T>0$.
Similar to [@[Lij]; @[LiZhu]], we introduce a new smooth function $$h(x,t):=u^{1/3}(x,t)$$ in $Q_{R,T}$. Then $$0<h(x,t)\leq D^{1/3}$$ in $Q_{R,T}$. By , $h(x,t)$ satisfies $$\label{mequk}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)h+2h^{-1}|\nabla h|^2+ah\ln h=0.$$ Using above, we derive the following evolution formula, which is a generalization of Lemma 2.1 in [@[Jiang]].
\[Le11\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space. For any point $x_0\in M$ and $R>0$, $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq0$ in $B(x_0,R)$. Let $0<u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D$, be a smooth solution to in $Q_{R,T}$. Let $$\omega(x,t):=h\cdot|\nabla h|^2,$$ where $h:=u^{1/3}$. For any $(x,t)\in Q_{R,T}$,
1. if $a\geq0$, then $\omega$ satisfies $$\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega\geq -4h^{-1}\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\omega\right\rangle+4h^{-3}\omega^2-\left[2(n-1)K+a\ln D+2a\right]\omega.$$
2. if $a<0$, further assuming that $0<\delta\leq u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $\delta>0$, then $\omega$ satisfies $$\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega\geq-4h^{-1}\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\omega\right\rangle+4h^{-3}\omega^2-\left[2(n-1)K+a\ln \delta+2a\right]\omega.$$
Following the computation method of [@[Li-Yau]], let $e_1, e_2,..., e_n$ be a local orthonormal frame field on $M^n$. We adopt the notation that subscripts in $i$, $j$, and $k$, with $1\leq i, j, k\leq n$, mean covariant differentiations in the $e_i$, $e_j$ and $e_k$, directions respectively.
Differentiating $\psi$ in the direction of $e_i$, we have $$\label{emmpro1}
\omega_j=h_j\cdot|\nabla h|^2+2hh_ih_{ij}$$ and once more differentiating $\psi$ in the direction of $e_i$, $$\Delta\omega=2h|h_{ij}|^2+2hh_ih_{ijj}+4h_ih_jh_{ij}+h^2_ih_{jj},$$ where $h_i:=\nabla_i h$ and $h_{ijj}:=\nabla_j\nabla_j\nabla_i h$, etc. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_f\,\omega&=\Delta\omega-\langle\nabla f,\nabla\omega\rangle\\
&=2h|h_{ij}|^2+2hh_ih_{ijj}+4h_ih_jh_{ij}+h^2_ih_{jj}-2hh_{ij}h_if_j-h^2_ih_jf_j\\
&=2h|h_{ij}|^2+2hh_i(\Delta_f h)_i+2hRic_f(\nabla h, \nabla h)+4h_ih_jh_{ij}+h^2_i\Delta_fh.
\end{aligned}$$ By , we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial t}&=2h\nabla_ih\cdot\nabla_i\left(\Delta_f h+2h^{-1} h_j^2
+ah\ln h\right)+h_t h_j^2\\
&=2h\nabla h \nabla \Delta_f h+8h_ih_jh_{ij}-4h^{-1}h_i^4 +2ah(\ln h+1)h_i^2\\
&\quad+h^2_i\Delta_f h+2h^{-1} |\nabla h|^4 +ah\ln h\cdot h^2_i\\
&=2h\nabla h \nabla \Delta_f h+8h_ih_jh_{ij}-2h^{-1}h_i^4+(3\ln h+2)ahh_i^2+h^2_i\Delta_f h.
\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above two equations, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega&=2h|h_{ij}|^2
+2h {Ric_f}_{ij} h_ih_j-4h_ih_jh_{ij}\\
&\quad+2h^{-1}h_i^4-(3\ln h+2)ahh_i^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega&\geq2h|h_{ij}|^2+4h_ih_jh_{ij}+2h^{-1}h^4_i-2(n-1)K\,\omega\\
&\quad-8h_ih_jh_{ij}-(3\ln h+2)a\omega.
\end{aligned}$$ Using $$2h|h_{ij}|^2+4h_ih_jh_{ij}+2h^{-1}h^4_i\geq 0,$$ we further get $$\label{dge2}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega\geq-8h_ih_jh_{ij}-\left[2(n-1)K+3a\ln h+2a\right]\omega.$$ Since implies $$\omega_jh_j=2hh_ih_jh_{ij}+h_i^4,$$ using this, can be written by $$\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega\geq4h^{-3}\omega^2-4h^{-1}\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\omega\right\rangle-\left[2(n-1)K+3a\ln h+2a\right]\omega.$$ Finally, we notice that if $a\geq 0$, then $0<h\leq D^{1/3}$ and hence $$\ln h\leq 1/3\ln D.$$ If $a<0$, then $\delta^{1/3}\leq h\leq D^{1/3}$ and hence $$1/3\ln\delta\leq \ln h\leq 1/3\ln D.$$ The above two cases imply the desired results.
For equation , if we introduce another new function $$g=\ln u,$$ then $g$ satisfies $$\label{lemequ}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)g+|\nabla g|^2+ag=0.$$ Using this, we can get the following lemma, which is also a generalization of previous results in [@[Sou-Zh]; @[Wu2010]; @[Wu2]].
\[Lem2\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space. For any point $x_0\in M$ and $R>0$, $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq0$ in $B(x_0,R)$. Let $0<u(x,t)\leq D$ be a smooth solution to equation in $Q_{R,T}$. Let $g:=\ln u$ and $\mu:=1+\ln D$. Then for all $(x,t)\in Q_{R,T}$, the function $$\omega:=\left|\nabla\ln(\mu-g)\right|^2=\frac{|\nabla g|^2}{(\mu-g)^2}$$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}\label{lemmaequ3}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)\omega&\geq\frac{2(g-\ln D)}{\mu-g}\left\langle \nabla
g,\nabla\omega\right\rangle\\
&\quad+2(\mu-g)\omega^2-2(a+(n-1)K)\omega-\frac{2ag}{\mu-g}\omega.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof of lemma is almost the same as that of [@[Wu2010]]. In fact, in Lemma 2.1 of [@[Wu2010]], if we let $\alpha=1+\ln D$, which means $\alpha=\mu$, then we have $\delta=1$. Therefore from (2.4) of [@[Wu2010]], we immediately get .
In the rest of this section, we introduce a smooth cut-off function originated by Li-Yau [@[Li-Yau]] (see also [@[BCP]] and [@[Wu2]]). This will also be used in the proof of our theorems.
\[cutoff\] Fix $t_0\in \mathbb{R}$ and $T>0$. For any $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$, there exists a smooth function $\bar\psi:[0,\infty)\times[t_0-T,t_0]\to\mathbb R$ such that:
1. $$0\leq\bar\psi(r,t)\leq 1$$ in $[0,R]\times[t_0-T,t_0]$, and it is supported in a subset of $[0,R]\times[t_0-T,t_0]$.
2. $$\bar\psi(r,t)=1\quad \mathrm{and} \quad\frac{\partial\bar\psi}{\partial r}(r,t)=0$$ in $[0,R/2]\times[\tau,t_0]$ and $[0,R/2]\times[t_0-T,t_0]$, respectively.
3. $$\left|\frac{\partial\bar\psi}{\partial t}\right|\leq\frac{C\bar\psi^{\frac12}}{\tau-(t_0-T)}$$ in $[0,\infty)\times[t_0-T,t_0]$ for some $C>0$, and $\bar\psi(r,t_0-T)=0$ for all $r\in[0,\infty)$.
4. $$-\frac{C_\epsilon\bar\psi^\epsilon}{R}\leq\frac{\partial\bar\psi}{\partial r}\leq 0\quad
\mathrm{and}
\quad \left|\frac{\partial^2\bar\psi}{\partial r^2}\right|\leq\frac{C_\epsilon\bar\psi^\epsilon}{R^2}$$ in $[0,\infty)\times[t_0-T,t_0]$ for each $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ with some constant $C_\epsilon$ depending on $\epsilon$.
We remind the readers that Lemma \[cutoff\] is a little different from that of [@[Li-Yau]] and [@[Sou-Zh]]. Here, the cut-off function was previously used by M. Bailesteanua, X. Cao and A. Pulemotov [@[BCP]].
Proof of Theorem \[main\] {#sec3}
=========================
In this section, we will apply Lemmas \[Le11\] and \[cutoff\], the localization technique of Souplet-Zhang [@[Sou-Zh]], some tricks of Bailesteanua-Cao-Pulemotov [@[BCP]], Li [@[Lij]], Brighton [@[Bri]] and Jiang [@[Jiang]] to prove Theorem \[main\].
We only prove the case (i) $a\geq 0$. The case (ii) $a<0$ is similar. Pick any number $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$ and choose a cutoff function $\bar\psi(r,t)$ satisfying propositions of Lemma \[cutoff\]. We will show that holds at the space-time point $(x,\tau)$ for all $x$ such that $d(x,x_0)<R/2$, where $R\geq 2$. Since $\tau$ is arbitrary, the conclusion then follows.
Introduce a cutoff function $\psi:M\times[t_0-T,t_0]\to \mathbb R$, such that $$\psi=\bar{\psi}(d(x,x_0),t)\equiv\psi(r,t).$$ Then, $\psi(x,t)$ is supported in $Q_{R,T}$. Our aim is to estimate $\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)(\psi\omega)$ and carefully analyze the result at a space-time point where the function $\psi\omega$ attains its maximum.
By Lemma \[Le11\](i), we can calculate that $$\begin{aligned}\label{lemdx3}
\left(\Delta_f-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right)(\psi\omega)&+\left(4h^{-1}\nabla
h-2\frac{\nabla\psi}{\psi}\right)\cdot\nabla(\psi\omega)\\
&\geq 4h^{-3}\omega^2\psi+4h^{-1}\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\psi\right\rangle\omega
-2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}\omega\\
&\quad+(\Delta_f\psi)\omega-\psi_t\omega-\left[2(n-1)K+a\ln D+2a\right]\psi\omega.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $(x_1,t_1)$ be a maximum space-time point for $\psi\omega$ in the closed set $$\left\{(x,t)\in M\times[t_0-T,\tau]\,|d(x,x_0)\leq R\right\}.$$ Assume that $(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)>0$; otherwise, $\omega(x,\tau)\leq0$ and naturally holds at $(x,\tau)$ whenever $d(x, x_0)<\frac R2$. Here $t_1\neq t_0-T$, since we assume $(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)>0$. We can also assume that function $\psi(x,t)$ is smooth at $(x_1,t_1)$ due to the standard Calabi’s argument [@[Cala]]. Since $(x_1,t_1)$ is a maximum space-time point, at this point, $$\Delta_f(\psi\omega)\leq0,\quad(\psi\omega)_t\geq0
\quad \mathrm{and}\quad\nabla(\psi\omega)=0.$$ Using these, at space-time $(x_1,t_1)$ can be simplified as $$\label{lefor}
\begin{aligned}
4\omega^2\psi\leq&\left(-4h^2\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\psi\right\rangle+2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}h^3\right)\omega
-(\Delta_f\psi)h^3\omega+\psi_th^3\omega\\
&+c_1(n,K,a,D)\cdot\psi h^3\omega,
\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1(n,K,a,D):=\max\{2(n-1)K+a\ln D+2a,\,0\}$.
We apply to prove the theorem. If $x_1\in B(x_0,1)$, then $\psi$ is constant in space direction in $B(x_0,R/2)$ according to our assumption, where $R\geq2$. So at $(x_1,t_1)$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\omega&\leq D\left(\frac 14\cdot\frac{\psi_t}{\psi}+\frac{c_1(n,K,a,D)}{4}\right)\\
&\leq D\left(\frac{C}{\tau-(t_0-T)}+\frac{c_1(n,K,a,D)}{4}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where we used proposition (3) of Lemma \[cutoff\]. Since $\psi(x,\tau)=1$ when $d(x,x_0)<R/2$ by the proposition (2) of Lemma \[cutoff\], the above estimate indeed gives $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(x,\tau)=(\psi\omega)(x,\tau)
&\leq(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq\omega(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq D\left(\frac{C}{\tau-(t_0-T)}+\frac{c_1(n,K,a,D)}{4}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in M$ such that $d(x,x_0)<R/2$. By the definition of $w(x,\tau)$ and the fact that $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$ was chosen arbitrarily, we prove that $$\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}(x,t)\leq \sqrt{D}
\left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{c_1(n,K,a,D)}
\right)$$ for all $(x,t)\in Q_{R/2,T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$. This implies .
Now, we assume $x_1\not\in B(x_0,1)$. Since $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ and $r(x_1,x_0)\geq 1$ in $B(x_0,R)$, we have the $f$-Laplacian comparison (see Theorem 3.1 in [@[WW]]) $$\label{gencomp}
\Delta_f\,r(x_1)\leq\alpha+(n-1)K(R-1),$$ where $\alpha:=\max_{\{x|d(x,x_0)=1\}}\Delta_f\,r(x)$. This comparison theorem holds without any grow condition of $f$, which is critical in our latter proof. Below we will estimate upper bounds for each term of the right-hand side of , similar to the arguments of Souplet-Zhang [@[Sou-Zh]]. Meanwhile, we also repeatedly use the Young’s inequality $$a_1a_2\leq \frac{{a_1}^p}{p}+\frac{{a_2}^q}{q},\quad \forall\,\,\, a_1,a_2,p,q>0
\,\,\,\mathrm{with}\,\,\, \frac 1p+\frac 1q=1.$$ In the following $c$ denotes a constant depending only on $n$ whose value may change from line to line.
First, we have the estimates of first term of the right hand side of : $$\begin{aligned}\label{term1}
-4h^2\left\langle \nabla
h,\nabla\psi\right\rangle\omega
&\leq 4h^{3/2}\cdot|\nabla\psi|\cdot\omega^{3/2}\\
&\leq 4D^{1/2}\cdot|\nabla\psi|\psi^{-3/4}\cdot(\psi\omega^2)^{3/4}\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+c D^2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^4}{\psi^3}\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+c\frac{D^2}{R^4}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term of the right hand side of (\[lefor\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{term2}
2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}h^3 \omega
&\leq2D\cdot|\nabla\psi|^2\psi^{-3/2}\cdot\psi^{1/2}\omega \\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+c D^2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^4}{\psi^3}\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+c\frac{D^2}{R^4}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the third term of the right hand side of , since $\psi$ is a radial function, then at $(x_1,t_1)$, using we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{term3}
-(\Delta_f\psi)h^3\omega&=-\left[(\partial_r\psi)\Delta_fr+(\partial^2_r\psi)\cdot
|\nabla r|^2\right]h^3\omega\\
&\leq-\left[\partial_r\psi\left(\alpha+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)
+\partial^2_r\psi\right]h^3\omega\\
&\leq D\left[|\partial^2_r\psi|+\left(|\alpha|+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)|\partial_r\psi|\right]\omega\\
&=D\psi^{1/2}\omega\frac{|\partial^2_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}
+D\left(|\alpha|+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)\psi^{1/2}\omega
\frac{|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2{+}c\,D^2
\left[\left(\frac{|\partial^2_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2
{+}\left(\frac{|\alpha|\cdot|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2
{+}\left(\frac{K(R{-}1)|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2\right]\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+c\frac{D^2}{R^4}+c\frac{\alpha^2D^2}{R^2}
+cK^2D^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used proposition (4) of Lemma \[cutoff\].
Then we estimate the fourth term of the right hand side of : $$\begin{aligned}\label{term4}
|\psi_t|h^3\omega&=\psi^{1/2}\omega\frac{h^3|\psi_t|}{\psi^{1/2}}\\
&\leq\frac 35\left(\psi^{1/2}\omega\right)^2+c
\left(\frac{h^3|\psi_t|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2\\
&\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+\frac{cD^2}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we estimate the last term of the right hand side of : $$\label{term5}
c_1(n,K,a,D)\psi h^3\omega\leq\frac 35\psi\omega^2+cD^2c_1^2(n,K,a,D).$$
We now substitute - into the right hand side of , and get that $$\label{leforfor}
\psi\omega^2\leq c\,D^2\left(\frac{1}{R^4}{+}\frac{\alpha^2}{R^2}+\frac{1}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}+K^2+c_1^2(n,K,a,D)\right)$$ at $(x_1,t_1)$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi^2\omega^2)(x_1,t_1)
&\leq(\psi\omega^2)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq c D^2\left(\frac{1}{R^4}{+}\frac{\alpha^2}{R^2}+\frac{1}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}+K^2+c_1^2(n,K,a,D)\right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi(x,\tau)=1$ when $d(x,x_0)<R/2$ by the proposition (2) of Lemma \[cutoff\], from the above estimate, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(x,\tau)&=(\psi\omega)(x,\tau)\\
&\leq(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq c\,D\left(\frac{1}{R^2}{+}\frac{|\alpha|}{R}+\frac{1}{\tau-t_0+T}+K+c_1(n,K,a,D)\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in M$ such that $d(x,x_0)<R/2$. By the definition of $w(x,\tau)$ and the fact that $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$ was chosen arbitrarily, we in fact show that $$\sqrt{h}|\nabla h|(x,t)\leq c\sqrt{D}\left(\frac{1}{R}{+}\frac{\sqrt{|\alpha|}}{\sqrt{R}}{+}\frac{1}{\sqrt{t{-}t_0{+}T}}
{+}\sqrt{K}{+}\sqrt{c_1(n,K,a,D)}\right)$$ for all $(x,t)\in Q_{R/2,T}\equiv B(x_0,R/2)\times[t_0-T,t_0]$ with $t\neq t_0-T$. We have finished the proof of theorem since $h=u^{1/3}$ and $R\geq2$.
In particular, if $a=0$, Theorem \[main\] implies a local elliptic gradient estimate for the $f$-heat equation: $$\label{cheorf}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}\leq c(n)\, \sqrt{D}\left(\frac{1}{R}+\sqrt{\frac{|\alpha|}{R}}
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}+\sqrt{K}\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2,T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$, for any $R\geq2$. Compared with author’s recent result [@[Wu2]], though is not sharp from Example 1.2 of [@[Wu2]], it seems to be a new form of elliptic type gradient estimates for $f$-heat equation.
Furthermore, if $a=0$ and $f$ is constant, by using the classical Laplacian comparison $\Delta r\leq(n-1)(1/r+\sqrt{K})$ instead of Wei-Wylie’s $f$-Laplacian comparison (see ), the proof of Theorem \[main\] in fact implies the following gradient estimate for the heat equation: $$\label{cheorf2}
\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}\leq c(n)\, \sqrt{D}\left(\frac{1}{R}
+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}+\sqrt{K}\right)$$ in $Q_{R/2,T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$, for all $R>0$. Compared with Hamilton’s estimate [@[Ham93]] and Souplet-Zhang’s estimate [@[Sou-Zh]] for the heat equation, this elliptic gradient estimate seems to be new.
Moreover, gradient estimate implies
\[app2\] Let $(M,g,e^{-f}dv)$ be an $n$-dimensional complete smooth metric measure space with $Ric_f\geq -(n-1)K$ for some constant $K\geq 0$. If $u(x,t)$ is a positive ancient solution to the $f$-heat equation such that $0<u(x,t)\leq D$ for some constant $D$, then $|\nabla u|\leq c(n)D\sqrt{K}$.
Corollary \[app2\] implies Brighton’s result [@[Bri]]: any positive bounded $f$-harmonic function on complete noncompact smooth metric measure spaces with $Ric_f\geq 0$ must be constant.
In the rest of this section, we shall apply Theorem \[main\] to prove Theorem \[app1\], Corollary \[app1b\] and Corollary \[app2\].
When $a>0$, since $K=0$ and $D=e^{-2}$, then $c_1(n,K,a,D)=0$. Fixing any space-time point $(x_0,t_0)$ and using Theorem \[main\] for $0<u\leq e^{-2}$ in the set $B(x_0,R)\times(t_0-R^2, t_0]$, we have $$\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}(x_0,t_0)\leq c(n)e^{-2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+|\alpha|}{R}}
+\frac{1}{R}\right)$$ for all $R\geq2$. Letting $R\to\infty$, then $$|\nabla u(x_0, t_0)|=0.$$ Since $(x_0, t_0)$ is arbitrary, $u$ must be constant in $x$. By equation , then $$\frac{d u}{d t}=a\,u\ln u.$$ Solving this ODE, we get $$u=\exp(ce^{at}),$$ where $c$ is some constant and $a>0$. For such a solution, if we let $t\to -\infty$, then $$u=\exp(ce^{at})\to 1,$$ which is contradiction with the theorem assumption: $0<u(x,t)\leq e^{-2}$. Therefore such $u$ does not exist.
When $a<0$, since $K=0$ and $\delta=e^{-2}$, then $c_2(n,K,a,D)=0$. For any space-time point $(x_0,t_0)$, we apply Theorem \[main\] for $e^{-2}\leq u(x,t)\leq D$ in the set $B(x_0,R)\times(t_0-R^2, t_0]$, $$\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}(x_0,t_0)\leq c(n)\sqrt{D}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+|\alpha|}{R}}
+\frac{1}{R}\right)$$ for all $R\geq2$. Similar to the above arguments, letting $R\to\infty$, then $u$ is constant in $x$, and $u=\exp(ce^{at})$ for some constant $c$. When $t\to -\infty$, we observe that: $u=\exp(ce^{at})\to +\infty$ if $c>0$; $u=\exp(ce^{at})\to 0$ if $c<0$; $u=1$ if $c=0$. Moreover, the theorem assumption requires $e^{-2}\leq u(x,t)\leq D$. Hence $u$ only exists when $D\geq 1$ and the desired result follows.
When $a=0$, $K=0$, and assume that $u(x,t)$ is a positive ancient solution to equation such that $u(x,t)=o\Big(\big[r^{1/2}(x)+|t|^{1/4}\big]^2\Big)$ near infinity. Fixing any space-time $(x_0,t_0)$ and using for $u$ on the set $B(x_0,R)\times(t_0-R^2, t_0]$, we obtain $$\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}(x_0,t_0)\leq c(n) \left(\sqrt{\frac{1+|\alpha|}{R}}
+\frac{1}{R}\right)\cdot o(\sqrt{R})$$ for all $R\geq2$. Letting $R\to\infty$, it follows that $$|\nabla u(x_0, t_0)|=0.$$ Since $(x_0, t_0)$ is arbitrary, we get $u$ is constant in space-time.
Theorem \[app1\] in fact implies Corollary \[app1b\].
If positive smooth function $u(x)$ achieves the weighted log-Sobolev constant $S_M$ and satisfies $\int_M u^2 e^{-f}dv=V_f(M)$, then from the introduction above, $u(x)$ satisfies elliptic equation . Assume that our conclusion is incorrect, that is, $0<u\leq e^{-2}$. Since $S_M>0$, by Theorem \[app1\] Case (i), there does not exist such function $u$ satisfying . This is a contradiction.
When $a=0$, for any space-time point $(x_0,t_0)$, using estimate for $0<u\leq D$ in the set $B(x_0,R)\times(t_0-R^2, t_0]$, $$\frac{|\nabla u|}{\sqrt{u}}(x_0,t_0)\leq c(n)\sqrt{D}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1+|\alpha|}{R}}
+\frac{1}{R}+\sqrt{K}\right)$$ for all $R\geq2$. Letting $R\to\infty$, then $$|\nabla u(x_0, t_0)|\leq c(n)D\sqrt{K}.$$ Since $(x_0, t_0)$ is arbitrary, the result follows.
Proof of Theorem \[main0\] {#sec4}
==========================
In this section, we will prove Theorem \[main0\]. The proof is analogous to Theorem 1.1 in [@[Wu2]]. For the readers convenience, we provide a detailed proof. Compared with the previous proof, here we need to carefully deal with an extra nonlinear term.
We only consider the case $a\geq 0$. The case $a<0$ is similar. Using Lemma \[Lem2\], we calculate that $$\begin{aligned}\label{lembud2}
&\Delta_f(\psi\omega)-\frac{2(g-\ln D)}{\mu-g}\nabla
g\cdot\nabla(\psi\omega) -2\frac{\nabla\psi}{\psi}
\cdot\nabla(\psi\omega)-(\psi\omega)_t\\
\geq&\,2\psi(\mu-g)\omega^2
-\left[\frac{2(g-\ln D)}{\mu-g}\nabla g\cdot\nabla\psi\right]
\omega-2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}\omega\\
&+(\Delta_f\psi)\omega-\psi_t\omega
-2(a+(n-1)K)\psi\omega-\frac{2a\,g}{\mu-g}\psi\omega.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $(x_1,t_1)$ be a point where $\psi\omega$ achieves the maximum.
We first consider the case $x_1\not\in B(x_0,1)$. By Li-Yau [@[Li-Yau]], without loss of generality we assume that $x_1$ is not in the cut-locus of $M$. Then at this point, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_f(\psi\omega)\leq0,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\psi\omega)_t\geq0,
\,\,\,\,\,\,\nabla(\psi\omega)=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence by , at $(x_1,t_1)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}\label{leforkk}
2\psi(\mu-g)\omega^2&\leq
\Bigg\{\left(\frac{2(g-\ln D)}{\mu-g}\nabla g\cdot\nabla\psi\right)\omega
+2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}\omega-(\Delta_f\psi)\omega\\
&\quad\,\,\,+\psi_t\omega+2(a+(n-1)K)\psi\omega
+\frac{2a\,g}{\mu-g}\psi\omega\Bigg\}.
\end{aligned}$$ We will carefully estimate the upper bounds for each term of the right-hand side of . Similar to arguments of Section \[sec3\], we still repeatedly use the Young’s inequality. For the first term of right hand side of , we have $$\label{sjgj1}
\left(\frac{2(g-\ln D)}{\mu-g}\nabla
g\cdot\nabla\psi\right)\omega\leq(\mu-g)\psi \omega^2+c\frac{|\ln D-g|}{R^4}.$$ For the second term of the right hand side of , we get $$\label{sjgj2}
2\frac{|\nabla\psi|^2}{\psi}\omega
\leq\frac{1}{10}\psi\omega^2+\frac{c}{R^4}.$$ For the third term of the right hand side of , we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{sjgj3}
-(\Delta_f\psi)\omega&=-\left[(\partial_r\psi)\Delta_fr+(\partial^2_r\psi)\cdot
|\nabla r|^2\right]\omega\\
&\leq-\left[\partial_r\psi\left(\alpha+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)
+\partial^2_r\psi\right]\omega\\
&\leq \left[|\partial^2_r\psi|+\left(|\alpha|+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)|\partial_r\psi|\right]\omega\\
&=\psi^{1/2}\omega\frac{|\partial^2_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}
+\left(|\alpha|+(n-1)K(R-1)\right)\psi^{1/2}\omega
\frac{|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\\
&\leq\frac{\psi\omega^2}{10}+c
\left[\left(\frac{|\partial^2_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2
+\left(\frac{|\alpha|\cdot|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2
+\left(\frac{K(R-1)|\partial_r\psi|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2\right]\\
&\leq\frac{1}{10}\psi\omega^2+\frac{c}{R^4}+c\frac{\alpha^2}{R^2}
+cK^2,
\end{aligned}$$ where the $f$-Laplacian comparison was used. Here, since $Ric_f\geq-(n-1)K$ and $r(x_1,x_0)\geq 1$ in $B(x_0,R)$, we have the $f$-Laplacian comparison (see Theorem 3.1 in [@[WW]]) $$\Delta_f\,r(x_1)\leq\alpha+(n-1)K(R-1),$$ where $\alpha=\max_{\{x|d(x,x_0)=1\}}\Delta_f\,r(x)$. For the fourth term of the right hand side of , we have $$\begin{aligned}\label{sjgj4}
|\psi_t|\omega&=\psi^{1/2}\omega\frac{|\psi_t|}{\psi^{1/2}}\\
&\leq\frac{1}{10}\left(\psi^{1/2}\omega\right)^2+c
\left(\frac{|\psi_t|}{\psi^{1/2}}\right)^2\\
&\leq\frac{1}{10}\psi\omega^2+\frac{c}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ For the fifth term of the right hand side of , we have $$\label{sjgj5}
2(a+(n-1)K)\psi\omega\leq\frac{1}{10}\psi\omega^2+c(a+(n-1)K)^2.$$ For the sixth term of the right hand side of , we have $$\label{sjgj6}
\frac{2a\,g}{\mu-g}\psi\omega\leq
\frac{1}{10}\psi\omega^2+\frac{c a^2g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}.$$ Now at $(x_1,t_1)$, we substitute - to the right hand side of and obtain $$\begin{aligned}\label{leforfor}
2\psi(\mu-g)\omega^2&\leq \psi(\mu-g)\omega^2+c\frac{|\ln D-g|}{R^4}
+\frac{\psi\omega^2}{2}+\frac{c}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\,+\frac{c}{R^4}+c\frac{\alpha^2}{R^2}
+cK^2+c(a+(n-1)K)^2+\frac{ca^2g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Recalling that $$\mu-g \geq1\quad \mathrm{and}\quad \frac{|\ln D-g|}{\mu-g}\leq 1,$$ then implies $$\begin{aligned}\label{lefogong}
\psi \omega^2&\leq \frac{c}{R^4}+\frac{c}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}\\
&\,\,\,\,\,\, +c\frac{\alpha^2}{R^2}
+cK^2+c(a+(n-1)K)^2+\frac{ca^2g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}
\end{aligned}$$ at space-time $(x_1,t_1)$. By some basic analysis, we *claim* that: $$\label{baseest}
\frac{g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}\leq \kappa^2, \quad\mathrm{where}\quad \kappa:=\max\{|\ln D|, 1\},$$ for all $g\leq \ln D$, where the constant $\mu:=1+\ln D$. To see this, notice that function $\frac{g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}$ has only one critical point $g=0$, and it is continuous on $(-\infty, \ln D]$ satisfying $$\lim_{g\to-\infty}\frac{g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}=1\quad
\mathrm{and}\quad\lim_{g\to \ln D}\frac{g^2}{(\mu-g)^2}=|\ln D|^2.$$ Hence easily follows.
Using , inequality becomes $$(\psi \omega^2)(x_1,t_1)\leq c\left(\frac{\alpha^2+1}{R^2}+\frac{1}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}
+K^2+(a+(n-1)K)^2+a^2\kappa^2\right),$$ where we used $R\geq2$. This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
(\psi^2\omega^2)(x_1,t_1)&
\leq(\psi\omega^2)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq c\left(\frac{\alpha^2+1}{R^2}+\frac{1}{(\tau-t_0+T)^2}
+K^2+(a+(n-1)K)^2+a^2\kappa^2 \right).
\end{aligned}$$ Since $\psi(x,\tau)=1$ when $d(x,x_0)<R/2$ by the proposition (2) of Lemma \[cutoff\], from the above estimate, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(x,\tau)&=(\psi\omega)(x,\tau)\\
&\leq(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq c\left(\frac{|\alpha|+1}{R}+\frac{1}{\tau-t_0+T}
+K+a+(n-1)K+a\,\kappa\right)
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in M$ such that $d(x,x_0)<R/2$. By the definition of $w(x,\tau)$ and the fact that $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$ was chosen arbitrarily, we in fact show that $$\frac{|\nabla
g|}{\mu-g}(x,t)\leq c\left(\sqrt{\frac{1{+}|\alpha|}{R}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}{+}\sqrt{K}+\sqrt{a(\kappa+1)}\right)$$ for all $(x,t)\in Q_{R/2,T}\equiv B(x_0,R/2)\times[t_0-T,t_0]$ with $t\neq t_0-T$. Since $g=\ln u$ and $\mu=1+\ln D$, the theorem follows when $x_1\not \in B(x_0,1)$.
Now we consider the other case: $x_1\in B(x_0,1)$. In this case, $\psi$ is constant in space direction in $B(x_0,R/2)$ by our assumption, where $R\geq2$. So at $(x_1,t_1)$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
2(\mu-g)\omega&\leq
\frac{\psi_t}{\psi}+2(a+(n-1)K)+\frac{2a\,g}{\mu-g}\\
&\leq\frac{C}{\tau-(t_0-T)}+2(a+(n-1)K)+2a\kappa,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used proposition (3) of Lemma \[cutoff\]. Since $\mu-g\geq 1$ and $\psi(x,\tau)=1$ when $d(x,x_0)<R/2$ by the proposition (2) of Lemma \[cutoff\], the above estimate indeed gives $$\begin{aligned}
\omega(x,\tau)&=(\psi\omega)(x,\tau)\\
&\leq(\psi\omega)(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq\omega(x_1,t_1)\\
&\leq \frac{C}{\tau-(t_0-T)}+(a+(n-1)K)+a\kappa
\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in M$ such that $d(x,x_0)<R/2$. By the definition of $w(x,\tau)$ and the fact that $\tau\in(t_0-T,t_0]$ was chosen arbitrarily, we in fact prove that $$\frac{|\nabla
g|}{\mu-g}(x,t)\leq \frac{C}{\sqrt{t-t_0+T}}+\sqrt{(n-1)K}+\sqrt{a(\kappa+1)}$$ for all $(x,t)\in Q_{R/2,T}$ with $t\neq t_0-T$. So is still true.
[30]{}
M. Bailesteanua, X.-D. Cao, A. Pulemotov, Gradient estimates for the heat equation under the Ricci flow, J. Funct. Anal. 258 (2010), 3517-3542.
D. Bakry, M. Emery, Diffusion hypercontractivitives, in: Séminaire de Probabilités XIX, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1123, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. 177-206.
K. Brighton, A Liouville-type theorem for smooth metric measure spaces, J. Geom. Anal. 23 (2013), 562-570.
E. Calabi, An extension of E. Hopf’s maximum principle with an application to Riemannian geometry, Duke Math. J. 25 (1957), 45-56.
H.-D. Cao, Recent progress on Ricci solitons, Recent advances in geometric analysis, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM) 11, 1-38, International Press, Somerville, MA 2010.
X.-D. Cao, B. Fayyazuddin Ljungberg, B.-W. Liu, Differential Harnack estimates for a nonlinear heat equation, J. Funct. Anal., 265 (2013), 2312-2330.
S.-Y. Cheng, S.-T. Yau, Differential equations on Riemannian manifolds and their geometric applications, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975), 333-354.
F. Chung, S.-T. Yau, Logarithmic Harnack inequalities, Math. Res. Lett. 3 (1996), 793-812.
L. Gross, Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, Amer. J. Math. 97 (1975), 1061-1083.
R. Hamilton, A matrix Harnack estimate for the heat equation, Comm. Anal. Geom. 1 (1993), 113-126.
R. Hamilton, The formation of singularities in the Ricci flow, Surveys in Differential Geom. 2 (1995), 7-136, International Press.
X.-R. Jiang, Hamilton’s gradient estimates for a nonlinear parabolic equation on Riemannian manifolds, Proc. AMS, to appear.
B. Kotschwar, Hamilton’s gradient estimate for the kernel on complete manifolds, Proc. AMS, 135 (2007), 3013-3019.
J.-Y. Li, Gradient estimates and Harnack inequalities for nonlinear parabolic and nonlinear elliptic equations on Riemannian manifolds, J. Funct. Anal. 100 (1991), 233-256.
P. Li, S.-T. Yau, On the parabolic kernel of the Schrodinger operator, Acta Math. 156 (1986), 153-201.
X.-D. Li, Liouville theorems for symmetric diffusion operators on complete Riemannian manifolds, J. Math. Pure. Appl. 84 (2005), 1295-1361.
X.-D. Li, Hamilton’s Harnack inequality and the W-entropy formula on complete Riemannian manifolds, arXiv:1303.1242.
Y. Li, X.-R. Zhu, Harnack estimates for a heat-type equation under the Ricci flow, J. Differential Equations, 260 (2016), 3270-3301.
J. Lott, Some geometric properties of the Bakry-Émery-Ricci tensor, Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), 865-883.
L. Ma, Gradient estimates for a simple elliptic equation on complete non-compact Riemannian manifolds, J. Funct. Anal. 241 (2006), 374-382.
O. Munteanu, J. Wang, Smooth metric measure spaces with nonnegative curvature, Comm. Anal. Geom. 19 (2011), 451-486.
P. Souplet, Q S. Zhang, Sharp gradient estimate and Yau’s Liouville theorem for the heat equation on noncompact manifolds, Bull. London Math. Soc. 38 (2006), 1045-1053.
G.-F. Wei, W. Wylie, Comparison geometry for the Bakry-Émery Ricci tensor, J. Diff. Geom. 83 (2009), 377-405.
J.-Y. Wu, Gradient estimates for a nonlinear diffusion equation on complete manifolds, J. Partial Differential Equations, 23 (2010), 68-79.
J.-Y. Wu, $L^p$-Liouville theorems on complete smooth metric measure spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 138 (2014), 510-539.
J.-Y. Wu, Elliptic gradient estimates for a weighted heat equation and applications, Math. Z., 280 (2015), 451-468.
J.-Y. Wu, P. Wu, Heat kernels on smooth metric measure spaces with nonnegative curvature, Math. Ann., 362 (2015), 717-742.
J.-Y. Wu, P. Wu, Heat kernel on smooth metric measure spaces and applications, to appear in Math. Ann., DOI: 10.1007/s00208-015-1289-6
Y.-Y. Yang, Gradient estimates for a nonlinear parabolic equation on Riemannian manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008), 4095-4102.
S.-T. Yau, Harmonic functions on complete Riemannian manifolds, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 28 (1975), 201-228.
[^1]: This work is partially supported by NSFC (11101267, 11271132).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For many open quantum systems, a master equation approach employing the Markov approximation cannot reliably describe the dynamical behaviour. This is the case, for example, in a number of solid state or biological systems, and it has motivated a line of research aimed at quantifying the amount of non-Markovian behaviour in a given model. Within this framework, we investigate the dynamics of a quantum harmonic oscillator linearly coupled to a bosonic bath. We focus on Gaussian states, which are suitably treated using a covariance matrix approach. Concentrating on an entanglement based non-Markovian behaviour quantifier (NMBQ) proposed by Rivas et. al. [@NMmeasure], we consider the role that near resonant and off-resonant modes play in affecting the NMBQ. By using a large but finite bath of oscillators for both Ohmic and super Ohmic spectral densities we find, by systematically increasing the coupling strength, initially the near resonant modes provide the most significant non-Markovian effects, while after a certain threshold of coupling strength the off-resonant modes play the dominant role. We also consider the NMBQ for two other models where we add a single strongly coupled oscillator to the model in extra bath mode and ‘buffer’ configurations, which affects the modes that determine non-Markovian behaviour.'
author:
- 'V. Venkataraman'
- 'A.D.K Plato'
- Tommaso Tufarelli
- 'M.S. Kim'
title: 'Affecting Non-Markovian behaviour by changing bath structures'
---
Introduction
============
Many realistic quantum-mechanical models are formulated in the framework of open quantum systems. Indeed, it is a significant experimental challenge to isolate the quantum systems of interest from their environment. A standard way to describe this type of dynamic is the master equation approach, where the environmental modes are traced out to leave an equation of motion for the density matrix of the system. In order to make the problem tractable, this is typically combined with a series of approximations, one of which is the Markov approximation. This implies that the evolution of the system is only dependent on its current state, i.e. the future dynamics does not depend on its previous trajectory. A typical formalisation of this notion is the definition of Markovianity can be extended to signify that the system evolution is ‘divisible’, a term that we shall specify below. The Markov assumption is not valid for some models, e.g. dealing with biological or solid-state systems [@bio1; @bio2; @bio3; @ss1; @ss2], where the effect of non-Markovian behaviour (NMB) of the environment cannot be neglected. Among other reasons, this has generated a significant amount of literature dealing with the quantification of the degree of NMB present in an open system with the first non-Markovian (NM) measure developed for Gaussian channels by Wolf et. al. [@Wolf], followed by further proposals which utilise quantities such as entanglement, trace distance, fidelity and Fisher information [@NMmeasure; @breuer1; @breuer2; @Fisher].
The motivation for this work is to understand the effect various bath modes have on NMB. By changing the coupling of these modes and the structures of the bath we can significantly affect the NMB of the model. Not only is this exercise useful for our understanding of NMB but it could be utilised to manipulate how and when quantum information (particularly entanglement) can be fed back to the system. In this paper we apply these ideas to the paradigmatic scenario of a quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to a bath of bosonic modes, with beam-splitter like interactions. We restrict our attention to Gaussian states, which allows us to handle a large but finite number of oscillators via the covariance matrix formalism. By considering baths characterized by either Ohmic or super Ohmic spectral densities we aim to understand the role that near resonant and off-resonant modes in the environment play in determining the degree of NMB predicted by one of the aforementioned ‘measures’. At a mid range coupling strength, we observe that the near resonant bath modes provide the largest contribution to the NM character of the dynamics. On the other hand, as the system-environment coupling strength is increased, a larger number of the off-resonant modes take active part into the system’s evolution, superseding the near resonant modes in determining the NM character of the system.
We begin with the definition of non-Markovianity in order to quantify the NMB in our models. Our analysis starts with the entanglement dynamics of systems which consider only a pair of coupled harmonic oscillators. This will give us the intuition to determine the factors that affect the entanglement-based NM ‘measure’ for models with many modes. In this paper we investigate four models, the first two are the common cases of an oscillator coupled a large finite bosonic bath, for Ohmic and super Ohmic spectral densities. The other two cases add a strongly coupled resonant mode to the system in a way which affects the NM ‘measure’ in an interesting fashion. Throughout this paper we will use dimensionless units for all our parameters such as frequency and coupling strength.
Definition and quantification of non-Markovianity
=================================================
To gain a [*quantifier*]{} for the degree of NMB in an open
quantum system we shall make use of a sufficient condition based on entanglement [@NMmeasure] (and fidelity [@breuer2] in Appendix E). Before illustrating the quantifier in detail, let us concentrate on the definition of Markovianity that we adopt throughout the paper, which is the one used in Ref. [@NMmeasure]. Note that there are measures which utilise other definitons, for example based on information back-flow [@breuer2; @breuer1].
The dynamics of a quantum system is described in general via a completely positive, trace-preserving map (CPT) $\mathcal{E}_{(t_f,t_i)}$, such that if a state $\rho_i$ is prepared at an initial time $t_i$, the corresponding state at a later time $t_f$ is given by $\rho_f\equiv\mathcal{E}_{(t_f,t_i)}(\rho_i)$. If we fix a start time $t_0$, and a final time $t_2$ the map $\mathcal E$ is [*Markovian between $t_0$ and $t_2$*]{} iff, for any $t_1$ in the interval $t_0\leq t_1\leq t_2$, the following composition law holds $$\label{complaw}
\mathcal{E}_{(t_{2},t_{0})}=\mathcal{E}_{(t_{2},t_{1})}\circ\mathcal{E}_{(t_{1},t_{0})}.$$ where $\mathcal{E}_{(t_{1},t_{0})}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{(t_{2},t_{1})}$ are CPT. This divisibility property attempts to formalise the memoryless interpretation of Markovianity. Indeed, the implications of Eq. can be understood via the following simple example. Consider an initial state $\rho_0$ and define $\rho_1\equiv \mathcal{E}_{(t_{1},t_{0})}(\rho_0)$ and $\rho_2\equiv\mathcal{E}_{(t_{2},t_{0})}(\rho_0)$. Eq. would suggest that there exists a CPT map $\mathcal{E}_{(t_{2},t_{1})}$ that takes the state $\rho_1$ to a state $\rho_2$ without knowledge of the history prior to $t_1$. This illustrates that it does not matter [*how*]{} the system has evolved between $t_0$ and $t_1$, and only the knowledge of the system at time $t_1$ is required to determine its evolution between $t_1$ and $t_2$.
From now on, we take the violation of Eq. as our definition of non-Markovianity. Let us now introduce the NM quantifier we employ for our investigations. We shall consider the entanglement based NM sufficient measure proposed by Rivas et. al. [@NMmeasure]. They consider a bipartite system comprising of the system under investigation plus an ancilla. The two are initially prepared in a two-mode squeezed state $\rho_{\sf SA}(0)$, and their entanglement is tracked as a function of time. Keeping in mind that no local operation and classical communication (LOCC) operation can increase entanglement [@entangmeasures], any system evolution satisfying the divisibility property dictates that a system-ancilla entanglement would monotonically decrease with time. If instead an increase in entanglement is detected, Eq. must necessarily be violated, ergo the dynamics has to be NM.
Choosing an appropriate entanglement measure $E$, one may quantify NMB by summing up all the entanglement increases detected during the time interval of interest. Hence, the NM quantifier is defined as $$\label{NMmeasure}
\mathcal{I}^{(E)}\equiv E[\rho_{\sf SA}(t_{\sf f})]\!-\!E[\rho_{\sf SA}(t_{0})]+\!\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{\sf f}}\!\Big\vert\frac{dE[\rho_{\sf SA}(t)]}{dt}\Big\vert dt.$$ Throughout this paper we use logarithmic negativity as the entanglement measure since it is easily computable for a Gaussian state [@Logneg1; @Logneg2; @covareq].
It is important to note at this point that $\mathcal{I}^{(E)}>0$ defines only a [*sufficient*]{} condition for NM, hence the above quantity should be interpreted as an NMB [*quantifier*]{} (NMBQ), rather than a full-fledged measure, which can be gained if the full dynamical map is known (as shown in Ref. [@NMmeasure] with the use of the Choi - Jamiolkowski isomorphism). We chose to use this quantifier because it was easy to calculate and we can directly understand how NMB could be utilised to control the flow of entanglement, a useful resource in quantum information.
Analysis of coupled oscillators
===============================
![Diagram of Model 1. An ancilla (A) is entangled with the system (S) (represented by the double arrow). Orange lines indicate coupling between the system and each bath mode ($r_{i}$).[]{data-label="Model1"}](Entresults/Model1.png)
Let us consider a two-mode (ancilla (A) and system (S)) squeezed state defined as $S_{AS}(\zeta)\vert00\rangle_{AS}$ [@BarnettRadmore] where $S_{AS}(\zeta)$ is the two-mode squeezing operator with the squeezing parameter $\zeta$. It is well-known that the two-mode squeezed state is entangled for any $\zeta \neq 0$ [@rsimon]. If we assume that the system mode, of this squeezed state, interacts with a bosonic bath and the ancilla is left intact, we are left with a Hamiltonian of the form, $$\label{genham}
H = \omega_{a}a^{\dagger}a + \omega_{s}s^{\dagger}s + \sum_{i=1}^{N}\omega_{r_{i}}r_{i}^{\dagger}r_{i} + \sum_{i=1}^{N}g_{i}(s^{\dagger}r_{i} + s r_{i}^{\dagger}).$$ where [*$g_{i}$*]{} is the system-bath mode coupling strength and $a$, $s$ and $r_{i}$ (and their adjoints) are the annihilation (and creation) operators for the ancilla, system and bath modes respectively. Throughout the paper we fix the system and ancilla frequencies ($\omega_{s}$ and $\omega_{a}$) to 10 in all the models. Note that we have taken a rotating wave approximation in the interaction. This common model (Fig. \[Model1\]) will allow us to use the NMBQ to witness the change in NMB as we vary bath parameters and structures. But as our bath is comprised of many modes interacting with the system, it would be difficult to discern how the different modes in the bath can affect the NMBQ individually. To this end, we initially begin with a ‘bath’ of just one oscillator. This toy model does not reflect in any way the many mode nature of the bath, but we can gain an insight into the dynamics that could be at play in an open quantum system, which we consider later.
Single oscillator
-----------------
In a single oscillator model, i.e. Eq. with N = 1, the entanglement will oscillate between the system and the single mode (r) during the time evolution. Note that the ancilla is not coupled to any oscillator and only undergoes free evolution. The ancilla-system construct is a tool to witness the non-divisibility of the system’s dynamics. The frequency of the ancilla-system entanglement oscillation (EO) is representative of the speed at which information travels between the system and the oscillator. If [*g*]{} is increased then the information travels back and forth faster, i.e. an increase in EO frequency. We also have to consider $\omega_{r}$ ($\omega_{r_{1}}$) in relation to $\omega_{s}$. For resonant interactions ($\omega_{r} = \omega_{s}$) we find that the entanglement is shared maximally regardless of [*g*]{}. If the oscillator is detuned ($\omega_{r} \neq \omega_{s}$) we find that the EO increases in frequency but the magnitude of the EO decreases, seen by comparing green and red lines in Figure \[2modent\]. For detuned modes, increasing the coupling strength also increases the magnitude of the EO and this behaviour is clearly shown by the blue and red lines in Figure \[2modent\].
![Entanglement dynamics for a system-ancilla state, with $\omega_{s}=10$, coupled to an oscillator (r) with the properties; Green - \[$\omega_{r}= 10$ , $g = 1$\], Blue - \[$\omega_{r}= 15$ , $g = 0.5$\], Red - \[$\omega_{r}= 15$ , $g = 1$\]. The squeezing parameter $\zeta = 4$. The single mode (r) is an a thermal state with temperature, T=1.[]{data-label="2modent"}](Entresults/2modent.png){width="45.00000%" height="4.5cm"}
For the case of large detuning ($\omega_{r}-\omega_{s} = \Delta \gg g$) an analytic expression for the EO can be found (Appendix B), $$\mathbb{E}= \log_{2}\left(\frac{\Delta^{2}e^{-\zeta}+ 2g^{2}\left(\coth\left(\frac{w_{r}}{2}\right) - e^{-\zeta} \right)\sin\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)}{2\Delta^{2}}\right).$$ From the single oscillator model we can gain an insight into the predictions of the NMBQ for a many oscillator bath. It is important to note that we can only gain an intuition for the dynamics at play since adding even a single oscillator to the ‘bath’ complicates the dynamics significantly, as we have shown analytically in the Appendix C. The NMBQ sums up all entanglement increases and will therefore depend on two aspects of the EO, the magnitude and the frequency. At a low coupling strength a near resonant mode would yield more NMB than an off-resonant mode. This is due to the much larger EO magnitude of a near resonant mode. But as [*g*]{} is pushed past a specific value for a particular detuning, the detuned mode would yield more NMB due to a combination of the high frequency and increased magnitude of the EO. Keeping this in mind, we now investigate the behaviour when there are many oscillators coupled to the system in order to see how the NMBQ is affected.
Many bath mode models
---------------------
In this section we will consider four different types of interaction between the bath modes and the system. These different models will show how bath structures can be manipulated in order to affect the NMBQ. Model 1 (Figure \[Model1\]) shows the role of near resonant and off resonant modes in the bath. Models 2 and 3 (Figures \[Model2\] and \[Model3\]) displays how adding a single strongly coupled resonant mode can affect the NMB.
![Diagram of Model 2. Model 2 is similar to Model 1, with a system (S) - ancilla (A) entangled state and the system coupled to all bath modes ($r_{i}$), but now there is an extra resonant mode (E) in the bath with a fixed coupling strength of 1.[]{data-label="Model2"}](Entresults/Model3.png)
![Diagram of Model 3. This model consists of the same parts as Model 2 but in a different configuration. The resonant extra mode is now a resonant buffer (B) which is coupled to every bath mode ($r_{i}$) as well as the system (S). The buffer-system coupling strength is set to 1. []{data-label="Model3"}](Entresults/Model2.png)
The first two types of interaction we consider are for Model 1. In the Hamiltonian given in Eq. (\[genham\]) the coupling strengths of the bath modes $g_{i}$ are determined by the spectral density function of the bath $J(\omega)$ [@Dougpaper], $$g_{i}^{2}\approx J(\omega_{r_{i}}) \Delta\omega.$$ We consider both Ohmic (Eq. (\[ohmic\])) and super Ohmic (Eq. (\[superohmic\])) spectral densities, with an exponential cut-off , $\omega_{c}$ (ensuring that the high frequency couplings do not diverge), and a damping factor, $\alpha$. $$\label{ohmic}
J(\omega_{r_{i}})_{\it{O}}=\alpha\omega_{r_{i}} e^{-\omega_{r_{i}}/\omega_{c}}$$ $$\label{superohmic}
J(\omega_{r_{i}})_{\it{SO}}=\alpha\omega^{3}_{r_{i}} e^{-\omega_{r_{i}}/\omega_{c}}$$ The forms of these functions are shown in Figure \[SpecDen\]. The cut-off frequencies, $\omega_{c}$, for the Ohmic and super Ohmic baths are 15 and 3 respectively. The other two cases we consider are for Models 2 and 3 with an Ohmic spectral density.
![Form of the spectral density functions for the Ohmic and super Ohmic cases with cut-off frequencies, $\omega_{c}$, 15 and 3 respectively.[]{data-label="SpecDen"}](Entresults/SpectralDensities.png){width="45.00000%" height="4cm"}
To evaluate the NMBQ, we simulate the system coupled to a bath of 350 oscillators, in contrast to a master equation formalism to avoid using approximations. The frequencies of the bath oscillators are distributed evenly up to a maximum frequency $\omega_{bmax}$, the frequency splitting $\Delta\omega$ is therefore given by $350/\omega_{bmax}$. The initial state of the bath for all the models is a thermal state, with temperature $T$, and the ancilla-system is a two mode squeezed state. In models 2 and 3, the additional bath and buffer modes are also initially thermal with temperature $T$. We fix the system and ancilla frequencies, $\omega_{s} = \omega_{a} = 10$, the maximum bath mode frequency, $\omega_{bmax}= 50$, the temperature, $T=1$ and the squeezing parameter $\zeta=4$ for Models 1, 2 and 3. Numerical results indicate that the squeezing parameter acts only to rescale the NMB without losing the qualitative features and so we chose $\zeta$ to exaggerate the observed effects (though not so high as to cause problems with the numerics). The details of the simulation can be found in Appendix A. Figure \[NMallmodels\] shows the predictions of the NMBQ for the three Ohmic bath models as a function of the spectral density damping factor $\alpha$.
![The figure shows the NMBQ for the three models. We see that there is a high threshold $\alpha$ value for NMB and Models 2 and 3 display NMB for low $\alpha$ due to the strong coupling to the additional mode. The simulation is run from time $t_{0}=0$ to $t_{f}=20$ in time intervals of $\Delta t = 0.001$. []{data-label="NMallmodels"}](Entresults/NMmodels.png){width="45.00000%"}
The figure shows distinct regions of NMB. To understand these different regions for the models we can consider the entanglement dynamics for varying values of $\alpha$. Using our knowledge of coupling strengths and the occupation numbers of the bath modes with time (see Appendix D), we can construct an interpretation of the processes involved when there are numerous modes coupled to the system. Starting with Model 1, Figure \[EntOsc\] shows the entanglement dynamics for the Ohmic case for varying $\alpha$.
![Entanglement dynamics for Model 1 with an Ohmic bath. Coupling strengths to bath modes are varied by changing $\alpha$ in the spectral density function. We detect NMB after an $\alpha$ value of 0.8 and significant oscillations in the entanglement are seen after this value.[]{data-label="EntOsc"}](Entresults/Ohmicent.png){width="45.00000%"}
As time passes the entanglement is shared, unequally, to all the modes in the bath and sometimes this entanglement comes back to the system (if at all). The result of this dynamic depends on various parameters, which consequently decide the NMB of the model.
In the Ohmic case, when the bath is weakly coupled with a scaling factor of $\alpha=0.2$, the spectral density function would suggest that the near resonant bath modes have the strongest coupling and therefore the highest occupation and indeed we see that in Figure \[Mod1occ\]. At this stage the coupling strengths to the bath modes are too weak and we see decoherence, which leads to dynamics that do not produce NM effects detectable by the NMBQ. As $\alpha$ is increased, the entanglement starts to decay faster due to a stronger coupling to the bath i.e. a faster transmission of information to the bath where it decoheres. For higher values of $\alpha$ however, EO are increasingly found and NMB is detected by the NMBQ.
The non-Markovianity of the model in this region of $\alpha$ values is influenced by a variety of factors, including the strength of system-bath couplings, the occupation numbers of the bath modes, and the ability of the system to induce oscillations in a bath mode’s occupancy (which is an indicator of the level of interaction between them). If $\alpha$ is increased beyond a certain threshold, initially a situation arises where the profile of the spectral density dictates that the system is [*significantly*]{} strongly coupled to near resonant modes. Since the system shares more entanglement with the near resonant modes, the stronger coupling increases the likelihood that the dynamic results in an entanglement increase for the system-ancilla state. For now it is the near resonant modes that are the main contributors to the NMB. This is due to the fact that at this coupling strength the combined frequency and magnitude of their EO is more than that of the detuned modes. Because the detuned modes have a very low EO magnitude thanks to the relatively weaker coupling they are allocated by the Ohmic function.
As dictated by Eq. \[ohmic\], when $\alpha$ is increased further, the detuned modes begin to couple more strongly, resulting in increased magnitude of their EO. Our intuition is that if we include the fact that they have high frequency EO (as a result of the detuning) and that they greatly outnumber the near resonant modes, the combined entanglement increases of the detuned modes will be greater than the near resonant modes. This now makes the detuned modes the important players in determining the NMB of the model. The importance of detuned modes at stronger couplings is shown in Figure \[Mod1occ\], where it can be seen that an increase in $\alpha$ results in more occupancy and increased occupancy oscillations of these modes. This indicates that the system is interacting more with these modes. Moreover we notice at certain times the near resonant modes are not occupied when we see an EO, e.g. at $\alpha = 1$ between times $0.45$ and $0.5$.
This transition between the importance of near resonant/detuned modes is not easily seen for the Ohmic case, because the occupancy would suggest that it is only the detuned modes which are important. But as we will see in the other models, near resonant modes do have a role to play.
![Entaglement dynamics for a super Ohmic spectrum. NMB is detected after an $\alpha$ value of 0.03 and as expected we see EO for those values.[]{data-label="EntOscSO"}](Entresults/SOenttemp1.png){width="45.00000%"}
For Model 1 with a super Ohmic spectral density, smaller values of $\alpha$ are needed for strong coupling strengths (see Eq. (\[superohmic\])). Therefore, as Figure \[EntOscSO\] shows, a lower threshold $\alpha$ value was needed to observe NMB. Unlike the previous case, Figure \[Mod1SOocc\] shows that there is still a significant occupation in the near resonant region where we initially witness NMB and due to their naturally large EO magnitude, they play an important role. But as we saw in the Ohmic case, as $\alpha$ is increased further the occupancy and occupancy oscillations of the detuned modes (Figure \[Mod1SOocc\]) become more significant and they will take the lead.
![Entanglement dynamics for Model 2. It shows that for very low coupling we get EO from the extra mode and as the coupling is increased this oscillation is suppressed. Then as $\alpha$ is increased further we see similar oscillations to the Ohmic case in Model 1.[]{data-label="Mod2ent"}](Entresults/Mod3ent.png){width="45.00000%"}
If we now consider Model 2, the NMBQ suggests two regions of NMB which can be seen in Figure \[NMallmodels\]. The first region is for low $\alpha$ values where we get NMB due to the extra strongly coupled resonant mode in the bath. This can be seen from the EO caused by the extra mode in Figure \[Mod2ent\] and the lack of the occupancy in the resonant mode in the bath (Figure \[Mod2occ\]), indicating that the extra mode is strongly interacting with the system. As $\alpha$ increases the model behaves like Model 1 where we enter a region where there is no NM dynamics as the rest of the bath is coupled strongly enough to kill the EO from the extra mode. Then, as before, we see that when $\alpha$ is increased beyond a threshold we get NMB according to the same reasoning as in Model 1. Indeed we can see that the NMBQ values follow a similar profile to that of Model 1 but with slightly more NMB. This is shown in the entanglement dynamics (Figure \[Mod2ent\]) and the occupancy of the bath modes (Figure \[Mod2occ\]). The additional NMB we notice is due to the extra strongly coupled mode, indicated again by the diminished occupancy in the resonant region compared to that of Model 1. Note that for Model 2 as we reach very high $\alpha$ values the occupancy in the resonant region of the bath increases and therefore Models 1 and 2 have increasingly similar NMBQ values. This is because the resonant extra mode plays a less significant role since the off resonant modes are the greatest contributers to the NMB in the high $\alpha$ region.
![Entanglement dynamics for Model 3. It shows that for very low coupling we get EO from the buffer mode and as the coupling is increased this oscillation is suppressed. Then as $\alpha$ is increased further we see oscillations due to the near resonant bath modes.[]{data-label="Mod3ent"}](Entresults/Mod2ent2.png){width="45.00000%"}
Model 3 also displayed two regions of NMB as shown in Figure \[NMallmodels\]. The first is for very low coupling strengths (i.e. low $\alpha$) between the buffer and the bath. We witness NMB due to the ‘reflections’ of the entanglement from the strongly coupled resonant buffer mode (in similar fashion to Model 2), which can be clearly seen in Figure \[Mod3ent\]. As the buffer-bath coupling strength is increased, NM dynamics is not detected because the buffer leaks the entanglement to the bath before it has a chance to return (i.e. Model 1 at low $\alpha$ and Model 2 in the Markov region). Note however, in comparison to Model 2, a smaller $\alpha$ is needed to see no NMB as the buffer leaks the entanglement to the near resonant modes in the bath before it can give it back to the system mode.
As we have seen before, beyond a threshold, increasing $\alpha$ results in NMB. Note however that there are two key differences to Models 1 and 2; a lower threshold value of $\alpha$ and a lower value of non-Markovianity. The reasons for these differences can be seen from the occupancy (Figure \[Mod3occ\]). They show a large occupancy of the near resonant frequency region indicating that the buffer is primarily interacting with the near resonant modes, which are now solely responsible for the NMB.
Figure \[Mod3ent\] shows that the EO at high $\alpha$ are significantly different to the other models. We can clearly see that there are fewer oscillations and a longer decay time. This, along with Figure \[Mod3occ\], seem to indicate that the buffer has effectively reduced the size of the bath around the resonant region. For the chosen system-buffer coupling, we can hypothesize that the threshold is lower because of the reduced bath size. Also the value of the NMB is lower because the near resonant modes have a lower EO frequency and are few when compared to the detuned modes.
Note that models similar to Model 3 have been investigated in works on effective spectral densities and the structure of the bath which could be used to extend the model [@Martinazzo2011; @Chin2010]. These papers use techniques that transform the multiple oscillator bath model to a coupled chain. In a different vein of investigation, an analysis of the entanglement dynamics for coupled cavity fields in various baths using Feynman - Vernon influence functional theory [@An2007] has been done, as well as EO in a single qubit-bath model [@qubitEO].
Summary
=======
We investigated the role that near resonant and detuned modes play in determining NMB. The investigation was based on an entanglement based quantifer of non-Markovianity. By considering a two mode model, we noted how the system shares entanglement with modes depending on the strength of the coupling and the level of detuning. Looking at an harmonic oscillator coupled to a bath model, we found that the shape of the spectral density function determined which modes played the important role in NMB. For low $\alpha$ couplings no NMB was observed, but after a threshold value, near resonant modes induce some NMB in the model. However, for higher values of $\alpha$ the detuned modes take over from the near resonant modes and play the lead role in NMB due to the high frequency of their EO. The role of near resonant modes was made more apparent in the other models that we considered. The schemes added a single strongly coupled resonant oscillator which lead to NMB detected at low $\alpha$ due to this mode. As $\alpha$ is increased there is a period where no NM dynamics is detected. But for higher $\alpha$’s, the case which had an extra strongly coupled mode in the bath behaved like the original model but with a increased amount of NMB due to the extra mode. When this extra mode was a buffer between the system and bath, a diminished NMB was noted and was due to the buffer primarily interacting with near resonant modes, which naturally produce less NMB than detuned modes in the strong coupling regime.
Using the knowledge we have gained about the role of near resonant and off-resonant modes in determining NMB, one can isolate the significant modes in a bath containing numerous modes. Armed with these insights we are better equipped to engineer models to control the flow of quantum information in our system. This could be achieved by changing the coupling/detuning to the important modes and/or by adding modes in various configurations. Therefore this type of control could be useful in maintaing the quantum information of the system, for example in quantum memory models, or even to minimise information feedback which can be of assistance in state transfer protocols.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work has been funded by the EPSRC as part of the Controlled Quantum Dynamics Centre for Doctoral Training (CQD-CDT). The authors would like to thank Ahsan Nazir and Marco Genoni for their time and insight during many fruitful discussions. MSK and TT would also like to thank the Qatar National Research Fund (NPRP4-554-1-084).
Appendix A - Details of the simulation
======================================
To simulate the models we use a covariance matrix approach which is valid for Gaussian states and Hamiltonians of bi-linear form [@Dougpaper; @GaussianReview]. The process involves writing the Hamiltonian in the following form $$H=\frac{1}{2}R^{T}KR$$ where $K$ is a time independant matrix and $R$ is the vector $$R^{T}=(\hat{x}_{a},\hat{x}_{s},\hat{x}_{r_{i}},\hat{p}_{a},\hat{p}_{s},\hat{p}_{r_{i}})$$ which contains the position and momentum operators for the ancilla ($a$), system ($s$) and the bath ($r_{i}$) modes. The $R$ vectors obey the commutation $$[R_{a},R_{b}]=i\sigma_{ab},$$ where $\sigma$ is the symplectic matrix $$\sigma=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \mathbb{1}_{n} \\
-\mathbb{1}_{n} & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ and $n$ is the number of modes in the model. The Heisenberg equation for $R$ can be solved to find the time evolution of the vector $$\label{Revo}
R(t)=e^{\sigma Kt}R(0).$$ The covarince matrix describes the state of the system [@GaussianReview] and can be written in the form $$\label{Cmat}
\gamma_{jk}=2Re\text{Tr}{[\rho R_{j}R_{k}]}.$$ Using equations \[Revo\] and \[Cmat\] we can find the time evolution of the covariance matrix $$\gamma (t) = e^{\sigma K t}\gamma (0) e^{-K\sigma t}$$ which we can simulate using MATLAB to find the state of the ancilla-system at any time. For example the $K$ and $\gamma (0)$ matrices for Model 1 would be of the form $$K =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
W & 0 \\
0 & W \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ with $W$, $$W = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\omega_{a} &0 & 0 \\
0 & \omega_{s} & g_{i} \\
0 & g_{i} & \omega_{r_{i}} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ and $\gamma (0)$, $$\gamma (0) = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
A_{+} & 0 \\
0 & A_{-} \\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $A_{\pm}$ is $$A_{\pm} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\
\cosh{\zeta} & \pm\sinh{\zeta} & 0 \\
\pm\sinh{\zeta} & \cosh{\zeta} & 0 \\
0& 0 & 1+\frac{2}{e^{\omega_{r_{i}}/T}-1} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ Unless stated otherwise the fixed parameters used in this paper are the system and ancilla frequencies, $\omega_{s} = \omega_{a} = 10$, the maximum bath mode frequency, $\omega_{bmax}= 50$, the squeezing parameter , $\zeta=4$, and the temperature, $T=1$. The cut-off frequencies, $\omega_{c}$, for the Ohmic and super Ohmic baths are 15 and 3 respectively.
Appendix B - Analytic expression for the entanglement dynamics of a coupled oscillator
======================================================================================
We begin by considering Eq. for one ‘bath’ mode, i.e. $i=1$, and then we can move into the interaction picture for a coupled oscillator model. We achieve this by making a rotation of $e^{-At}$ on the wavefunction to make it time dependant. This new wavefunction, $\Psi(t)=e^{-iAt}\Psi$, is then inserted into the Schrödinger equation, $$\begin{aligned}
i\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} &= (A + e^{-iAt}H e^{iAt})\Psi \\
i\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} &= \widetilde{H}\Psi. \\
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $A=-\omega_{s}(a^{\dagger}a + s^{\dagger}s + r^{\dagger}r)$ and using the Hadamard Lemma we get the interation picture Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{H} &= \Delta r^{\dagger}r + g(sr^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}r), \\
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\omega_{a} = \omega_{s}$ for all our models, and that the detuning $\Delta = (\omega_{r}-\omega_{s})$. The next step is to find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian. To this end, we define the normal modes of the form $p_{i} = v_{i}s + w_{i}r$ where $v$ and $w$ are factors to be determined by enforcing the commutation relation $[p_{i},p^{\dagger}_{i}] \equiv 1$. Finding the eigenvectors and eigenvalues for the normal modes, we arrive at the following set of equations expressed in matrix form $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
p_{1} \\
p_{2} \\
\end{array} \right)
= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
s \\
r \\
\end{array} \right) .$$ $$\begin{array}{cc}
A = \sqrt{\frac{2g^2}{E_{p}(E_{p} + \Delta)}} & B = \sqrt{\frac{E_{p} + \Delta}{2E_{p}}} \\
C = \sqrt{\frac{2g^2}{E_{p}(E_{p} - \Delta)}} & D = -\sqrt{\frac{E_{p} - \Delta}{2E_{p}}} \\
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
E_{p} &= \sqrt{\Delta^{2} + 4g^{2}} \\
\end{aligned}$$ To find the time dependence of the system and oscillator modes, we utilise the knowledge that the normal $p$ modes evolve in the following way; $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial p_{i}}{\partial t} &= -i [p_{i},H] \\
\frac{\partial p_{i}}{\partial t} &= -i E_{i}p_{i} \\
p_{i}(t) &= p_{i} e^{-iE_{i}t}. \\
\end{aligned}$$ This allows us to write the following time evolutions $$\begin{aligned}
s(t) &= s\left(\cos\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right) + \frac{i\Delta}{E_{p}}\sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\right)e^{\frac{-i\Delta t}{2}} \\
&- r\left(\frac{2ig}{E_{p}}\right)\left(\sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\right)e^{\frac{-i\Delta t}{2}} \\
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
r(t)&= - s\left(\frac{2ig}{E_{p}}\right)\left(\sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\right)e^{\frac{-i\Delta t}{2}} \\
&+ r\left(\cos\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right) - \frac{i\Delta}{E_{p}}\sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\right)e^{\frac{-i\Delta t}{2}} \\
\end{aligned}$$ If we have an initial state of the form shown in Appendix A with $i=1$, using the time evolution of the above modes we can construct a matrix which acts on the intial covariance matrix. This will give us the time evolution of the covariance matrix which tells us how the state of the model is changing with time. Below is the time dependant covariance matrix for the ancilla-system state, where we have left out the martix components of the bath mode. $$\gamma (t) = \frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\it{V_{1+}} & \it{V_{2}} \\
\it{V_{2}} & \it{V_{1-}}\\
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\it{V_{1\pm}} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cosh\left(\zeta\right) & \pm \Xi \sinh \left(\zeta \right) \\
\pm \Xi \sinh \left(\zeta \right) & \cosh\left(\zeta\right) +\Phi \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\it{V_{2}} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \Pi \sinh \left(\zeta \right) \\
\Pi \sinh \left(\zeta \right) & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Xi &= \left(\cos\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\cos\left(\Delta t\right) + \frac{ \sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\sin\left(\Delta t\right)\Delta}{E_{p}}\right)\\
\Pi &= \left(-\cos\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\sin\left(\Delta t\right) + \frac{ \sin\left(\frac{E_{p}t}{2}\right)\cos\left(\Delta t\right)\Delta}{E_{p}}\right) \\
\Phi &= \frac{2g^{2}\left(\cos\left(E_{p}t\right) - 1\right)}{E^{2}_{p}}\left(\cosh\left(\zeta\right) - \coth\left(\frac{\omega_{r}}{2}\right)\right) \\
\end{aligned}$$ As shown in Ref. [@covareq], from this matrix we can calculate how the system-ancilla entanglement is evolving by finding the symplectic eigenvalues (from which we can calculate the logarithmic negativity). Then by using a second order expansion of $g/\Delta$ in the formula for calculating the symplectic eigenvalues we can find an analytic form of the entanglement dynamics $$\mathbb{E}= \log_{2}\left(\frac{\Delta^{2}e^{-\zeta}+ 2g^{2}\left(\coth\left(\frac{w_{r}}{2}\right) - e^{-\zeta} \right)\sin\left(\frac{\Delta t}{2}\right)}{2\Delta^{2}}\right).$$
Appendix C - Effective Hamiltonians for the two ’bath’ modes case
=================================================================
For the case of two ‘bath’ modes, equivalent Hamiltonians for small, large and zero detuning cases can be found, which should give us an insight into the behaviour. Considering the case where we have one resonant ($b$) and one off-resonant ($r$) bath mode the Hamiltonian is $$H = \Delta r^{\dagger}r + g(sb^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}b) + h(sr^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}r).$$ For the large detuning case, performing a rotation by $\Delta r^{\dagger}r$ the interaction Hamiltonian can be expressed as $$\widetilde{H} = g(sb^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}b) + h(s^{\dagger}re^{-i\Delta t} + sr^{\dagger}e^{i\Delta t}).$$ We then utilise an approximation, outlined in a paper by Gamel and James [@James], which averages over the fast oscillating exponential terms to give the effective Hamiltonian $$H_{eff} = \frac{h^{2}}{\Delta}s^{\dagger}s + (\Delta -\frac{h^{2}}{\Delta}) r^{\dagger}r + g(sb^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}b).$$ This shows that the large detuned mode effectively decouples from the system and introduces a frequency shift in the system. Therefore the entanglement dynamics can be modelled with just one ‘bath’ mode with a small detuning.
The procedure can be repeated for the case of small detuning, where we now rotate by $g(sb^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}b) + h(sr^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}r)$ and average over all exponentials of the form $\exp[\pm i t \sqrt{g^{2}+h^{2}}]$. This leads to the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H_{eff} &= \left(\frac{\Delta h^{2}}{2(g^{2}+h^{2})}\right)s^{\dagger}s + \left(\frac{3\Delta g^{2}h^{2}}{2(g^{2}+h^{2})^{2}}\right)b^{\dagger}b \\
&+ \left(\frac{\Delta(2g^{4}+h^{4})}{2(g^{2}+h^{2})^{2}}\right) r^{\dagger}r + g(sb^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}b) + h(sr^{\dagger} + s^{\dagger}r) \\
&+ \left(\frac{\Delta gh(h^{2}-2g^{2})}{2(g^{2}+ h^{2})^{2}}\right)(br^{\dagger} + b^{\dagger}r), \\
\end{aligned}$$ suggesting that the we get frequency shifts in all the modes and an effective coupling is gained between the two ‘bath’ modes. This is understandable as the communication speeds to both ‘bath’ modes from the system would be similar (if the couplings are of the same order) due to the small detuning, so that an effective coupling is created. Note that these new features of the Hamiltonian would mean that rather complicated entanglement dynamics is at play, because the ‘bath’ has the ability to hold onto the entanglement over time. There were various attempt to find an exact analytic solution for the two ‘bath’ mode case, but this proved to be too complex due to the lengthy forms of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
In the case where the system is coupled to only to resonant modes, using a normal mode transformation we get the Hamiltonian $$H_{eff}=\sqrt{g^{2}+h^{2}}\left(sp^{\dagger}+s^{\dagger}p\right).$$ That is, one of the normal modes couples to the system and other decouples and is now a dark mode which only undergoes free evolution. Therefore the model can be reduced to a one ‘bath’ mode model with a new coupling strength. This is true regardless of the number of coupled resonant modes, where the coupling strength would be given by $$g'^{2}= \sum_{i}^{N} g_{i}^{2},$$ where N is the number of resonant bath modes. In this case all but one of the normal modes would have effectively decoupled from the system.
In terms of the effect this has on the NMBQ, in the resonant mode case we would get an increase in NMB the more resonant modes we attach to the system, due to the increased effective coupling strength. In the case of large detuning it would be similar to the NMB observed in the one resonant ‘bath’ mode case (due to the small effective detuning). For small detuning we can see that the NMB will depend on the relative coupling strengths between, effectively, the three off-resonant modes.
Appendix D - Figures showing the bath mode occupancy
=====================================================
The following plots shows how the occupancy of the bath modes vary with time. The occupancy can be calculated from the covariance matrix by taking the $\hat{x}^{2}_{r_{i}}$ and $\hat{p}^{2}_{r_{i}}$ components of the matrix. In our plots we have taken the $\hat{x}^{2}_{r_{i}}+ \hat{p}^{2}_{r_{i}}$ values of the bath mode $r_{i}$ minus its initial thermal energy (i.e. the same value at $t_{0}$) as the occupancy to improve the clarity of the colour scale. It shows how much energy (up to a factor) a mode $r_{i}$ has gained from the system and therefore is an indicator of the level of interaction between the system and bath mode. Figures \[Mod1occ\], \[Mod1SOocc\], and \[Mod3occ\] have plot ranges of 1 to 30 for $\omega_{r}$, the first few modes are ignored because they have a high initial thermal energy and so gain a negative value over time which skews the colour map on the surface plot. The high end is ignored because no significant dynamics take place in that region. Figure \[Mod2occ\] includes all the modes in the low end because the dynamics are important in that region.
![Model 1 - Ohmic bath[]{data-label="Mod1occ"}](Entresults/Occ3/Mod1occ.png){width="45.00000%"}
![Model 1 - Super Ohmic bath[]{data-label="Mod1SOocc"}](Entresults/Occ3/Mod1SOocc.png){width="45.00000%"}
![Model 2[]{data-label="Mod2occ"}](Entresults/Occ3/Mod2occ.png){width="45.00000%"}
![Model 3[]{data-label="Mod3occ"}](Entresults/Occ3/Mod3occ.png){width="45.00000%"}
Appendix E - Fidelity measure
=============================
Another quantifier we can consider is the fidelity based measure of NMB, proposed by Vasile et. al. [@breuer2] as an extension of Breuer’s measure [@breuer1] for Gaussian states. Based on the information back-flow definition of NMB, this measure has the advantage of providing a necessary and sufficient condition for NMB (hence it is a proper [*measure*]{}), however it relies on a maximisation step which makes it hard to compute. The measure is based on the distinguishability of two different initial states $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ under the action of a dynamical map $\mathcal{E}$. Under the action of any CP map, the distinguishability, $\mathcal{D}(\rho_{1},\rho_{2})\equiv1-{\cal F}(\rho_1,\rho_2)$, with ${\cal F}(\rho_1,\rho_2)\equiv{\sf Tr}\sqrt{\sqrt{\rho_1}\rho_2\sqrt{\rho_1}}$ the fidelity, follows the contractive property $$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{E}\rho_{1},\mathcal{E}\rho_{2})\leq\mathcal{D}(\rho_{1},\rho_{2}).$$ Hence, under Markovian behaviour the divisibility property of Eq. will ensure a monotonic decrease of distinguishability, in analogy to what we observed for the system-ancilla entanglement. Such irreversible loss of distinguishability may be understood as the leakage of ‘quantum information’ into the bath, which in turn is unable to transfer it back to the system. Hence, any increase in distinguishability can be interpreted as the environment returning part of the leaked information to the system, a signature of NMB. Similarly to the NMBQ, a measure of non-Markovianity can be constructed by summing the distinguishability increases between pairs of quantum states. Restricting the analysis to Gaussian states, the non-Markovianity is given by; $$\label{fidmeasure}
\mathcal{N}_{P}= \max_{P}(-\int_{\dot{\mathcal{f}}<0} \frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{F}(P,t) dt),$$ where we maximise over all parameters, $P$, of the Gaussian state. These parameters are not bounded and therefore running this measure can become numerically challenging. In their paper, Vasile et. al. use a weak-coupling, secular non-Markovian master equation ([@HuPazZhang; @Sabrina4; @Sabrina2; @Sabrina3; @BandPbook]) to describe a model of a one mode squeezed state coupled to a bath of oscillators, but again to avoid using these approximations we utilise a large finite bath to simulate this model via a covariance matrix approach.
The fidelity relies on the states of the two systems and is therefore dependant on the energy of the states at any given time. Since the measure collec ts variations in the fidelity, the energy dynamics could have an impact on the NMB. We find that the energy dynamics of the system is dependant on the the modes in a similar fashion to that of entanglement. But these dynamics are very dependant on the initial state of the system, which is why the maximisation procedure is needed. Even if we restrict ourselves to squeezed states, a maximisation over both the squeezing parameter and the phase is necessary, which makes the measure numerically time consuming. What can be done, is to understand the impact the modes would have on the predictions of this measure. Note that under the divisibility definition this measure, even with the maximisation, would only be a witness, as there exisits non-divisible dynamics which can increase the fidelity.
![Fidelity dynamics between two different initial one mode squeezed states. The two states have zero phase but they have different squeezing parameters, r, of 4 and 0.1. We find more oscillations in the fidelity as $\alpha$ is increased.[]{data-label="fidr4and0_1"}](Fid/Fidr4and0_1.png){width="45.00000%"}
If we just invesigate one pair of inital states, the fidelity can still be used as a quantifier of NMB for this particular case under their definition of NMB. We choose the system mode in a single mode squeezed state with two different squeezing parameters, r, and the bath in an thermal state with temperature, $T=1$. The spectral density is Ohmic and all associated frequency parameters are the same as the models in the main text with the frequency of the system mode kept at 10. Figure \[fidr4and0\_1\] shows the fidelity dynamics for a pair of intial states which vary only in r, with values of 4 and 0.1. The oscillations in the fidelity seem to coincide with the oscillations in the energy dynamics (Figure \[energyr4and0\_1\]), indicating that the energy dynamics do have a role to play in the NMB predictied by the fidelity quantifier/measure.
![Energy dynamics of one mode squeezed states coupled to an Ohmic bath. The initial squeezing parameter of the states are 4 and 0.1. We find oscillations in the energy dynamics in a similar fashion to the EO, in the NMBQ case, as $\alpha$ is varied.[]{data-label="energyr4and0_1"}](Fid/energyr4and0_1.png){width="\textwidth" height="6.3cm"}
Figure \[energyr4and0\_1\] also shows that as the $\alpha$ value increases more oscillations are seen in the energy of the system. Taking the $r=4$ case, we find that in similar fashion to the entanglement dynamics, the system shares energy with the same dependence on coupling strength and frequency of the system as in the two mode case (Figure \[2modengdynm\]). In the many mode case, for $r=4$, we find that at low couplings the near resonant modes get the majority of the energy and therefore affect the NMB, but as coupling is increased the detuned modes start to gain more energy from the system (which can be seen from the occupancy figures in Appendix D) and become the driving force of the NMB due to the high frequency of their energy oscillations.
![Energy dynamics of one mode squeezed state (with squeezing parameter 4) coupled to a thermal mode with temperature $T =1$. The three lines represent the energy dynamics of the system mode; Green - \[$\omega_{b}= 10$ , $g = 1$\], Blue - \[$\omega_{b}= 15$ , $g = 0.5$\], Red - \[$\omega_{b}= 15$ , $g = 1$.\]. []{data-label="2modengdynm"}](Fid/2modeng.png){width="50.00000%"}
[18]{}
A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio. **105**, 050403 (2010).
B. Chance, R. A. Marcus, D. DeVault, H. Frauenfelder, J. R. Schrieer, and N. Sutin. (Academic Press, New York 1979).
X.-T. Liang. **82**, 051918 (2010).
P. Rebentrost and A. Aspuru-Guzik. **134**, 101103 (2011).
J. P. Sethna and S. Kivelson. **26**, 3513 (1982).
S. Maniscalco and F. Petruccione. **73**, 012111 (2006).
M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert, T. S. Cubitt and J. I. Cirac. **101**, 150402 (2008).
R. Vasile, S. Maniscalco, M. G. A. Paris, H. P. Breuer and J. Piilo. **83**, 042321 (2011).
H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, and J. Piilo. **103**, 210401 (2009).
X.-M. Lu, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun. **82**, 042103 (2010).
M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani. **7**, 1 (2007).
G. Vidal and R. F. Werner. **65**, 032314 (2002).
J. Lee, M. S. Kim, Y. J. Park, and S. Lee. **47**, 2151 (2000).
M. B. Plenio, J. Hartley, and J. Eisert. **6**, 36 (2004).
S. Barnett and P. Radmore. (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1997).
R. Simon. **84**, 2726 (2000).
A. Rivas, A. D. K. Plato, S. F. Huelga and M. B. Plenio **12**, 113032 (2010).
R. Martinazzo, B. Vacchini, K. H. Hughes and I. Burghardt. **134**, 011101 (2011).
A. W. Chin, A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga and M. B. Plenio. **51**, 092109 (2010).
J.-H. An and W.-M. Zhang. **76**, 042127 (2007).
F. Plastina and S. Maniscalco. **09**, 1715 (2011).
A. Ferraro, S. Olivares and M. G. A. Paris. (Bibliopolis, Napoli 2005).
O. Gamel and D. F. V. James. **82**, 052106 (2010).
B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz and Y. Zhang. **45**, 2843 (1992).
S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo and K.-A. Suominen. **55**, 181 (2009).
S. Maniscalco, J. Piilo, F. Intravaia, F. Petruccione and A. Messina. **70**, 032113 (2004).
F. Intravaia, S. Maniscalco and A. Messina. **67**, 042108 (2003).
H. Breuer and F. Petruccione. (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Definitions of what are called $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi
-\psi \right)$-Kannan contraction and $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi
-\psi\right)$-Chatterjea contraction are introduced in this paper. We use these new concepts to establish new fixed point results in the context of complete generalized metric spaces. These results are new generalizations and extensions of the Kannan and Chatterjea fixed point theorems and are generalized versions of some fixed point results proved in the literature. The analysis and theory are illustrated by some examples.
author:
- 'Mohammad Al-Khaleel$^{*,\dagger}$'
- 'Sharifa Al-Sharif$^{\dagger}$'
title: 'Fixed points for $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right)$-Kannan and $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right)$-Chatterjea contractions in $G$-metric spaces'
---
[^1] [^2]
**Introduction and Preliminaries**
==================================
over the past couple of years, many researchers tried to generalize the usual metric space, see for example [@Gah63; @Gah66; @Dha92] and references therein. Many of these generalizations were refuted by other researches [@Ha88; @Mus04; @Nai05I; @Nai05II] due to the fundamental flaws they contain. In 2006, Mustafa and Sims [@Mus06] were able to introduce in an appropriate new structure a new generalization called $G$-metric space in which all flaws of previous generalizations were amended. They were also able to prove that every $G$-metric space is topologically equivalent to a usual metric space, which means that it is a straightforward task to transform concepts from usual metric spaces to $G$-metric spaces. Furthermore, one can obtain similar results to those in usual metric spaces straightforwardly but in a more general setting. The definition of the generalized metric space, $G$-metric space, as introduced by Mustafa and Sims in [@Mus06] is given below.
\[def:G-metric\] Let $X$ be a nonempty set and let $\mathbb{R}^+$ denote the set of all positive real numbers. Suppose that a mapping $G:X\times
X\times X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ satisfies
1. $G(x,y,z)=0$ if $x=y=z$,
2. $0< G(x,x,y)$ whenever $x\neq y$, for all $x,y\in
X$,
3. $G(x,x,y)\le G(x,y,z)$ whenever $y\neq z$, for all $x,y,z\in
X$,
4. $G(x,y,z)=G(x,z,y)=G(y,x,z)=\dots$. (Symmetry in all of the three variables),
5. $G(x,y,z)\le G(x,a,a)+G(a,y,z)$, for all $x,y,z,a\in
X$. (Rectangle inequality).
Then $G$ is called a generalized metric, $G$-metric on $X$, and $(X,G)$ is called a generalized metric space, $G$-metric space.
Below, we give some examples of the $G$-metric spaces as well as some other definitions and convergence properties of sequences in $G$-metric spaces.
Let $(X,d)$ be any metric space. Define $G_s$ and $G_m$ on $X\times X\times X$ to $\mathbb{R}^+$ by $$\begin{array}{l}
G_s(x,y,z)=d(x,y)+d(y,z)+d(x,z),\\
G_m(x,y,z)=\max\{d(x,y),d(y,z),d(x,z)\}, \forall x,y,z\in X.
\end{array}$$ Then, $(X,G_s)$ and $(X,G_m)$ are $G$-metric spaces.
Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space and $\{x_n\}$ be a sequence of points in $X$. Then
1. a point $x\in X$ is said to be the limit of the sequence $\{x_n\}$ if for any $\varepsilon>0$, there exists an integer $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $G(x,x_n,x_m)<\epsilon$, for all $n,m\ge N$, i.e., if $$\lim\limits_{n,m\rightarrow\infty} G(x,x_n,x_m)=0,$$ and we say that the sequence $\{x_n\}$ is $G$-convergent to $x$.
2. the sequence $\{x_n\}$ is said to be $G$-Cauchy if any given $\varepsilon>0$, there is $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $G(x_n,x_m,x_\ell)<\epsilon$, for all $n,m,\ell\ge N$, i.e., if $$\lim\limits_{n,m,\ell\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x_m,x_{\ell})=0.$$
3. the space $(X,G)$ is called a complete $G$-metric space if every $G$-Cauchy sequence in $X$ is $G$-convergent in $X$.
Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space. Then the following are equivalent.
1. The sequence $\{x_n\}$ is $G$-convergent to $x$.
2. $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x_n,x)=0$.
3. $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x,x)=0$.
4. $\lim\limits_{n,m\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x_m,x)=0$.
Let $(X,G)$ be a $G$-metric space. Then the following are equivalent.
1. The sequence $\{x_n\}$ is $G$-Cauchy in $X$.
2. $\lim\limits_{n,m\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x_m,x_m)=0$.
Several fixed point theorems and results were obtained in this new generalization of the usual metric spaces, see for example [@Alkhaleel12]-[@Alkhaleel17] and references therein. Meanwhile, there have been also several attempts to extend and generalize the Banach contraction mapping principle [@Banach22] in the usual metric spaces over the past couple of years. Kannan [@Kan68] successfully extended the well-known Banach’s contraction principle [@Banach22] by proving that if $X$ is complete, then every what is so-called Kannan contraction $T$ has a unique fixed point. The definition that was introduced by Kannan is stated below.
A mapping $T:X\rightarrow X$, where $\left( X,d\right) $ is a metric space, is said to be a Kannan contraction if there exists $\alpha \in \left[ 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) $ such that for all $x,y\in X$, the inequality $$d\left( Tx,Ty\right) \leq \alpha \left[ d\left( x,Tx\right)
+d\left( y,Ty\right) \right],$$ holds.
Another definition that was also used to extend the well-known Banach’s contraction principle [@Banach22] which is a sort of dual of Kannan contraction, is presented by Chatterjea [@Chat72] as follows.
A mapping $T:X\rightarrow X$, where $\left( X,d\right)$ is a metric space, is said to be a Chatterjea contraction if there exists $\alpha \in \left[ 0,\frac{1}{2}\right) $ such that for all $x,y\in X$, the inequality $$d\left( Tx,Ty\right) \leq \alpha \left[ d\left( x,Ty\right)
+d\left( y,Tx\right) \right],$$ holds.
Chatterjea [@Chat72] also proved using his new definition that if $X$ is complete, then every Chatterjea contraction has a unique fixed point. In 1972, Zamfirescu [@Zam72] introduced a very interesting fixed point theorem which combines the contractive conditions of Banach, Kannan, and Chatterjea.
Let $(X,d)$ be a complete metric space and $T:X\rightarrow X$ a map for which there exist the real numbers $\alpha ,\beta$, and $\gamma $ satisfying $0\leq \alpha <1$, $0\leq \beta ,\gamma<
\frac{1}{2}$, such that for $x,y\in X$ at least one of the following is true.
1. $d\left( Tx,Ty\right) \leq \alpha d\left( x,y\right)$,
2. $d(Tx,Ty)\leq \beta \left[ d\left( x,Tx\right)
+d\left( y,Ty\right) \right]$,
3. $d\left( Tx,Ty\right) \leq \gamma \left[ d\left(
x,Ty\right) +d\left( y,Tx\right) \right]$.
Then $T$ has a unique fixed point $p$ and the Picard iteration $\{x_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ defined by $x_{n+1}=Tx_n, \;n=0,1,2,\dots$ converges to $p$ for any $x_0\in X$.
The cyclical extensions for these fixed point theorems were obtained at a later time, by considering non-empty closed subsets $\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{p}$ of a complete metric space $X$ and a cyclical operator $T:\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}\rightarrow
\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$, i.e., satisfies $T\left(
A_{i}\right) \subseteq A_{i+1}\text{ for all }i\in \left\{
1,2,\dots,p\right\}$. In [@Rus05], Rus presented the cyclical extension for the Kannan’s theorem, and Petric in [@Pet10] presented cyclical extensions for Chatterjea and Zamfirescu theorems using fixed point structure arguments. The concept of a control function in terms of altering distances was addressed by Khan *et. al.* [@Khan84] which lead to a new category of fixed point problems. Altering distances have been used in metric fixed point theory in many papers, see for example [@Sas99]-[@Naidu03] and references therein. In this paper, we consider the generalization of the usual metric space introduced in [@Mus06], $G$-metric space, and study new extensions and generalizations of Banach, Kannan, and Chatterjea contractions to present and prove new fixed point theorems. We give some generalized versions of the fixed point results proved in the literature in the context of $G$-metric spaces. In particular, we present some generalized versions of fixed point theorems of cyclic nonlinear contractions type in $G$-metric spaces by the use of the continuous function $\psi$ and the altering distance function $\phi$ which are both defined below. At the end of this paper we illustrate the analysis and the theory by some examples.
\[def:altering distance\] The function $\phi :\left[ 0,\infty \right) \rightarrow \left[
0,\infty \right) $ is called an altering distance function, if the following properties are satisfied.
1. $\phi $ is continuous,
2. $\phi$ is nondecreasing,
3. $\phi \left( t\right) =0$ if and only if $t=0$.
The function $\psi :\left[ 0,\infty \right) ^{3}\rightarrow \left[
0,\infty \right) $ is a continuous function such that $\psi \left(
x,y,z\right) =0$ if and only if $x=y=z=0$.
**Main results**
=================
We begin this section by giving definitions of what we call a $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right) $-Kannan type contraction and a $G$-cyclic $\left(\phi-\psi\right)$-Chatterjea type contraction.
\[def:cycl-khan-Ch\] Let $\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{p}$ be non-empty closed subsets of a $G$-metric space $(X,G)$, and suppose $T:\bigcup
\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}\rightarrow \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$ is a cyclical operator. Then $T$ is said to be a $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right)
$-Kannan type contraction if there exists constants $\alpha,\gamma$ with $0\le\gamma<1$ and $0<\alpha+\gamma\le1$, such that for any $x\in
A_{i},y,z\in A_{i+1},i=1,2,\dots,p$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( Tx,Ty,Tz\right) \right) \leq \phi \left(
\alpha G\left( x,Tx,Tx\right) +\beta( G\left( y,Ty,Ty\right)+
G\left( z,Tz,Tz\right))\right)\\
-\psi \left( G\left( x,Tx,Tx\right),G\left( y,Ty,Ty\right),G\left(
z,Tz,Tz\right) \right),\end{aligned}$$ and $T$ is said to be a $G$-cyclic $\left(\phi-\psi\right)$-Chatterjea type contraction if there exists constants $\alpha,\beta$ with $0\le\alpha\le\frac{1}{2}$ and $0<\alpha+\beta\le 1$, such that for any $x\in A_{i},y,z\in
A_{i+1},i=1,2,\dots,p$, we have $$\begin{array}{ll}
\phi \left( G\left( Tx,Ty,Tz\right) \right) \leq \phi \left(
\alpha G\left( x,Ty,Tz\right) +\beta G\left( y,z,Tx\right)
\right)\\
\hspace{5cm} -\psi \left( G\left( x,Ty,Tz\right) ,G\left(
y,z,Tx\right),G\left( z,y,Tx\right) \right),
\end{array}$$ where $\phi :\left[ 0,\infty \right) \rightarrow \left[ 0,\infty
\right) $ and $\psi :\left[ 0,\infty \right) ^{3}\rightarrow
\left[ 0,\infty \right) $ are given in Definition \[def:altering distance\].
\[th:main1\] Let $\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{p}$ be non-empty closed subsets of a complete $G$-metric space $\left( X,G\right)$ and $T:\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}\rightarrow\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$ satisfies at least one of the following:
1. There exists constants $\alpha,\gamma$ with $0\le\gamma<1$ and $0<\alpha+\gamma\le1$, such that for any $x\in A_{i},y\in
A_{i+1},i=1,2,\dots,p$, we have $$\begin{array}{c} \phi \left(
G\left( Tx,Ty,Ty\right) \right) \leq \phi \left(
\alpha G\left( x,Tx,Tx\right) +\gamma G\left( y,Ty,Ty\right)\right)\\
\hspace{6cm}-\psi \left( G\left( x,Tx,Tx\right),G\left(
y,Ty,Ty\right),G\left( y,Ty,Ty\right) \right).
\end{array}$$
2. There exists constants $\alpha,\delta$ with $0\le\alpha\le\frac{1}{2}$ and $0<\alpha+\delta\le 1$, such that for any $x\in A_{i},y\in A_{i+1},i=1,2,\dots,p$, we have $$\begin{array}{c}
\phi \left( G\left( Tx,Ty,Ty\right) \right) \leq \phi \left(
\alpha G\left( x,Ty,Ty\right) +\delta G\left( y,y,Tx\right)
\right)
\\
\hspace{6cm}-\psi \left( G\left( x,Ty,Ty\right) ,G\left(
y,y,Tx\right),G\left( y,y,Tx\right) \right).
\end{array}$$
Then $T$ has a unique fixed point $u\in
\bigcap\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$.
Take $x_{0}\in X$ and consider the sequence given by $x_{n+1}=Tx_{n},n\geq 0$. If there exists $n_{0}\in N$ such that $x_{n_{0}+1}=x_{n_{0}}$, then the existence of the fixed point is proved. So, suppose that $x_{n+1}\neq x_{n}$ for any $n=0,1,\dots$. Then there exists $i_{n}\in \left\{ 1,\dots,p\right\}$ such that $x_{n-1}\in A_{i_{n}}$ and $x_{n}\in A_{i_{n+1}}$. Now, assume first that $T$ satisfies condition $(1)$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right) &=&\phi
\left(
G\left(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right) \right)\\
&\leq& \phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n-1},Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1}\right)
+\gamma G\left( x_{n},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right)
\right)\\
&\;\;-&\psi \left( G\left(x_{n-1},Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n-1}\right),G\left( x_{n},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right), G\left( x_{n},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right)\right) \\
&= &\phi \left( \alpha G\left(x_{n-1},x_{n},x_{n}\right) +\gamma
G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
\right)\\
&\;\;-&\psi \left( G\left(x_{n-1},x_{n},x_{n}\right),G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right) \\
&\leq& \phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n},x_{n}\right)
+\gamma G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\phi $ is a nondecreasing function, we get $$G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \leq \alpha G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n},x_{n}\right) +\gamma G\left(
x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}
G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)&\leq &\frac{\alpha}{1-\gamma}G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n},x_{n}\right) ,\forall n.\end{aligned}$$ Since $0<\alpha+\gamma\le1$, we get that $ G\left(
x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)$ is a nonincreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers. Hence, there is $r\geq 0$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
=r.$$ Using the continuity of $\phi $ and $\psi $, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( r\right) &\leq &\phi \left( (\alpha+\gamma)r\right)
-\psi \left(
r,r,r\right) \\
&\leq &\phi \left( r\right) -\psi \left( r,r,r\right),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\psi \left( r,r,r\right) =0$, and hence, $r=0$.\
Similarly, if $T$ satisfies condition $(2)$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right) &=&\phi
\left(
G\left(Tx_{n-1},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right) \right) \\
&\leq& \phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n-1},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right)
+\gamma G\left( x_{n}, x_{n},Tx_{n-1}\right) \right)\\
&& -\psi \left(
G\left(x_{n-1},Tx_{n},Tx_{n}\right),G\left(x_{n},x_{n},Tx_{n-1}\right),G\left(x_{n},x_{n},Tx_{n-1}\right) \right) \\
&=& \phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
+\gamma G\left(x_n,x_{n},x_{n}\right)\right)\\
&&-\psi \left( G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),G\left(x_n,x_{n},x_{n}\right),G\left(x_n,x_{n},x_{n}\right)\right) \\
&\leq& \phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since, $\phi $ is a nondecreasing function, we get $$\label{eq:2}
G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \leq\alpha
G\left(x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),$$ and by rectangular inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) &\leq& \alpha G\left(x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)\\
&\leq &\alpha \left[ G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n},x_n\right)+G\left(
x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}
G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) &\leq&
\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n},x_n\right).\end{aligned}$$ Since $0\le\alpha\leq\frac{1}{2} $, we get that $\left\{ G\left(
x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \right\} $ is a nonincreasing sequence of nonnegative real numbers. Hence, there is $r\geq 0$ such that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
=r.$$ Now, if $\alpha=0$, then clearly, $r=0$, and if $0<\alpha<
\frac{1}{2}$, then $\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}<1$, and by induction, we have $$G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \leq
\left(\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\right)^nG\left(
x_{0},x_{1},x_1\right),$$ and hence, $r=0$. Finally, if $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$, then from (\[eq:2\]), we have $$G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \ge 2G\left(
x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),$$ and hence, $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)\ge 2r,$$ but, $$G\left( x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right) \leq G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n},x_n\right)+G\left( x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right),$$ and as $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)\leq2r.$$ Therefore, $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left(
x_{n-1},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)=2r$. Using the continuity of $\phi $ and $\psi $, and $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( r\right) &\leq &\phi \left( \frac{1}{2}\cdot 2r\right)
-\psi \left(
2r,0,0\right)\\
&= &\phi \left( r\right) -\psi \left( 2r,0,0\right),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\psi \left( 2r,0,0\right) =0$, and hence, $r=0$. In the sequel, we show that $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} $ is a $G$-Cauchy sequence in $X$. To do so, we need to prove first, the claim that for every $\epsilon>0$, there exists $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that if $p,q\geq
n$ with $p-q\equiv 1\left( m\right)$, then $G\left( x_{p},x_{q},
x_q\right) <\epsilon $. Suppose the contrary case, i.e., there exists $\epsilon
>0 $ such that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, we can find $p_{n}>q_{n}\geq n$ with $p_{n}-q_{n}\equiv 1\left( m\right)$ satisfying $G\left( x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}}\right) \geq
\epsilon $. Now, we take $n>2m$. Then corresponding to $q_{n}\geq n$, we can choose $p_{n}$ in such a way that it is the smallest integer with $p_{n}>q_{n}$ satisfying $ p_{n}-q_{n}\equiv 1\left( m\right) $ and $G\left( x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}}\right)\geq \epsilon $. Therefore, $G\left( x_{q_{n}},x_{q_n},x_{p_{n-m}}\right)
<\epsilon$. Using the rectangular inequality, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon \leq G\left( x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}}\right) &\leq&
G\left( x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{p_{n-m}}\right)
+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}G\left(x_{p_{n-i}},
x_{p_{n-i}},x_{p_{n-i+1}}\right) \\
&<&\epsilon +\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}G\left( x_{p_{n-i}},
x_{p_{n-i}},x_{p_{n-i+1}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\rightarrow \infty $ in the last inequality, and taking into account that\
$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G\left(x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
=0$, we obtain $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left(
x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}}\right) =\epsilon $. Again, by rectangle inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{p_{n}}) &\le&
G(x_{p_{n}},x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}})+G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}})\\
&\le&
G(x_{p_{n}},x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}})+G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})+G(x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}})\\
&\le&
G(x_{p_{n}},x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}})+G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})+G(x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})\\
&&+G(x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n}}),\end{aligned}$$ moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})
&\le&G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}})+G(x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})\\
&\le&
G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n}},x_{p_{n}})+G(x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}})+G(x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}})\\
&\le&G(x_{p_{n}},x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}})+G(x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}},x_{p_{n}})+G(x_{p_{n}},x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}})\\
&&+G(x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the limit as $n\rightarrow\infty$, and taking into account that $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G\left(x_{n},x_{n+1},x_{n+1}\right)
=0$, we get $\epsilon\le\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left(
x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}}\right) \le\epsilon $, which implies that $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty }G\left(
x_{p_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}}\right) =\epsilon $. Since $x_{p_{n}}$ and $x_{q_{n}}$ lie in different adjacently labelled sets $A_{i}$ and $A_{i+1}$ for certain $1\leq i\leq m$, assuming that $T$ satisfies condition $(1)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{q_{n+1}},x_{q_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}}\right)
\right) &=&\phi
\left(G\left( Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right) \right) \\
&\leq&\phi \left( \alpha G\left(
x_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}}\right)
+\gamma G\left( x_{p_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right) \right)\\
&-&\psi \left(G\left(
x_{p_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right),G\left(
x_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}}\right),G\left(
x_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}}\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\rightarrow \infty $ in the last inequality, we obtain $$\phi \left( \epsilon \right) \leq \phi \left(0 \right) -\psi
\left( 0,0,0 \right)=0.$$ Therefore, we get $\epsilon =0$ which is a contradiction. Similarly, assuming that $T$ satisfies condition $(2)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{q_{n+1}}, x_{q_{n+1}},x_{p_{n+1}}\right)
\right) &=&\phi \left(
G\left( Tx_{q_{n}}, Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right) \right) \\
&\leq &\phi \left( \alpha G\left(
x_{p_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}}\right) +\gamma G\left(
x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right)
\right)\\
&&-\psi \left( G\left(x_{p_{n}},
Tx_{q_{n}},Tx_{q_{n}}\right),G\left(
x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right),G\left(
x_{q_{n}},x_{q_{n}},Tx_{p_{n}}\right) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\rightarrow \infty $ in the last inequality, we obtain $$\phi \left( \epsilon \right) \leq \phi \left(
(\alpha+\gamma)\epsilon \right) -\psi \left( \epsilon
,\epsilon,\epsilon \right).$$ Therefore, since $0<\alpha+\gamma\le1$, we get $\psi \left(
\epsilon ,\epsilon,\epsilon \right) =0$, and hence, $ \epsilon
=0$, which is a contradiction. From the above proved claim for both cases, i.e., the case when $T$ satisfies condition $(1)$ and the case when $T$ satisfies condition $(2)$, and for arbitrary $\epsilon>0$, we can find $n_0\in \mathbb{N}$ such that if $p,q>n_0$ with $p-q=1(m)$, then $G\left( x_{p},x_{q},x_{q}\right)<\epsilon$. Since $\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}G(x_n,x_{n+1},x_{n+1})=0$, we can find $n_1\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$G(x_n,x_{n+1},x_{n+1})\le \frac{\epsilon}{m},\; \mbox{for}\;
n>n_1.$$ Now, for $r,s>\max\{n_0,n_1\}$ and $s>r$, there exists $k\in
\{1,2,\dots,m\}$ such that $s-r=k(m)$. Therefore, $s-r+j=1(m)$ for $j=m-k+1$. So, we have $$G(x_r,x_r,x_s)\le
G(x_r,x_r,x_{s+j})+G(x_{s+j},x_{s+j},x_{s+j-1})+\dots+G(x_{s+1},x_{s+1},x_{s}).$$ This implies $$G(x_r,x_r,x_s)\le \epsilon+\frac{\epsilon}{m}\sum\limits_{j=1}^m
\;1=2\epsilon.$$ Thus, $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} $ is a $G$-Cauchy sequence in $\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$. Consequently, $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} $ converges to some $u\in
\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$. However, in view of cyclical condition, the sequence $\left\{x_{n}\right\} $ has an infinite number of terms in each $A_{i}$, for $i=1,2,\dots,p$. Therefore, $u\in \bigcap\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$. Now, we will prove that $u$ is a fixed point of $T$. Suppose $u\in A_{i}$, $Tu\in A_{i+1}$, and we take a subsequence $x_{n_{k}}$ of $\left\{ x_{n}\right\}$ with $x_{n_{k}}\in
A_{i-1}$. Then, assuming that $T$ satisfies condition $(1)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{n_{k+1}},Tu,Tu\right) \right) &=&\phi
\left(
G\left(Tx_{n_{k}},Tu,Tu\right) \right) \\
&\leq& \phi\left(\alpha
G\left(x_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}}\right)
+\gamma G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \right)\\
&& -\psi \left( G\left(x_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}}\right) ,G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right),G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \right) \\
&\leq&\phi\left(\alpha
G\left(x_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}},Tx_{n_{k}}\right) +\gamma G\left(
u,Tu,Tu\right) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $k\rightarrow \infty $, we have $$\phi \left( G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \right) \leq \phi \left( \alpha
G\left( u,u,u\right) +\gamma G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \right),$$ and since $\phi $ is a nondecreasing function, we get $$G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \leq \gamma G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right).$$ Thus, since $0\le\gamma< 1$, we have $G\left(
u,Tu,Tu\right) =0$, and hence, $u=Tu$.\
Similarly, assuming that $T$ satisfies condition $(2)$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi \left( G\left( x_{n_{k+1}},Tu,Tu\right) \right) &=&\phi
\left( G\left(
Tx_{n_{k}},Tu,Tu\right) \right) \\
&\leq &\phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n_{k}},Tu,Tu\right) +\gamma
G\left( u,u,Tx_{n_{k}}\right) \right)\\
&& -\psi \left( G\left(
x_{n_{k}},Tu,Tu\right),G\left( u,u,Tx_{n_{k}}\right),G\left( u,u,Tx_{n_{k}}\right) \right) \\
&\leq &\phi \left( \alpha G\left( x_{n_{k}},Tu,Tu\right) +\gamma
G\left( u,u,Tx_{n_{k}}\right) \right).\end{aligned}$$ Letting $k\rightarrow \infty $, we have $$\phi \left( G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \right) \leq \phi \left( \alpha
G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) +\gamma G\left( u,u,u\right) \right),$$ since $\phi $ is a nondecreasing function, we get $$G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right) \leq \alpha G\left( u,Tu,Tu\right).$$ Thus, since $0\le\alpha\le \frac{1}{2}$, we have $G\left(
u,Tu,Tu\right) =0$, and hence, $u=Tu$.
\[th:main\] Let $\left\{ A_{i}\right\} _{i=1}^{p}$ be non-empty closed subsets of a complete $G$-metric space $\left( X,G\right)$ and $T:\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}\rightarrow\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$ be at least one of the following.
1. a $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right)$-Kannan type contraction.
2. a $G$-cyclic $\left( \phi -\psi \right)$-Chatterjea type contraction.
Then $T$ has a unique fixed point $u\in
\bigcap\limits_{i=1}^{p}A_{i}$.
Taking $z=y$ in Definition \[def:cycl-khan-Ch\], the proof follows straightforwardly from the proof of Theorem \[th:main1\] with $\gamma=2\beta$ for the first condition and $\delta=\beta$ for the second condition.
Applications and Examples
=========================
We give below two examples in order to validate the proved result.\
Let $X$ be a complete $G$-metric space, $m$ positive integer, $A_1,\dots,A_m$ non-empty closed subsets of $X$, and $X=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^m A_i$. Let $T:X\rightarrow X$ be an operator such that
1. $X=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^m A_i$ is a cyclic representation of $X$ with respect to $T$.
2. for any $x\in A_i$, $y\in A_{i+1}$, $i=1,2,\dots,m$, where $A_{m+1}=A_1$ and $\rho:[0,\infty)\rightarrow
[0,\infty)$ is a Lebesgue integrable mapping satisfies $\int^t_0 \rho(s) \;ds>0$ for $t>0$, we have one of the following: $$\int_0^{G(Tx,Ty,Ty)}\rho(t)\;dt \le \int_0^{\alpha
G(x,Tx,Tx)+\gamma G(y,Ty,Ty)}\rho(t)\;dt,$$ or $$\int_0^{G(Tx,Ty,Ty)}\rho(t)\;dt \le \int_0^{\alpha
G(x,Ty,Ty)+\gamma G(Tx,y,y)}\rho(t)\;dt.$$ Then $T$ has a unique fixed point $u\in \bigcap\limits_{i=1}^m
A_i$.
In order to see this, one might let $\phi:[0,\infty)\rightarrow
[0,\infty)$ be defined as $\phi(t)=\int^t_0 \rho(s) \;ds>0$. Then, $\phi$ is alternating distance function, and by taking $\psi(t,s,w)=0$, we get the result.
Let $X=[-1,1]\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ with $G(x,y,z)=|x-y|+|y-z|+|x-z|$. Let $T:[-1,1]\rightarrow [-1,1]$ be given by $$T(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
-\frac{1}{2}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}},&x\in(0,1],\\
0,&x=0,\\
-\frac{1}{3}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}},&x\in[-1,0).
\end{array}\right.$$ By taking $\psi(t,s,w)=0$, $\phi(t)=t$, and $x\in[0,1]$, $y\in
[-1,0]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
G(Tx,Ty,Ty)&=&|Tx-Ty|+|Tx-Ty|+|Ty-Ty|\\
&=&|Tx-Ty|+|Tx-Ty|\\
&=&\left|-\frac{1}{2}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}}+\frac{1}{3}ye^{-\frac{1}{|y|}}\right|+\left|-\frac{1}{2}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}}+\frac{1}{3}ye^{-\frac{1}{|y|}}\right|\\
&\le& \frac{1}{2}|x|+\frac{1}{3}|y|+\frac{1}{2}|x|+\frac{1}{3}|y|\\
&\le&
\frac{1}{2}\left|x+\frac{1}{2}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}}\right|+\frac{1}{3}\left|y+\frac{1}{3}ye^{-\frac{1}{|y|}}\right|+\frac{1}{2}\left|x+\frac{1}{2}xe^{-\frac{1}{|x|}}\right|
+\frac{1}{3}\left|y+\frac{1}{3}ye^{-\frac{1}{|y|}}\right|\\
&=
&\frac{1}{2}|Tx-x|+\frac{1}{3}|Ty-y|+\frac{1}{2}|Tx-x|+\frac{1}{3}|Ty-y|\\
&=
&\frac{1}{2}(|Tx-x|+|Tx-x|)+\frac{1}{3}(|Ty-y|+|Ty-y|)\\
&=
&\frac{1}{2}G(x,Tx,Tx)+\frac{1}{3}G(y,Ty,Ty),\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $T$ has a unique fixed point in $[-1,0]\cap[0,1]$, namely $u=0$.
[siam]{} , 2-metrische raume and ihre topologische struktur, *Mathematische Nachrichten*, 26:115–148, 1963. , Zur geometric 2-metrische raume, *Revue Roumanie de Mathematiques Pures et Appliqueés*, 11:665–667, 1966. , Strictly convex and strictly 2-convex 2-normed spaces, *Math. Japonica*, 33(3):375–384, 1988. , Generalized metric space and mappings with fixed point, *Bull. Calc. Math. Soc.*, 84:329–336, 1992. , Some remarks concerning $D$-metric spaces, *Proceedings of the International Conference on Fixed Point Theory and Applications: Valencia, Spain, 2003. Yokohama Publishers, Yokohama*, 189–198, 2004. , On the concepts of balls in a $D$-metric space, *Int. J. of Math. and Math. Sci.*, 1:133–141, 2005. , On convergent sequences and fixed point theorems in a $D$-metric space, *Int. J. of Math. and Math. Sci.*, 12:1969–1988, 2005. , A new approach to generalized metric spaces, *J. Nonlinear and Convex Anal.*, 7(2):289–297, 2006. , Property $P$ and some fixed point results on $(\psi,\phi)$-weakly contractive $G$-metric spaces, *International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences*, Volume 2012, Article ID 675094, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2012/675094, 2012 , Fixed points for contraction mappings in generalized cone metric spaces, *Jordan Journal of Mathematics and Statistics*, 5(4):291–307, 2012 , Some new results and generalizations in $G$-cone metric fixed point theory, *British Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science*, 4(11): 1542-1550, 2014 , Coincidence and common fixed points for a sequence of mappings in $G$-metric spaces, *International Journal of Mathematical Analysis*, 9(36): 1769-1783, 2015 , New results on fixed points for an infinite sequence of mappings in $G$-metric space, *Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics*, 2017(37):517–540, 2017 , Surles operations dans les ensembles et leur application aux equation sitegrales, *Fund. Math.*, 3:133-181, 1922. , Some results on fixed points, *Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc.* 10:71-76, 1968. , Fixed point theorems, *C. R. Acad. Bulgare Sci.*, 25:727–730, 1972. , Fixed point theorems in metric spaces, *Arch. Math.*, (Basel) 23, 292–298, 1972. , Cyclic representations and fixed points, *Annals of the Tiberiu Popoviciu Seminar of Functional Equations, Approximation and Convexity*, vol.3, pp. 171-178, 2005. , Some results concerning cyclical contractive mappings, *General Mathematics*, 18(4):213-226, 2010. , Fixed point theorem by altering distances between points, *Bull. Austral. Math. soc.*, 30(1):1–9, 1984. , Some fixed point theorems by altering distances between the points, *Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics*, 30(6):641–647, 1999. , Generalization of common fixed point theorems for weakly commuting map by altering distances, *Tamkang Journal of Mathematics*, 31(3):243–250, 2000. , Some fixed point theorems in metric spaces by altering distances, *Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal*, 53(1):205–212, 2003.
[^1]: $^{*}$ **Corresponding author**, Department of Applied Mathematics and Sciences, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE
[^2]: $^{\dagger}$ Department of Mathematics, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A model for ac-driven systems, based on the Tang-Wiesenfeld-Bak-Coppersmith-Littlewood automaton for an elastic medium, exhibits mode-locked steps with frequencies that are irrational multiples of the drive frequency, when the pinning is spatially quasiperiodic. Detailed numerical evidence is presented for the large-system-size convergence of such a mode-locked step. The irrational mode locking is stable to small thermal noise and weak disorder. Continuous time models with irrational mode locking and possible experimental realizations are discussed.'
author:
- 'Creighton K. Thomas, A. Alan Middleton'
title: Irrational mode locking in quasiperiodic systems
---
Extended non-equilibrium systems subject to spatially uniform drives exhibit a vast range of spatiotemporal behaviors, including uniform and static configurations, patterns periodic in space or time, and a great variety of spatially and temporally chaotic phenomena [@CH-review; @BPA]. In the cases where the local fields have a periodic attractor under a constant drive, the addition of an oscillating external drive of period $\tau$ can lead to mode locking: the local fields are translated by exactly $p$ periods over the time $q\tau$, with fixed $p,q\in\mathbb{Z}$, for a finite range of external drive amplitudes. This rational $p/q$ mode-locked step is evident in the invariance of a dynamical variable (a velocity or current) to changes in the strength of the external driving force and is thus seen as a plateau in the average rate of change of the fields when plotted versus a control parameter. Rational mode locking has been seen in regular Josephson junction arrays driven by microwave radiation (giant Shapiro steps) [@BRTL-giant_shapiro] and a number of translation-invariant fluid and granular systems [@AT-granular]. This mode locking can also be seen in systems with quenched disorder, e.g., experiments on [@MRR-CDW_expt] and models of [@Coppersmith.Littlewood] charge density waves (CDWs). A natural addition to these classes of spatially uniform or periodic systems and spatially random systems is the class of systems that have fixed quasiperiodic backgrounds.
Spatially quasiperiodic systems have been extensively explored in a number of physical contexts. Quasiperiodic solids are of course one example [@Quasicrystal.book]. The static and dynamic properties of mesoscopic quasiperiodic systems have also been a subject of study. In quasiperiodic wire arrays, the dependence of the normal-superconductor transition temperature on external field has cusps at irrational densities of the vortices [@nori; @BBDLWC-wire_array]. Similar complex behavior has been seen in pinning structures which consist of quasiperiodic arrays of holes or magnetic (anti)dots added to a uniform superconductor [@KGSPNSKK-antidots]. Quasiperiodic arrays of colloidal particles can also now be constructed, using holographic optical traps [@Grier-quasiperiodic_colloids].
We present here results on temporal mode locking in ac-driven two-dimensional systems with quasiperiodic structure. In addition to the typical rational mode locking, our simulations provide clear evidence of mode-locked steps with $p/q$ approaching an irrational value over a finite drive range in the large system limit. These steps are robust to small thermal noise and weak distributed disorder. It would be of interest to search for these anomalous steps in experiments, where an output frequency would be irrationally related to the input frequency in the limit of large samples.
For speed of computation, we carried out our initial simulations using a cellular automaton approximation of periodically driven overdamped systems. We first review its justification, based on arguments developed by Tang, Wiesenfeld, Bak, Coppersmith, and Littlewood (TWBCL) [@Coppersmith.Littlewood; @TWBCL; @BTW; @coppersmith]. The automaton approximates a system with scalar degrees of freedom that represent particle displacements or coarse-grained coordinates for an elastic interface, such as the phase displacements in a charge density wave, flux vortex displacements along a drive direction, or fluid-fluid interfaces without overhangs [@Fisher]. The essential features that are to be captured are displacements that can be represented by an overdamped scalar field, local elastic interactions, spatial variation (such as impurity disorder that screens elastic interactions or a periodic background) that gives a natural length scale, pinning by a potential that is periodic in the scalar field, and a periodic external force. These general physical features can be modeled by a continuous-time driven Frenkel-Kontorova (FK) model [@Floria-Mazo], where $N$ dynamical variables $x_{i}$ (the coarse-grained interface or particle displacement indexed by lattice position $i$) evolve according to $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{x_{i}} & = &
K\Delta^{2}x_{i}+h'\cos\left(kx_{i}-\beta_{i}\right)+F_{0}(t)\ ,\label{eq:FKEOM}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta^{2}$ is the discrete Laplacian operator, $K$ is the elastic constant, $h'$ is the magnitude of the pinning potential, $k$ determines the periodicity of the pinning, $\beta_{i}\in[0,2\pi)$ are pinning phases, and $F_{0}(t)$ is a periodic driving force. Changing variables by substituting $u_{i}=(kx_{i}-\beta_{i})/2\pi$, $t\rightarrow2\pi Kt$, $h=h'/2\pi K$, and $F(t)=F_{0}(t)/2\pi K$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{u_{i}} & = & \Delta^{2}u_{i}+h\cos(2\pi
u_{i})+F(t)+b_{i}\ ,\label{eq:FKEOM2}\end{aligned}$$ with $b_{i}=(2\pi)^{-1}\Delta^{2}\beta_{i}$ in the range $(-z,z)$, where $z$ is the number of nearest neighbors ($z=4$ for a square lattice). Coppersmith [@coppersmith] has shown that in the limit of large $h$ and $F(t)$ of the form $F(t)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}F\delta(t-k\tau)$ with ample relaxation time $\tau$ between pulses, an automaton model is an appropriate approximation to these driven FK dynamics. This claim is also supported by numerical work, which shows very similar mode-locking behavior for the continuous time model and the corresponding automaton [@Coppersmith.Littlewood; @MBLS]. In this limit, the dynamical variable $u_{i}$ is near a minimum of the pinning potential, $u_{i}\approx n_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}$, between drive pulses. One then defines an integer curvature variable $c_{i}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
c_{i} & = & \Delta^{2}n_{i}+\left\lfloor b_{i}+F-h\right\rfloor
\ ,\label{eq:CurvatureMapping}\end{aligned}$$ where $\left\lfloor
\right\rfloor $ is the floor function; this truncation of the net force approximates the selection of local minima $n_{i}$ by peaks in the pinning potential. The evolution of the $c_{i}$ between subsequent pulses is the TWBCL automaton. At each time step, if the curvature exceeds the critical value $z$, the variable $n_{i}$ advances (due to the pulse and relaxation), redistributing the curvature (“grains of sand” [@BTW]) from a site $i$ to neighboring sites $j$. Defining the toppling variable $U_{i}(t)=1$ at all $i$ where $c_{i}(t)\ge z$ and $U_{i}(t)=0$ elsewhere, the update rule for $c_{i}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
c_{i}(t+1) & = &
c_{i}(t)+\Delta^{2}U_{i}\ .\label{eq:BTWDynamics}\end{aligned}$$ In a given step of this automaton, the activity or toppling rate, corresponding to the velocity of the interface, is $v_{t}=N^{-1}\sum_{i}U_{i}(t)$. Given periodic boundary conditions (BCs), the running dynamics of the system is fixed by the initial conditions $\left\{ c_{i}(0)\right\} $, with $n_{i}=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:CurvatureMapping\]) [@narayan.middleton].
In the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld sandpile version [@BTW] (open BCs) and in disordered driven interfaces (reflecting BCs), the initial $c_{i}$ are chosen from a Poissonian distribution. We choose the initial $c_{i}$ using Eq. (\[eq:CurvatureMapping\]) and quasiperiodic pinning $$\begin{aligned}
b_{i} & = & 2z\textrm{ frac}\left(m\frac{P_{x}}{L_{x}}+n\frac{P_{y}}{L_{y}}\right)-z+\frac{1}{2N}\label{eq:OijDef}\end{aligned}$$ on a 2D square lattice of size $N=L_{x}\times L_{y}$, $i=(m,n)$, $0\le m<L_{x}$, $0\le n<L_{y}$, and $\mathrm{frac}(x)=x-\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor $. The latter two terms in Eq. (\[eq:OijDef\]) maintain $F\rightarrow-F$ symmetry. We choose the fractions $P_{x}/L_{x}$ and $P_{y}/L_{y}$ to be approximants to irrational numbers $\rho_{x}$ and $\rho_{y}$, respectively. The approximants are found by truncating the continued fraction representation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\rho & \equiv & (r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},\ldots)\end{array} & \equiv &
r_{0}+\frac{1}{r_{1}+\frac{1}{r_{2}+\cdots}}\ .\label{eq:continued_fraction}\end{aligned}$$ We focus here on the case where $\rho_{x}=\sqrt{2}-1=(0,2,2,2,\ldots)$ and $\rho_{y}=\sqrt{3}-1=(0,1,2,1,2,\ldots)$. Given pinning $\left\{ b_{i}(0)\right\} $ and drive $F$ that fix $c_i(t=0)$, one characterization of the dynamics is the average activity rate $v=\langle v_{t}\rangle$ (toppling rate or interface velocity). For any finite system there are only a finite number of configurations, so there is at least one periodic attractor (all attractors have the same $v$ [@AAM]). We repeat the map, Eq. (\[eq:BTWDynamics\]), until a periodic orbit is found and compute $v(F) = M/(TN)$, where $T$ is the period and $M=\sum_{t=1}^{T}\sum_{i}U_{i}(t)$ is the number of topplings in one period. We find plateaus in $v$, i.e. mode-locked steps (Fig. \[fig:QPStaircase\]). Most of the wide steps seen are low-denominator rationals, but there is at least one extra “anomalous” step which has a large denominator for its width.
We find such a step, similar in position, size, and activity, for all approximants to $(\rho_{x},\rho_{y})=(\sqrt{2}-1,\sqrt{3}-1)$ with $L_{x}\geq29$ and $L_{y}\geq56$. The activity $v(L_{x},L_{y})$ on this step is not fixed at a single rational (Table \[cap:numbers\]); the denominator and numerator for $v(L_{x},L_{y})$ grow with system size, but $v$ appears to converge as $(L_{x},L_{y})\rightarrow(\infty,\infty)$ (Fig. \[fig:scaling\]). This strongly implies a limiting anomalous step at an unusual activity rate. The width of the selected step also appears to converge (Fig. \[fig:scaling\]). Scanning Table \[cap:numbers\] along the $\rho_{x}=\sqrt{2}-1$ approximant direction (varying $L_{x}$, fixed $L_{y}$), it can be seen that the numerators $p_{a,b}$ for $v(L_{x},L_{y})$ satisfy the recurrence relation $$\begin{aligned}
p_{a,b} & = & 2p_{a-1,b}+p_{a-2,b}\ ,\label{eq:Root2RecRel}\end{aligned}$$ where $a$ ($b$) is the number of terms used in the approximation of $\rho_{x}$ (respectively, $\rho_{y}$). The denominators $q_{a,b}$ obey the same relation. Similarly, along the $\rho_{y}=\sqrt{3}-1$ direction (varying $L_{y}$, fixed $L_{x}$) the recurrence relation that agrees with all data is $$\begin{aligned}
p_{a,b} & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
p_{a,b-1}+p_{a,b-2} & \textrm{if }b\textrm{ is odd}\\
2p_{a,b-1}+p_{a,b-2} & \textrm{if }b\textrm{ is even}\end{array}\right.\ ,\label{eq:Root3RecRel}\end{aligned}$$ with the denominators $q_{a,b}$ also obeying the same relation. Note that Eqs. (\[eq:Root2RecRel\],\[eq:Root3RecRel\]) are also the recurrence relations for the numerators and denominators in, respectively, the approximants $P_{x}/L_{x}$ and $P_{y}/L_{y}$. These recurrence relations suggest the temporal concatenation and synchronization of subsystems, but the precise construction of such spatiotemporal behavior is unclear to us. Jointly solving Eqs. (\[eq:Root2RecRel\],\[eq:Root3RecRel\]) using four velocities as seeds, we obtain the velocity $\hat{v}$ in the $(L_{x},L_{y})\rightarrow(\infty,\infty)$ limit $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v} & = & \frac{7903+379\sqrt{3}+142\sqrt{2}-181\sqrt{6}}{156238}\ ,\label{eq:IrratNum}\end{aligned}$$ which is an algebraic irrational number, as our conjecture for the mode-locking value in the limit of infinite system size for this choice of $(\rho_{x},\rho_{y})$.
[|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & [$\frac{41}{56}$]{}&
$\frac{112}{153}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{153}{209}$]{}& [$\frac{418}{571}$]{}& [$\frac{571}{780}$]{}& [$\frac{1560}{2131}$]{}& [$\frac{2131}{2911}$]{} & [$\frac{9}{167}$]{}&
$\frac{22}{405}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{31}{572}$]{}& [$\frac{84}{1549}$]{}& [$\frac{115}{2121}$]{}& [$\frac{314}{5791}$]{}& [$\frac{429}{7912}$]{}& [$\frac{14}{266}$]{}&
$\frac{32}{603}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{46}{869}$]{}& [$\frac{124}{2341}$]{}& [$\frac{170}{3210}$]{}& [$\frac{464}{8761}$]{}& [$\frac{634}{11971}$]{}& [$\frac{37}{699}$]{}&
$\frac{86}{1611}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{123}{2310}$]{}& [$\frac{332}{6231}$]{}& [$\frac{455}{8541}$]{}& [$\frac{1242}{23313}$]{}& [$\frac{1697}{31854}$]{}& [$\frac{88}{1664}$]{}&
$\frac{204}{3825}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{292}{5489}$]{}& [$\frac{788}{14803}$]{}& [$\frac{1080}{20292}$]{}& [$\frac{2948}{55387}$]{}& [$\frac{4028}{75679}$]{}& [$\frac{213}{4027}$]{}&
$\frac{494}{9261}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{707}{13288}$]{}& [$\frac{1908}{35837}$]{}& [$\frac{2615}{49125}$]{}& [$\frac{7138}{134087}$]{}& & [$\frac{514}{9718}$]{}&
$\frac{1192}{22347}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{1706}{32065}$]{}& [$\frac{4604}{86477}$]{}& [$\frac{6310}{118542}$ ]{}& [$\frac{17224}{323561}$]{}& & [$\frac{1241}{23463}$]{}&
$\frac{2878}{53955}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [$\frac{4119}{77418}$]{}& & & &
We have found anomalous steps using other irrational pairs $(\rho_x,\rho_y)$. For small system sizes, there are no steps that satisfy the recurrence relations, but as the system size increases, irrational candidates appear, with more than one candidate for a given $(\rho_x,\rho_y)$. It is even possible that there are an infinite number of irrational steps with nonzero width in the infinite size limit for typical irrational pinning choices. It would be very surprising if other quasiperiodic pinning schemes (i.e., patterns for $b_i$) or lattices did not also give irrational steps. We have not found a way to predict, for a given driving choice, the activity of any irrational mode-locked step or the number of such steps. One-dimensional automata with nearest neighbor rules exhibit few rational steps and in the simplest case should not exhibit irrational steps [@MBLS].
Numerically more challenging versions of this model include simulations of the continuous-time FK model Eq. (\[eq:FKEOM2\]). We have studied the FK model using quasiperiodic pinning variables identical to those for the automaton. We find results similar to those for the automaton, with both rational and anomalous steps converging to fixed width in a sequence of system sizes (Fig. \[fig:QPStaircase\], inset).
For applications to experiment, it is natural to ask about the robustness of the irrational mode-locked step. To address this question we have studied the effects of thermal noise and quenched disorder. We model thermal noise by adding random topplings to the zero-temperature parallel dynamics of the system, Eq. (\[eq:BTWDynamics\]). These random topplings occur at finite rate $\eta$ per time step at each site. This noise randomly increases or decreases the displacement variable $n_{i}$ by one period. To implement this, we add backwards topplings, which take place when $c_{i}\leq-z$. The toppling variable $U_{i}(t)$ used in Eq. (\[eq:BTWDynamics\]) is modified: in addition to setting $U_{i}(t)=1$ at all $i$ where $c_{i}(t)\ge z$, one sets $U_{i}(t)=-1$ at all $i$ where $c_{i}(t)\leq-z$, with $U_{i}(t)=0$ for $-z<c_{i}(t)<z$.
Automaton models with period $q>2$ are unstable to thermal noise in general [@BGHJM], but we find that for small thermal noise the change in the velocity is limited. Weak thermal noise, which leads to nucleation of out-of-phase regions [@BGHJM] and subsequent motion of domain walls, destroys exact periodicity, but the anomalous steps can still be clearly identified (Fig. \[fig:therm\_noise\]). Numerical simulations and analysis of similar systems, such as depinning in CDWs with weak noise, also show small corrections to $\langle v\rangle$ on most of the step and rounding near small-denominator step edges [@therm_stability].
The effects of quenched disorder were included by modifying the pinning variables $b_{i}$, to model jitter in both pinning phases $\beta_{i}$ and coupling $K$. Weak distributed disorder does not affect the activity $v(L_{x},L_{y})$ significantly, with 97% of the step unchanged for 0.1% Gaussian noise in the **$b_{i}$** with $(L_{x},L_{y})=(169,153)$. However, irrational locking is sensitive to strong rare disorder: we find that randomizing the $b_{i}$ at even one site in large systems drastically reduces the width of the anomalous step. This is to be contrasted with Poissonian initial conditions, which are maximally random, and thus have steps that are not sensitive to strong disorder, though wide large-denominator steps are not present.
Given the general applicability of the FK model and the generic features of the automaton approximation, our results suggest that irrational mode locking might be seen in a number of experimental systems. The most likely candidates are constructed mesoscopic systems, where thermal fluctuations are small enough and there is precise experimental control. As noted, quasiperiodic superconducting wire arrays and Josephson-junction arrays exhibit interesting static features as a function of applied field; dynamic ac transport experiments might well be modeled by elastically or plastically interacting vortices [@ROH; @RR] that would realize the conditions necessary for irrational mode locking. Recently [@Grier-quasiperiodic_colloids], quasiperiodic colloidal particle arrays have been constructed using holographic optical traps. Experiments for dc driven particles in periodic arrays [@Grier2] suggest that experiments in a quasiperiodic background may be used to search for irrational mode locking in a collective system.
We have studied a broadly applicable model of dynamics in an extended system, where we have chosen a quasiperiodic spatial background. We find anomalous mode-locked steps that appear to converge to an irrational frequency relative to the drive frequency, in the limit of large system sizes. This step is stable to modest amounts of both thermal noise and quenched disorder. One avenue for comparison with experiment would be to study automaton models on quasiperiodic tilings (see [@Joseph] for the $v\rightarrow 0$ limit). There are a number of experimental systems that are closely related to this model and in which such irrational mode locking might be seen.
We thank Ofer Biham for suggestions. This work was supported in part by NSF via DMR-0219292, 0606424.
[10]{} M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. **65**, 851 (1993). E. Bodenschatz, W. Pesch, and G. Ahlers, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. **32**, 709 (2000). S. P. Benz *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett**.** **64**, 693 (1990). I. S. Aranson and L. S. Tsimring, Rev. Mod. Phys. **78**, 641 (2006). P. Monceau, J. Richard, and M. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. **45**, 43 (1980). S. N. Coppersmith and P. B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. Lett. **57**, 1927 (1986). *Quasicrystals: The State of the Art*, edited by D. P. DiVincenzo and P. J. Steinhardt (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999). F. Nori *et al*., Phys. Rev. B **36**, 8338 (1987). A. Behrooz *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **57**, 368 (1986). M. Kemmler *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett.**97**, 147003 (2006). Y. Roichman and D. G. Grier, Optics Express **13**, 5434 (2005). C. Tang *et al*.*,* Phys. Rev. Lett. **58**, 1161 (1987). P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. **59**, 381 (1987). S. N. Coppersmith, Phys. Rev. A **36**, 3375 (1987); **38**, 375 (1988). D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rep. **301**, 113 (1998). L. M. Floría and J. J. Mazo, Adv. Phys. **45**, 505 (1996). A. A. Middleton *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett**.** **68**, 1586 (1992). O. Narayan and A. A. Middleton, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 244 (1994). A. A. Middleton, Phys. Rev. Lett**.** **68**, 670 (1992). C. Bennett *et al*., Phys. Rev. A **41**, 1932 (1990). D. Vandembroucq, R. Skoe, and S. Roux, Phys. Rev. E **70**, 051101 (2004). C. Reichhardt, C. J. Olson, and M. B. Hastings, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 024101 (2002). C. Reichhardt and C. J. Olson Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. E **73**, 011102 (2006). P. T. Korda, M. B. Taylor, and D. G. Grier, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 128301 (2002). D. Joseph, Eur. Phys. J. B **11**, 1 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Niobium nitride (NbN) is widely used in high-frequency superconducting electronics circuits because it has one of the highest superconducting transition temperatures ($T_c$ $\sim$ 16.5 K) and largest gap among conventional superconductors. In its thin-film form, the $T_c$ of NbN is very sensitive to growth conditions and it still remains a challenge to grow NbN thin film (below 50 nm) with high $T_c$. Here, we report on the superconducting properties of NbN thin films grown by high-temperature chemical vapor deposition (HTCVD). Transport measurements reveal significantly lower disorder than previously reported, characterized by a Ioffe-Regel ($k_F$$\ell$) parameter of $\sim$ 14. Accordingly we observe $T_c$ $\sim$ 17.06K (point of 50% of normal state resistance), the highest value reported so far for films of thickness below 50nm, indicating that HTCVD could be particularly useful for growing high quality NbN thin films.'
author:
- 'D. Hazra$^{1}$$^{,2}$, N. Tsavdaris $^{3}$, S. Jebari $^{1}$$^{,2}$, A. Grimm$^{1}$$^{,2}$, F. Blanchet$^{1}$$^{,2}$, F. Mercier$^{3}$, E. Blanquet$^{3}$, C. Chapelier$^{1}$$^{,2}$, and M. Hofheinz$^{1}$$^{,2}$'
title: Superconducting properties of very high quality NbN thin films grown by high temperature chemical vapor deposition
---
Niobium nitride (NbN)thin films — thanks to their high $T_c\sim 16.5\,\mathrm{K}$, superconducting energy gap $\Delta\sim 2.5\,\mathrm{meV}$, and upper critical field $B_{c2}\sim 40\,\mathrm{T}$ — have been the subject of intense research for the last few decades, both on application and fundamental grounds. The combination of high $T_c$ and small coherence length ($\xi(0) \sim 5\,\mathrm{nm}$) allows one to fabricate very thin NbN films with reasonably high $T_c$, which is essential for, e.g, Superconducting Single Photon Detectors (see e.g.[@Delacour-APL; @G-JMO]). NbN thin films are used as hot electron bolometers and superconducting radio frequency cavities. NbN has higher kinetic inductance to other S-wave superconductors[@Anthony], which this helps fabricating superconducting micro wave resonators with high characteristic impedance and microwave kinetic inductance detectors. On the fundamental level, the effects of disorder on superconducting and normal state properties have been studied in NbN thin films [@Mondal-PRL; @Chand-PRB; @Noat]. Nano-wires, made from NbN thin films, have demonstrated thermal and quantum phase slips [@Delacour-Nanolett]— a phenomenon of great interest in understanding one-dimensional superconductivity. Further, the large superconducting energy gap of NbN can be explored in designing circuit Quantum Electrodynamics experiments in the THz frequency range.
Thus, there has been a growing demand of high quality NbN thin films. Reactive DC magnetron sputtering from an Nb target in an argon and nitrogen atmosphere is most commonly used to deposit NbN on various substrates[@Gavaler; @Wang-JAP; @Chockalingam-PRB]. The main difficulty in this process, arises from the creation of atomic level nitrogen vacancies and from the formation of non-superconducting Nb$_{2}$N and hexagonal phases. Besides, in the optimal parameter range, the high sputtering rate (typically $\sim$ 1-5 nm/sec) makes it difficult to control the thickness below 10nm. Some other methods, where the superconducting properties of NbN thin films were probed, include Pulsed Laser Deposition (PLD) [@Treece; @Senapati], Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) [@Lin-PRB] and Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) [@Mario-SST]. In this regard, deposition of superconducting NbN films by high temperature chemical vapor deposition (HTCVD) is rather rare. HTCVD, compared to most of the other methods, has certain advantages: it is cost effective, especially for large scale productions and the growth rate being tunable to low values (down to 1 nm/minute), it is easy to control the thickness of the films.
A first step to explore HTCVD as an alternative to the existing methods to produce good quality superconducting NbN films, we grow three 40-nm thick NbN films by HTCVD, and investigate their superconducting properties. The free electron density ($n$) of the films is determined from Hall measurements at room temperature. The zero temperature upper critical field $B_{c2}(0)$ and the Ginzburg-Landau coherence length $\xi(0)$ are estimated from magneto resistance data near $T_c$. The strong coupling nature of our NbN films is confirmed by superconducting energy gap ($\Delta$) measurement of a film by scanning tunnel spectroscopy at 1.35K. We also estimate $\lambda(0)$ from the normal state resistivity ($\rho_{xx}$) and $\Delta(0)$. Our best film has very high $k_F\ell \sim 14$ and $T_c \sim 17.06\,\mathrm{K}$, and quite low $\rho_{xx} \sim 60\,\mu\Omega\mathrm{cm}$ and $\lambda(0)\sim 175\,\mathrm{nm}$, making it very promising for many superconducting applications.
Experiments and Results
=======================
Three 40-nm-thick NbN films, labeled as S2, S3, and S4 respectively, were grown simultaneously (under the same process condition) at $1300\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ on different sapphire substrates by HTCVD. The detailed deposition process and the structural characterizations of the films are reported elsewhere [@Frédéric]. Briefly, S2 and S4 were grown on ($11\bar{2}0$) and (0001) oriented sapphire (Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$) substrate, respectively; whereas, S3 was grown on (0001) orientated Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ with a buffer layer of 80-nn-thick aluminium nitride (AlN) buffer layer grown by HTCVD [@Boichot]. X-ray diffraction and HRTEM studies reveal that all the NbN-films contain face centered cubic (FCC) as primary phase, grown preferentially along the (111) orientation. The average out-of-plane lattice parameters ($a$) are listed in Table \[tab1\]. Apart from the (111) preferential orientation, all the films also show additional orientations (mainly 200). The f factors — a measure of the degree of preferential orientation for FCC films [@f-factor] — are also listed in Table \[tab1\]. S2, apart from containing only cubic phases, does not contain any other phase; whereas S3 and S4 also contain a very small fraction of hexagonal phases, more in S3 than in S4.
The electrical transport measurements were performed down to 4K in a commercial physical property measurement system (PPMS). In Fig. \[fig:RT\], we plot the temperature variation of resistivity ($\rho_{xx}$) for S2, S3, and S4. In the normal state, the resistivity has very little variation in temperature. The normal state resistivities $\rho_{xx}$ of the films, defined at T = 17.25K, are listed in Table \[tab1\]. The inset of Fig. \[fig:RT\] shows the superconducting transition of resistivity (on a log scale). The $T_c$ of the films, defined as the temperatures where resistivity is half of the normal value, are listed in Table \[tab1\].
![The temperature variation of resistivity ($\rho_{xx}$) for S2, S3, and S4. The inset shows a zoom on the superconducting transition. The $\rho_{xx}$ at 17.25 K, $T_c$, and $\Delta T_c$ are listed in Table \[tab1\].[]{data-label="fig:RT"}](Fig1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:Hall\], we plot the Hall resistivity ($\rho_{xy}$) for all three samples. The electron density ($n$) was estimated from the slope, known as the Hall resistance $R_H = 1/ne$, where $e$ is the charge of an electron. The Hall measurement was performed at room temperature where electron–electron interaction is expected to be weak [@Khodas], justifying the free electron approximation. $R_H$ values at room temperature for all three samples are listed in Table \[tab1\]. Knowing $n$ and $\rho_{xx}$, the elastic scattering time ($\tau$ ) was estimated from Drude’s formula: $\rho_{xx} =m/ne^{2}\tau$, here, m is the mass of a free electron. The other important parameters — the Fermi wave vector($k_F$), the Fermi velocity ($v_F$), the mean free path ($\ell$), and the diffusion constant ($D$) — were estimated from the following formulae: $k_F = (3\pi^{2} n)^{1/3}$, $v_F = \hbar k_F/m$, $\ell = v_F \tau$, $D = v_F\ell/3$. In Table \[tab2\], we summarize these parameters together with $k_F\ell$.
![The hall resistivity for all three samples at room temperature. The magnetic field was scanned from 0 to 8 $T$. The electron densities, listed in Table-\[tab1\], are estimated from the slope ($R_H$) using the formula: $R_H = 1/ne$.[]{data-label="fig:Hall"}](Fig2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:MagScan\], we present the magneto-resistance data for S3. Fig. \[fig:MagScan\]a presents the variation of $\rho_{xx}$ as a function of temperature for magnetic fields from 0 to 8T. The graph clearly shows that the zero temperature value of the upper critical field ($B_{c2}(0)$) is greater than 8T, the maximum field our set up could provide. We, therefore, extract $B_{c2}(0)$ from the following formula: $B_{c2}(0) = 0.69T_c\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}B_{c2}}{\mathrm{d}T}\right|_{T=T_c}$ [@Helfand]. The slope near $T_c$, $\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}B_{c2}}{\mathrm{d}T}\right)_{T=T_c}$, was extracted as shown in Fig.\[fig:MagScan\]b. Here, we plot the variation of resistance as a function of magnetic field at different temperatures near $T_c$. The inset shows the variation of $B_{c2}$, defined as the field where the resistivity is half the normal state value of $\rho_{xx}$ (taken at 17.25 K), as a function of temperature. The slope is extracted from the straight line fit, indicated by the solid line. We also extract $\xi(0)$ from the slope, using the following formula: $\xi(0)$ = $\sqrt{\Phi_0/2\pi T_c \left|\frac{dB_{c2}}{dT}\right|_{T=T_c}} $ [@tinkham-book]. In Table-\[tab2\], we summarize both $B_{c2}(0)$ and $\xi(0)$.
In order to estimate the zero temperature superconducting energy gap ($\Delta (0)$) of our films, we have performed scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) measurement on S2 at $T=1.35\,\mathrm{K}$, a temperature much lower than $T_c$. $\Delta (0)$ is found to be inhomogeneous over space— it’s value ranging from 2meV to 2.8meV. The suppressed superconducting gaps might be due to local contamination or oxidation of the surface as the sample had been exposed to air over a period of more than one year prior to STS measurements . Fig. \[fig:STM\] shows an experimental spectrum and a fit computed with a gap of 2.8 meV according to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS)[@BCS] theory. This leads to a ratio 2 $\Delta$ / $k_B$$T_c$ = 4, which is slightly less than values reported in the literature [@Chockalingam-PRB; @Noat].
![ (a) The variation of resistivity ($\rho_{xx}$) of S3 as a function of temperature for magnetic fields 0 to 8T. (b) The variation of $\rho_{xx}$ as a function of magnetic field at different temperatures, 16.2 to 16.7K with increments of 0.1K, near $T_c$. The inset shows the variation of the $B_{c2}$ as a function of temperature, with $B_{c2}$ being defined as the field where the resistance is half of the normal state resistance at 17.25K. The straight line fit, indicated by the solid line, gives the slope used to determine $B_{c2}(0)$ and $\xi(0)$, listed in Table \[tab2\].[]{data-label="fig:MagScan"}](Fig3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![ Normalized tunneling conductance versus bias voltage at 1.35K on sample S2 (black points). The red curve is a BCS theoretical fit with a superconducting gap of 2.8meV.[]{data-label="fig:STM"}](Fig4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
--------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ -------------------------- --------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
Samples Substrate $a$ $f$ factor $R_{H}$ $\rho_{xx}$ $T_{c}$ $\Delta T_{c}$ $\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}B_{c2}}{\mathrm{d}T}\right|_{T=T_c}$
$\mathrm{\AA}$ ($10^{-3} \mu\Omega\mathrm{cm}$/T) ($\mu\Omega\mathrm{cm}$) (K) (K) (T/K)
S2 Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ $(11\bar{2}0)$ 4.436 0.92 4.6 57.1 16.80 0.55 0.96
S3 AlN $(0001)$ 4.434 0.99 5.6 62.5 17.02 0.32 0.99
S4 Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ $(0001)$ 4.427 0.98 4.1 51.3 17.06 0.32 0.96
--------- -------------------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------------------------------ -------------------------- --------- ---------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
--------- ----------------------------- -------- -------- ---------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------ ------------- ---------- -------------- --
Samples $n$ $\tau$ $\ell$ D $k_{F} \ell$ $N_u$ $B_{c2}(0)$ $\xi(0)$ $\lambda(0)$
($10^ {29}/\mathrm{m}^{3}$) (fS) (nm) ($\mathrm{cm}^{2}/\mathrm{sec}$) ($(\mathrm{eV})^{-1}$) (T) (nm) (nm)
S2 1.34 0.46 0.84 5.1 13 0.46 11.1 6.5 179
S3 1.10 0.52 0.89 5.1 13 0.43 11.3 6.5 186
S4 1.49 0.46 0.87 5.5 14 0.48 11.7 6.4 169
--------- ----------------------------- -------- -------- ---------------------------------- -------------- ------------------------ ------------- ---------- -------------- --
Analysis and Discussion
=======================
We have, so far, extensively used free electron model (FEM) to estimate various parameters like $n$ or $k_F\ell$. FEM, in general, works very well for good metals. On the other hand, unlike a good metal, our films have very little variation in resistivity as a function of temperature in the normal state (Fig. \[fig:RT\]). Thus, it is not obvious that the free electron model should work well. In this regard, we observe that the free electron densities $n$ of our films are significantly lower than the theoretical estimate of $n = 2.39 \times 10^{29}/\mathrm{m}^{3}$[@Mathur]. The other important parameter to compare, as suggested by Chockalingam et. al [@Chockalingam-PRB], is the density of state (DOS) at the Fermi level. The DOS per unit volume per energy level, in the framework of free electron model, is given by: $N_V = mk_F/\hbar^{2}\pi^{2}$. The DOS per NbN unit, $N_u$, listed in Table-\[tab1\], is then $N_u = N_Va^{3}/4$ (each unit cell of volume $a^{3}$ is shared by 4 NbN units). Contrary to the electron density $n$, we see that the estimated DOSs are quite close to the theoretical estimate of 0.54/eV [@Mattheiss] or from the specific heat measurement $\approx$ 0.5/eV [@Geballe].
The critical temperature $T_c \sim 17\,\mathrm{K}$ of our films is, to the best of our knowledge, the highest reported to date for NbN thin films with thickness 50nm or less. The $T_c$ values stated in Table-\[tab1\] are defined as the point of 50% of the normal state resistance (taken at 17.25K). The resistivity reaches 1% of the normal state resistance at 16.60 K, 16.89 K, and 16.91 K for S2, S3, S4, respectively. These numbers are still significantly higher than previously reported numbers and show that the superconducting transition is very sharp. This, we believe, is the result of the epitaxial nature and therefore the good crystallinity of our films, that lead to $k_F\ell$ values significantly higher than the ones reported previously (see e.g., [@Chockalingam-PRB; @Chand]). Chand et al.[@Chand] reported $T_c\sim 17.0\,\mathrm{K}$ for one of their sputtered NbN films with thickness more than 50 nm. For sputtered NbN films, the enhancement of $T_c$ with thickness has been observed even above 100 nm [@Wang-JAP]. Chockalingam et al. [@Chockalingam-PRB] also observed a systematic increase in $T_c$ with $n$ or DOS at the Fermi level. We do not observe such trend. Wang et al. [@Wang-JAP] observed a systematic non-monotonic variation of $T_c$ with $a$; the highest $T_c$, they observed, was for $a = 4.46\,\mathrm{\AA}$.
The upper critical field $B_{c2}$ is very similar for all of our films, but much lower than for other films with $T_c$ higher than 14 $K$ reported in the literature[@Chockalingam-PRB; @Capone; @Saraswat]. In the dirty limit — defined by $\ell \ll \xi(0)$ — $B_{c2}(0)$ is related to resistivity and diffusion constant via $B_{c2}(0) = 0.69T_c4k_B/\pi e D = 0.69 T_c 4 e k_B N_V \rho_{xx}$/$\pi$ [@DeGennes]. The low $B_{c2}$ are, therefore, a further indication that our films have lower disorder, i.e. larger diffusion constant / lower resistivity. Indeed, the resistivities $\rho_{xx} \sim 60\,\mu\Omega\mathrm{cm}$ we observe are significantly lower than previously reported [@Chockalingam-PRB; @Capone; @Saraswat]. One should note, however, that the above formula yields $B_{c2}(0) \sim 2.5\,\mathrm{T}$ for our films, a significantly lower field than the value extracted from Fig. \[fig:MagScan\]. This discrepancy could be due to the spin-orbit interaction, which has not been taken into account in the above formula and can enhance $B_{c2}(0)$ very significantly [@Werthamer].
Finally, we estimate the zero temperature value of the magnetic penetration depth ($\lambda(0)$) from $\Delta(0)$, using the following formula [@Kamlapure]: $\lambda^{-2}(0) = \pi\mu_0\Delta(0)/\hbar\rho_{xx}$. For NbN films, this formula is found to closely match experiment [@Kamlapure]. The calculated $\lambda(0)$s are listed in Table-\[tab1\]. In our calculation, $\Delta(0)$ is estimated from strong coupling relation $2\Delta(0)/k_B T_c = \alpha$ — assuming $\alpha$ = 4.00 for all three films. S4, as we see from Table-\[tab1\], has minimum $\lambda(0)$ among three films, which is due to its highest $T_c$ and lowest $\rho_{xx}$ values.
In summary, we have found exceptionally high critical temperatures around 17K and large superconducting gap of 2.8meV for NbN films grown by HTCVD at $1300\,^\circ\mathrm{C}$ on sapphire and AlN. We explain this high critical temperature by very large $k_F\ell$ parameters indicating low disorder. Consistent with this interpretation, we observe low resistivity ( $\sim$ $60\,\mu\Omega\mathrm{cm}$) and low upper critical field ($\sim$11T). Our results demonstrate that HTCVD, a particularly cost effective growth technique, is a very promising alternative to magnetron sputtering for depositing high-quality NbN thin films. A natural extension of this work will be to to further investigate the existing links between the material characteristics and the superconducting properties and to explore the limits of the HTCVD techniques for the production of high quality ultra thin films of NbN.
Acknowledgements: We acknowledge financial support from French National Research Agency / grant ANR-14-CE26-0007 - WASI, from the Grenoble Nanosciences Foundation grant JoQOLaT and from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement No 278203 – WiQOJo, as well as fruitful discussions within the WASI project with Luca Redaelli, Eva Monroy, Val Zwiller and Jean-Michel Gérard. DH acknowledges the fruitful discussions with Mintu Mondal.
[99]{}
Delacour, C.; Claudon, J.; Poizat, J. P.; Pannetier, B.; Bouchiat, V.; Espiau de Lamaestre, R.; Villegier, J.-C.; Tarkhov, M.; Korneev, A.; Voronov, B.; Gol’tsman, G. Appl. Phys. Lett. [**90**]{}, 191116 (2007).
G. Gol’tsman, A. Korneev, A. Divochiy, O. Minaeva, M. Tarkhov, N. Kaurova, V. Seleznev, B. Voronov, O. Okunev, A. Antipov, K. Smirnov, Yu. Vachtomin, I. Milostnaya, and G. Chulkova, J. Mod. Opt. [**56**]{}, 1670 (2009).
Anthony J Annunziata, Daniel F Santavicca, Luigi Frunzio, Gianluigi Catelani, Michael J Rooks, Aviad Frydman and Daniel E Prober, Nanotechnology [**21**]{}, 445202 (2010).
M. Mondal, S. Kumar, M. Chand, A. Kamlapure, G. Saraswat, G. Seibold, L. Benfatto, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 217003 (2011).
M. Chand, G. Saraswat, A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 014508 (2012). Y. Noat, V. Cherkez, C. Brun, T. Cren, C. Carbillet, F. Debontridder, K. Ilin, M. Siegel, A. Semenov, H.-W. Hübers, and D. Roditchev, Phys. Rev. B [**88**]{}, 014503 (2013).
C. Delacour, B. Pannetier, J. C. Villegier, and V. Bouchiat, Nano Lett.[**12**]{}, 3501 (2012).
J. R. Gavaler, J. K. Hulm, M. A. Janocko and C. K. Jones, , J. Vac. Sci. Technol. [**6**]{}, 177 (1969) Z. Wang, A. Kawakami, Y. Uzawa, and B. Komiyama, J. Appl. Phys. [**79**]{}, 7837 (1996). S. P. Chockalingam, M. Chand, A. Kamlapure, J. Jesudasan, A. Mishra, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 214503 (2008).
R. E. Treece, M. S. Osofsky, E. F. Skelton, S. B. Qadri, J. S.Horwitz and D. B. Chrisey, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{} 9356 (1995); R.E. Treece, J. S. Horwitz, J. H. Classen and D. B. Chrisey, Appl. Phys. Lett.[**65**]{} 2860 (1994).
K. Senapati, N. K. Pandey, Rupali Nagar, and R. C. Budhani, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 104514 (2006).
S.-Z. Lin, O. Ayala-Valenzuela, R. D. McDonald, L. N. Bulaevskii, T. G. Holesinger, F. Ronning, N. R. Weisse-Bernstein, T. L. Williamson, A. H. Mueller, M. A. Hoffbauer, M. W. Rabin, and M. J. Graf, Phys. Rev. B [**87**]{}, 184507 (2013). Mario Ziegler, Ludwig Fritzsch, Julia Day, Sven Linzen, Solveig Anders, Julia Toussaint and Hans-Georg Meyer, Supercond. Sci. Technol.[**26**]{}, 025008 (2013).
Mercier, Frédéric, Stéphane Coindeau, Sabine Lay, Alexandre Crisci, Matthieu Benz, Thierry Encinas, Raphaël Boichot et al. Surface and Coatings Technology, [**260**]{}, 126 (2014).
R. Boichot, N. Coudurier, F. Mercier, S. Lay, A. Crisci, S. Coindeau, A. Claudel, E. Blanquet, M. Pons, Surface and Coatings Technology, [**237**]{}, 118 (2013).
E.F. Skelton, S.A. Wolf, and T.L. Francavilla, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. [**18 (2)**]{} 259 (1981); For an ideal epitaxial FCC film f-factor should be 1. We can, therefore, say that S3 is the most epitaxial and S2 is the least epitaxial among three films.
M. A. Khodas and A. M. Finkelstein, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 155114 (2003).
E. Helfand and N. R. Werthamer, Phys. Rev. [**147**]{}, 288 (1966).
M. Tinkham, Introduction to Superconductivity 2nd ed. (Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 1996).
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. [**108**]{} , 1175 (1957).
M. P. Mathur, D. W. Deis, and J. R. Gavaler, J. Appl. Phys. [**43**]{}, 3158 (1972). L. F. Mattheiss, Phys. Rev. B [**5**]{} , 315 (1972). T. H. Geballe, B. T. Matthias, J. P. Remeika, A. M. Clogston, V.B. Compton, J. P. Maita, and H. J. Wiliams, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) [**2**]{}, 293 (1966). M. Chand, G. Saraswat, A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, S. Kumar, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 014508 (2012). D. W. Capone II, K. E. Gray, and R. T. Kampwirth, J. Appl. Phys. [**65**]{}, 258 (1989). Garima Saraswat, Priti Gupta, Arnab Bhattacharya, and Pratap Raychaudhuri APL Mater. [**2**]{} 056103 (2014). P. G. DeGennes, Superconductiuity of Metals and Alloys, (Benjamin, New York, 1966).
N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfland, and P. C. Honenberg, Phys. Rev. [**147**]{}, 295 (1966). A. Kamlapure, M. Mondal, M. Chand, A. Mishra, J. Jesudasan, V. Bagwe, L. Benfatto, V. Tripathi, and P. Raychaudhuri, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 072509 (2010).
L. Mechin, M. P. Chauvat, and P. Ruterana, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, [**19**]{}, NO. 3, JUNE 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For each nontrivial semisimple Hopf algebra $H$ of dimension sixteen over $\mathbb{C}$, the smallest dimension inner-faithful representation of $H$ acting on a quadratic AS regular algebra $A$ of dimension 2 or 3, homogeneously and preserving the grading, is determined. Each invariant subring $A^H$ is determined. When $A^H$ is also AS regular, thus providing a generalization of the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd Theorem, we say that $H$ is a reflection Hopf algebra for $A$.'
address:
- 'Wake Forest University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P. O. Box 7388, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109'
- 'Wake Forest University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P. O. Box 7388, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109'
- 'Wake Forest University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P. O. Box 7388, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109'
- 'University of Washington, Department of Mathematics, Box 354350, Seattle, Washington 98195'
author:
- Luigi Ferraro
- Ellen Kirkman
- 'W. Frank Moore'
- Robert Won
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: |
Semisimple reflection Hopf algebras\
of dimension sixteen
---
Introduction
============
Throughout let ${\Bbbk}= \mathbb{C}$, and denote the square root of $-1$ by ${\mathbbm{i}}$. A finite subgroup $G$ of GL$_n({\Bbbk})$, acting linearly as graded automorphisms on a (commutative) polynomial ring $A = {\Bbbk}[x_1, \dots, x_n]$, is called a [*reflection group*]{} if the group is generated by elements $g \in G$, which act on the vector space $\bigoplus {\Bbbk}x_i$ with fixed subspace of codimension 1; this condition is equivalent to the condition that all the eigenvalues of $g$ are $1$, with the exception of one eigenvalue that is a root of unity (sometimes such elements $g$ are called [*pseudoreflections*]{} when the exceptional eigenvalue is a root of unity that is not $-1$). Chevalley [@Chev] and Shephard and Todd [@SheTod] showed that over a field of characteristic zero, a group $G$ is a reflection group if and only if the invariant subalgebra $A^G$ is a polynomial ring, and Shephard and Todd [@SheTod] presented a complete classification of the reflection groups into three infinite families and 34 exceptional groups. Reflection groups have played an important role in many contexts, including in representation theory, combinatorics, commutative ring theory, and algebraic geometry.
There has been interest in extending the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd theorem to a noncommutative context (replacing the commutative polynomial ring with a noncommutative algebra $A$), and in [@KKZ1 Definition 2.2] an analog of a reflection (called a [*quasi-reflection*]{} in that paper) was defined for a graded automorphism $g$ of an Artin-Schelter regular (AS regular) algebra $A$ that is generated in degree 1 (Definition \[def:asregular\]). When such an AS regular algebra $A$ is commutative, it is isomorphic to a commutative polynomial ring, so this particular noncommutative setting generalizes the classical commutative polynomial algebra case. Moreover, examples suggest that the proper analog of a reflection group for $A$ is a group $G$ such that the invariant subalgebra $A^G$ is also AS regular. An extended notion of “reflection" introduced in [@KKZ1] (that involves “trace functions” rather than eigenvalues) was used in [@KKZ2] to prove a version of the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd Theorem for groups acting on skew polynomial rings (a second proof was given in [@BB]).
To extend classical invariant theory further, to a noncocommutative context, the group $G$ can be replaced by a semisimple Hopf algebra $H$ (see [@KKZ3]). Several results for the action of a finite subgroup of $\operatorname{SL}_{2}({\Bbbk})$ on ${\Bbbk}[u,v]$ have been extended to this context (e.g. [@CKWZ], [@CKWZ1], [@CKWZ2]). However, it has appeared more difficult to extend the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd Theorem to this Hopf setting. To this end we consider a pair $(A,H)$, where $A$ is an AS regular algebra and $H$ is a (finite-dimensional) semisimple Hopf algebra, equipped with an action of $H$ on $A$ that is homogeneous, preserves the grading, and is inner-faithful on $A$ (meaning that no non-zero Hopf ideal of $H$ annihilates $A$). We call $H$ a [*reflection Hopf algebra*]{} for $A$ ([@KKZ6 Definition 3.2]) when the ring of invariants $A^H$ is AS regular. It is not yet clear what conditions on the pair $(A,H)$ and the action force $A^H$ to be AS regular. In [@KKZ3 Examples 7.4 and 7.6], it was shown that the Kac-Paljutkin algebra[@KP] is a reflection Hopf algebra for both $A = {\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]$ and $A = {\Bbbk}_{{\mathbbm{i}}}[u,v]$. In [@KKZ6] actions of duals of group algebras $H = {\Bbbk}G^\circ$ (or equivalently, group coactions) were considered, and some [*dual reflection groups*]{} were constructed. In [@FKMW] three infinite families of Hopf algebras were shown to be reflection Hopf algebras. The goal of this paper is to provide further data toward a better understanding of reflection Hopf algebras.
The Kac-Paljutkin algebra of dimension 8 is the smallest-dimensional nontrivial semisimple Hopf algebra (in the sense that it is not isomorphic to a group algebra or its dual). For primes $p$ and $q$ it is known that semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension $p$ [@Zhu], $2p$ [@M2], $p^2$ [@M3], and $pq$ [@EG; @GW] are trivial. The families considered in [@FKMW] include the two nontrivial semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension twelve. Hence the next dimension to consider is sixteen. Y. Kashina presented an explicit description of the sixteen nontrivial semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension sixteen, and we follow her classification. In particular, we refer to each of these Hopf algebras by the number given in [@kashina]. For each of these sixteen Hopf algebras $H$, we first classify the inner-faithful representations of $H$ using Theorem \[innerfaithful\]; the inner-faithful condition is included so that the action does not factor through a Hopf algebra of smaller dimension (which might be a group algebra). The table below summarizes the inner-faithful representations of smallest dimension for each the sixteen-dimensional Hopf algebras.
[|>m[1.6cm]{}|>m[2.7cm]{}|c|c|c|]{} Hopf algebra & Lowest dimension inner-faithful representation & Theorem\
1, 3 & $3$ & Theorem \[innerfaithful13\]\
2, 4 & $3$ & Theorem \[innerfaithful24\]\
5, 7 & $2$ & Theorem \[IF2dimKashina\]\
6, 10, 11 & $3$ & Theorem \[c4c23dim\]\
8, 9 & $3$ & Theorem \[c4c23dim\]\
12 & $2$ & Theorem \[fixedring12\]\
13 & $2$ & Theorem \[fixedring13\]\
14 & $3$ & Theorem \[fixedring14\]\
15 & $3$ & Theorem \[fixedring15\]\
16 & $2$ & Theorem \[fixedring16\]\
\
\
After finding the inner-faithful representations of $H$, we determine the smallest-dimensional quadratic AS regular algebras $A$ on which $H$ acts inner-faithfully, compute the invariant subrings $A^H$, and determine which are AS regular. The table below provides references for the invariant subrings, and lists the Hopf algebras that are reflection Hopf algebras for some lowest dimension inner-faithful representation.
[|>m[1.6cm]{}|>m[2.7cm]{}|c|c|c|]{} Hopf algebra & Reflection representation & Theorem\
1,2 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedrings1234\]\
3,4 & No & Theorem \[fixedrings1234\]\
5 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedrings57\]\
6 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedring61011\]\
7 & No & Theorem \[fixedrings57\]\
8, 9 & No & Theorem \[fixedrings89\]\
10, 11 & No & Theorem \[fixedring61011\]\
12 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedring12\]\
13 & No & Theorem \[fixedring13\]\
14 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedring14\]\
15 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedring15\]\
16 & Yes & Theorem \[fixedring16\]\
\
\
For each of the AS regular invariant subrings in the table above, the product of the degrees of the minimal generators of the invariants is equal to 16. This observation leads to the following conjecture, which holds for group actions on commutative polynomial rings, as well as all Hopf actions that we have computed in the non(co)commutative setting:
When a semisimple Hopf algebra $H$ acts on an AS regular algebra $A$ and the invariant subring $A^H$ is AS regular, there is a minimal generating set of the algebra $A^H$ that has the property that the product of the degrees of the minimal generators is equal to the dimension of $H$ over $\Bbbk$.
The paper is organized as follows. Background material is presented in Section \[background\], and the subsequent sections consider the Hopf algebras $H$ of dimension sixteen, organized by their groups of grouplike elements ${\mathbf{G}}(H)$. In Section \[c2xc2xc2\] we consider the case ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ (1-4), in Section \[c4xc2\] we consider the case ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_4 \times C_2 $ (5–11), in Section \[d8\] we consider the case ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = D_8$ (12 and 13), and in Section \[c2Xc2\] we consider the case ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2 \times C_2$ (14–16). We remark that 14 and 16 occur as members of the infinite families considered in [@FKMW]; we summarize the results here for the sake of completeness.
Many computations in this paper were aided by the use of the NCAlgebra package in the computer algebra system Macaulay2 [@M2].
Background
==========
This section provides notation and background results that will be used throughout.
We follow the standard notation ($\Delta, \epsilon, S$) for a Hopf algebra $H$, and refer the reader to [@Mbook] for any undefined terminology concerning Hopf algebras. Further, we follow the notation and numbering used in Kashina’s classification of the semisimple Hopf algebras of dimension sixteen that are neither commutative nor cocommutative [@kashina Table 1].
AS Regular Algebras
-------------------
All sixteen of the dimension sixteen Hopf algebras act on Artin-Schelter regular algebras, which are algebras possessing the homological properties of commutative polynomial rings.
\[def:asregular\] Let $A$ be a connected graded algebra. Then $A$ is [*Artin-Schelter (AS) regular*]{} if
1. $A$ has finite global dimension,
2. $A$ has finite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension, and
3. $A$ is [*Artin-Schelter Gorenstein*]{}, i.e.
1. $A$ has finite injective dimension $d < \infty$, and
2. Ext$^i_A(k,A) = \delta_{i,d} \cdot {\Bbbk}(l)$ for some $l \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Examples of AS regular algebras include skew polynomial rings and graded Ore extensions of AS regular algebras. We will use the following well-known fact (see e.g. [@CKZ Lemma 1.2]) to show that an invariant subring is not AS regular.
\[notregular\] If $A$ is an AS regular algebra of GK dimension 2 (resp. 3), then $A$ is generated by 2 elements (resp. 2 or 3).
We will encounter algebras of the form ${\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle/(u^2 - cv^2)$ for $c \in {\Bbbk}^\times$ several times in this paper, so we record here the following lemma which identifies a set of monomials which forms a ${\Bbbk}$-basis.
\[lem:u2v2Basis\] Let $c \in {\Bbbk}^\times$ and $A = {\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle/(u^2 - cv^2)$. Then $A$ is AS regular, and the monomials $\{u^i(vu)^jv^\ell\}$ with $i,j$ nonnegative integers and $\ell \in \{0,1\}$ form a ${\Bbbk}$-basis of $A$.
Inner-faithful Actions
----------------------
A module $V$ over a Hopf algebra $H$ is *inner-faithful* if the only Hopf ideal which annihilates $V$ is the zero ideal. We record the following result which is due to Brauer [@Brau], Burnside [@Burn] and Steinberg [@Stein] in the case of a group algebra of a finite group, and due to Passman and Quinn [@PassQui] in the case of a finite-dimensional semisimple Hopf algebra.
\[innerfaithful\] Let $V$ be a module over a finite-dimensional semisimple Hopf algebra $H$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. $V$ is an inner-faithful $H$-module,
2. The tensor algebra $T(V)$ is a faithful $H$-module,
3. Every simple $H$-module appears as a direct summand of $V^{\otimes n}$ for some $n$.
The following lemma is used to prove actions are not inner-faithful.
\[HopfIdeal\] Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra and $g\in{\mathbf{G}}(H)$. Then the two-sided ideal generated by $1-g$ is a Hopf ideal.
The Grothendieck Ring
---------------------
To determine if a particular representation $V$ of a semisimple Hopf algebra $H$ is inner-faithful, by Theorem \[innerfaithful\] it is necessary to compute the decomposition of tensor powers of $V$ into irreducible $H$-modules, i.e. to perform computations in the Grothendieck ring $K_0(H)$. As noted in [@kashina], the nontrivial Hopf algebras of dimension sixteen have two possible Wedderburn decompositions: $${\Bbbk}^{\oplus 8} \oplus M_2({\Bbbk}) \oplus M_2({\Bbbk})$$ or $${\Bbbk}^{\oplus 4} \oplus M_2({\Bbbk}) \oplus M_2({\Bbbk}) \oplus M_2({\Bbbk})$$ and hence $H$ has either two non-isomorphic irreducible two-dimensional $H$-modules and eight one-dimensional $H$-modules, or three non-isomorphic irreducible two-dimensional $H$-modules and four one-dimensional $H$-modules. In what follows we shall use the notation $\pi(u,v)$ for a two-dimensional irreducible $H$-module with vector space basis $u,v$, and $T(t)$ for a one-dimensional irreducible $H$-module with vector space basis $t$.
In this paper, the graded quadratic AS regular algebras $A$ on which $H$ acts will be generated as algebras by either two or three elements. In order for $H$ to act inner-faithfully on $A$, the vector space $A_1$ of degree 1 elements of $A$ must be isomorphic, as an $H$-module, to a two-dimensional irreducible representation $A_1 = {\Bbbk}u \oplus {\Bbbk}v = \pi(u,v)$ or to the sum of an irreducible two-dimensional and a one-dimensional representation $A_1 = {\Bbbk}u \oplus {\Bbbk}v \oplus {\Bbbk}t = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$.
Dual Cocycle Twists
-------------------
The Hopf algebras 1–16 are not twists of each other, but several are twists of other algebras. Here we recall facts about twists using dual cocyles.
Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra. An invertible element $\Omega = \sum \Omega^{(1)} \otimes \Omega^{(2)} \in H \otimes H$ is called a *dual $2$-cocycle* if $$[(\Delta \otimes \operatorname{Id})(\Omega)](\Omega \otimes 1) = [(\operatorname{Id}\otimes \Delta )(\Omega)](1 \otimes \Omega).$$ The dual 2-cocycle $\Omega$ is said to be *normal* if also $$(\operatorname{Id}\otimes \epsilon)(\Omega) = (\epsilon \otimes \operatorname{Id})(\Omega) = 1.$$ This is the formal dual to the definition of a normal cocycle.
Given a Hopf algebra $H$ and a dual cocycle $\Omega \in H \otimes H$, we can form the *cotwist* of $H$, denoted $H^{\Omega}$ [@MTwist Definition 2.5]. As an algebra, $H^{\Omega} = H$ but $H^{\Omega}$ has comultiplication $\Delta^{\Omega}(h) = \Omega{^{-1}}(\Delta h) \Omega$. There is also an antipode which makes $H^{\Omega}$ a Hopf algebra.
If $A$ is a left $H$-module algebra, define the twisted algebra $A_{\Omega}$ to be $A$ as a vector space but with multiplication: $$a \cdot_{\Omega} b = \sum (\Omega^{(1)} \cdot a) (\Omega^{(2)} \cdot b)$$ for all $a, b \in A$. Then $A_{\Omega}$ is a left $H^{\Omega}$-module algebra using the same action of $H$ on the vector space $A$ [@MTwist Definition 2.6]. The statements in the following lemma are already known.
\[lem.cocycle\] Let $H$ be a Hopf algebra, $\Omega = \sum \Omega^1 \otimes \Omega^2 \in H \otimes H$ be a normal dual cocycle, and $A$ be a left $H$-module algebra. Then the following statements hold.
1. $(A_{\Omega})_{\Omega {^{-1}}} = A$.
2. $(H^{\Omega})^{\Omega{^{-1}}} \cong H$.
3. $A$ is AS regular if and only if $A_{\Omega}$ is AS regular.
4. $\operatorname{gldim}A = \operatorname{gldim}A_{\Omega}$ and $\operatorname{GKdim}A = \operatorname{GKdim}A_{\Omega}$.
5. $(A_{\Omega})^{H^{\Omega}} = A^H$.
6. If $A$ is an inner-faithful $H$-module, then $A_{\Omega}$ is an inner-faithful $H^{\Omega}$-module.
Part (1) holds because the product $*$ in $(A_{\Omega})_{\Omega {^{-1}}}$ is given by $$a * b = \sum ((\Omega {^{-1}})^{(1)} . a ) \cdot_{\Omega} ((\Omega {^{-1}})^{(2)} . b) = \sum (\Omega^1(\Omega {^{-1}})^{(1)} . a)(\Omega^{(2)}(\Omega {^{-1}})^2 . b) = ab.$$
Parts (2), (3), and (4) follow from (1) and [@CKWZ1 Lemma 4.12].
Since the action of $H^{\Omega}$ on $A_{\Omega}$ is given by the same action of $H$ on the vector space $A$, we can identify the elements of $(A_{\Omega})^{H^{\Omega}}$ with those of $A^H$, we need only check that the two invariant rings have the same multiplication. But for any $a \in A$ and $b \in A^H$, we have $$a \cdot_{\Omega} b = \sum (\Omega^{(1)} . a) (\Omega^{(2)} . b) = \sum (\Omega^{(1)} . a) (\epsilon(\Omega^{(2)}) . b) = \sum (\Omega^{(1)} \epsilon(\Omega^{(2)})) . ab = ab$$ since $\Omega$ is a normal dual cocyle. In particular, the above holds for any $a,b \in A^H$. Hence, (5) holds.
Part (6) is immediate because as algebras $H = H^{\Omega}$ and the action of $H^{\Omega}$ on $(A_{\Omega})_1$ is the same as the action of $H$ on the vector space $A_1$; furthermore, the Hopf ideals of $H$ are the same as those in $H^\Omega$.
Hence, a cotwist $H^{\Omega}$ acts on an AS regular algebra $A$ if and only if $H$ acts on the AS regular algebra $A_{\Omega{^{-1}}}$. The invariant ring $A^{H^\Omega}$ is AS regular if and only if $(A_{\Omega{^{-1}}})^H$ is AS regular.
G(H) = C2 x C2 x C2 {#c2xc2xc2}
===================
Throughout this section, let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2 \times C_2\times C_2=\langle x\rangle\times\langle y\rangle\times\langle z\rangle$. By Kashina’s classification, there are four such algebras (see [@kashina pp. 633–634]). We will call these algebras [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} through [Kashina \#[4]{}]{}. They are all generated by $x,y,z$ and $w$ subject to relations: $$wx = yw \quad wy = xw \quad wz = zw,$$ and an additional relation on $w^2$ of the form $w^2 = f(x,y,z)$. In each case $\epsilon(w) = 1$. The general formula for the coproduct of $w$ is given in [@kashina p. 629-633]. To treat the four Hopf algebras in this case efficiently, we will consider first [Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{}, and then [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{}. Even though we treat those Hopf algebras with the same coproduct in separate subsections, there are some similarities in the results.
Before specializing to the two cases, we prove a lemma which helps us to identify inner faithful representations for algebras of this form. It is inspired by a lemma of Pansera [@P Lemma 2.12].
\[PasLemma16dimC\_2C\_2C\_2\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with $\mathbf{G}(H)=C_2\times C_2\times C_2$ and let $R={\Bbbk}[C_2\times C_2\times C_2]$. Let $I$ be a Hopf ideal of $H$, if $I\cap R=0$ then $I=0$.
Consider the map $\pi|_R:R\rightarrow H/I$, which is the restriction to $R$ of the projection modulo $I$. The kernel of this map is $I\cap R$, which is zero by hypothesis, therefore $\pi|_R$ is injective. We can therefore consider $R$ as a Hopf subalgebra of $H/I$, hence the dimension of $R$ divides the dimension of $H/I$. Since $H$ is sixteen-dimensional and $R$ is eight-dimensional the only possibilities for the dimension of $ H/I$ are $2\dim R$ or $\dim R$. In the first case we deduce that $I=0$, in the second case we deduce that $H/I$ is isomorphic to $R$, in particular it is commutative. Seeking a contradiction we assume $\dim H/I=\dim R$. Denoting by a bar the residue class modulo $I$ we get $$\bar x\bar w=\bar w\bar x=\bar y\bar w,$$ hence $(\bar x-\bar y)\bar w=0$. This implies that $(x-y)w\in I$ and since $I$ is an ideal $(x-y)w^2\in I$. Since $w^2\in R$ we deduce that $(x-y)w^2$ is a nonzero element of $I\cap R$, which is a contradiction.
[Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{}
--------------------------------
For the algebras [Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{} the coproduct of $w$ is given by $$\label{eq:K2K4coprod}
\Delta(w) = \frac{1}{2}(1 \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes xy + z \otimes 1 - z \otimes xy)(w \otimes w).$$ For [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} (denoted $H_{d:1,1}$ in [@kashina]), the relation on $w^2$ is $w^2 = 1$, and for [Kashina \#[4]{}]{} (denoted $H_{d: 1,-1} \cong (H_{b:1})^*$ in [@kashina]), one has $w^2 = z$.
To aid us in computing decompositions of tensor products, as well as actions on $H$-module algebras, we have the following lemma which can be verified directly.
\[lem:K2K4trick\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} or \#4. Let $A$ and $B$ be $H$-representations, and let $f \in A$, $g \in B$. Then one has $$w.(f\otimes g)=\begin{cases}
w.f\otimes w.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=w.f \\
w.f\otimes xyw.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=-w.f.
\end{cases}$$
\[not:K1toK4reps\] Each of these algebras has two two-dimensional irreducible representations and eight one-dimensional representations. The two-dimensional irreducible representations for [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} are $\pi_1(u,v)$ and $\pi_2(u,v)$ defined by $$\pi_1(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(z)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(w)=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(z)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(w)=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}.$$ The one-dimensional representations of [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} are $T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,(-1)^b,(-1)^c}(t)$ for $a,b,c \in \{0,1\}$ where the subscripts indicates the action of $x$, $y$, $z$, and $w$ on the basis vector $t$.
For [Kashina \#[4]{}]{}, the two-dimensional irreducible representations are $\pi_1(u,v)$ and $\pi_2(u,v)$ defined by $$\pi_1(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(z)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_1(w)=\begin{bmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(z)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi_2(w)=\begin{bmatrix}0&{\mathbbm{i}}\\{\mathbbm{i}}&0\end{bmatrix}.$$ while the one-dimensional representations are $T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,(-1)^b,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^b}(t)$ where $a,b,c \in \{0,1\}$.
\[rem:K1K3sameK2K4\] The two-dimensional irreducible representations of [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{} are the same as those of [Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{}, respectively. The one-dimensional representations of [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{} and [Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{} differ only in the action of $w$. The following theorem will apply to [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{}, as well as [Kashinas \#[2]{} and \#[4]{}]{}, since only the actions of $x$, $y$ and $z$ are used in the calculation.
We now determine which three-dimensional representations determine inner-faithful representations using Lemma \[PasLemma16dimC\_2C\_2C\_2\].
\[thm.innfaithC2C2C2\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H)=C_2\times C_2\times C_2$. Let $\pi={\Bbbk}u\oplus {\Bbbk}v$ be an irreducible two-dimensional representation of $H$, and let $T={\Bbbk}t$ be a one-dimensional representation with $x.t = y.t=(-1)^a t$, and $z.t =(-1)^b t$ with $a,b\in\{0,1\}$. The action of $H$ on $\pi$ is not inner-faithful. The action of $H$ on $\pi\oplus T$ is inner-faithful if and only if $b=1$.
The action of $H$ on $\pi = {\Bbbk}u \oplus {\Bbbk}v$ is given by the following matrices $$\pi(x)=\begin{bmatrix}1 &0\\0& -1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0& 1\end{bmatrix}\quad\pi(z)=\begin{bmatrix}(-1)^j&0\\0&(-1)^j\end{bmatrix},$$ with $j = 0$ or $1$ depending on $\pi$.
The action of $H$ on $\pi$ is not inner-faithful since the two-sided ideal generated by $1-x^{j-1}y^{j-1}z$ is a Hopf ideal that annihilates $\pi$.
We now show the last statement of the theorem. If the action is not inner-faithful then there is a nonzero ideal $I$ annihilating $A$. By Lemma \[PasLemma16dimC\_2C\_2C\_2\], $I\cap R\neq 0$ for $R = {\Bbbk}[C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2]$ and by [@P Lemma 1.4], $I\cap R=R({\Bbbk}[N])^+$ for some subgroup $N$ of $C_2\times C_2\times C_2$. Since $N \neq 0$ we can find a nonzero element in $N$ of the form $x^sy^rz^l$ with $s,r,l\in\{0,1\}$. Then $1-x^sy^rz^l\in I$. Hence $$(1-(-1)^{r+jl})u=(1-x^sy^rz^l).u=0$$ $$(1-(-1)^{s+jl})u=(1-x^sy^rz^l).u=0$$ $$(1-(-1)^{a(s+r)+bl})t=(1-x^sy^rz^l).t=0,$$ and so $$\begin{cases}
r+jl\equiv0\;(2)\\
s+jl\equiv0\;(2)\\
a(s+r)+bl\equiv0\;(2).
\end{cases}$$ The determinant of the matrix representing this system is $b$, and hence the result follows.
By the above theorem, in order to get a graded inner-faithful action on a three-generated algebra $A$, the action of $H$ on the degree one component $A_1$ must be of the form $\pi_j \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,\gamma}$ where $\pi_j$ is one of the irreducible two-dimensional representation given above, and $\gamma = (-1)^c$ for Kashina \#2 and $\gamma = (-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}$ for Kashina \#4. Furthermore, the defining relations must be representations of the Hopf algebra in question. Since we are considering only quadratic AS regular algebras, we now decompose $A_1 \otimes A_1$ as a sum of irreducible $H$-representations.
We first treat the case of [Kashina \#[2]{}]{}. A computation shows that for $i=1,2$ one has the decomposition $$\label{eq:K2pidecomp}
\begin{aligned}[b]
\pi_i(u,v)^2 =&~T_{1,1,1,1}(u^2+(-1)^{i+1}v^2)\oplus T_{1,1,1,-1}(u^2-(-1)^{i+1}v^2) \oplus \\
&~T_{-1,-1,1,1}(uv+(-1)^{i+1}vu)\oplus T_{-1,-1,1,-1}(uv-(-1)^{i+1}vu).
\end{aligned}$$ The action of [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} by the representation $$\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c}(t) \oplus
T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c}(t)\otimes\pi_i(u,v)$$ is given for basis elements in the following table: $$\label{eq:K2actionTable}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $ut$ & $vt$ & $tu$ & $tv$ \\
\hline $x$ & $(-1)^aut$& $(-1)^{a+1}vt$ & $(-1)^atu$& $(-1)^{a+1}tv$ \\ \hline
$y$ & $(-1)^{a+1}ut$ & $(-1)^avt$ & $(-1)^{a+1}tu$ & $(-1)^atv$\\ \hline
$z$ & $(-1)^iut$ & $(-1)^ivt$ & $(-1)^itu$ & $(-1)^itv$\\ \hline
$w$ & $(-1)^cvt$ & $(-1)^cut$ & $(-1)^{c+1}tv$ & $(-1)^{c+1}tu$\\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
Therefore if $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$ with $i \neq j$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c}(t) & = &
\begin{cases} \pi_j(ut,(-1)^cvt)&a=0\\\pi_j(vt,(-1)^cut)&a=1\end{cases} \\
T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c}(t)\otimes \pi_i(u,v) & = & \begin{cases} \pi_j(tu,(-1)^{c+1}tv)&a=0\\\pi_j(tv,(-1)^{c+1}tu)&a=1.\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} acts inner-faithfully on the algebras $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$, where $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & -\alpha \end{bmatrix}$ for a nonzero scalar $\alpha$, and $r = u^2 \pm v^2$ or $uv \pm vu$, where $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_i(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c}(t)$.
The case of [Kashina \#[4]{}]{} is similar. Indeed, the decomposition of $\pi_i^2$ given in remains the same, except the $(-1)^{i+1}$ factors are removed from the second summand of each module generator. Further, one may obtain the table giving the action of Kashina \#4 on $$\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}}(t) \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}}(t)\otimes\pi_i(u,v)$$ from by scaling the $w$ row by ${\mathbbm{i}}^i$. Using this modified table, one obtains the following decompositions, where $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}}(t) & = & \begin{cases} \pi_j(ut,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^i vt)&a=0\\\pi_j(vt,(-1)^{c}{\mathbbm{i}}^i ut)&a=1\end{cases} \\
T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}}(t)\otimes \pi_i(u,v) & = & \begin{cases} \pi_j(tu,(-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}^i tv)&a=0\\\pi_j(tv,(-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}^i tu)&a=1.\\\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that [Kashina \#[4]{}]{} acts on the same three-generated algebras as [Kashina \#[2]{}]{}, and we summarize these results in the following theorem.
\[innerfaithful24\] [Kashina \#[2]{}]{} and [Kashina \#[4]{}]{} act inner-faithfully on the algebras $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$, where $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & -\alpha \end{bmatrix}$ for a nonzero scalar $\alpha$, and $r = u^2 \pm v^2$ or $uv \pm vu$, where $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_i(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ and $z.t=-t$.
[Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{}
--------------------------------
For the algebras [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[3]{}]{}, the coproduct of $w$ is given by $$\label{eq:K1K3coprod}
\Delta(w) = \frac{1}{4} \left( \sum_{b,c,\alpha,\beta \in \{0,1\}} (-1)^{b\alpha + b \beta + c \beta} y^bz^c \otimes x^{\alpha} y^{\beta}\right)(w \otimes w).$$ For [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} (denoted $H_{d:-1,1}$ in [@kashina]), one has $w^2 = \frac{1}{2}(1 + x + y - xy)$, and for [Kashina \#[3]{}]{} (denoted $H_{d:-1,-1} \cong (H_{c:\sigma_1})^*$ in [@kashina]), one has $w^2 = \frac{1}{2}(1 + x + y - xy)z$.
As in the previous case, we provide a lemma which aids us in the representation theory and invariant ring calculations to follow.
\[lem:K1K3trick\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} or \#3. Let $A$ and $B$ be $H$-representations, and let $f \in A$, $g \in B$. Then one has $$w.(f\otimes g)=\begin{cases}
w.f\otimes w.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=w.f~\mathrm{and}~yw.f = w.f,\\
w.f\otimes xw.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=w.f~\mathrm{and}~yw.f = -w.f,\\
w.f\otimes xyw.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=-w.f~\mathrm{and}~yw.f = w.f,\\
w.f\otimes yw.g&\mathrm{if}~zw.f=-w.f~\mathrm{and}~yw.f = -w.f.\\
\end{cases}$$
As mentioned in Remark \[rem:K1K3sameK2K4\], the two-dimensional representations of Kashinas \#1 and \#3 are the same as \#2 and \#4 respectively. The one-dimensional representations of Kashinas \#1 and \#3 are given by $T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,(-1)^b,\gamma}$, where for Kashina \#1, $\gamma = (-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^a$ and for Kashina \#3, $\gamma = (-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+b}$. Theorem \[thm.innfaithC2C2C2\] applies to this case as well, hence if $H$ acts inner-faithfully preserving the grading on a three-generated algebra $A$, the degree one component $A_1 = \pi_i \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,\gamma}$ for the appropriate choice of $\gamma$.
As before, we handle the decomposition calculations for each algebra separately. For [Kashina \#[1]{}]{}, a computation shows that the representation $\pi_i^2$ decomposes as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_i(u,v)^2&=T_{1,1,1,1}(u^2+(-1)^{i+1}v^2)\oplus T_{1,1,1,-1}(u^2-(-1)^{i+1}v^2)\\
&\oplus T_{-1,-1,1,-{\mathbbm{i}}}(uv+(-1)^{i+1}{\mathbbm{i}}vu)\oplus T_{-1,-1,1,{\mathbbm{i}}}(uv-(-1)^{i+1}{\mathbbm{i}}vu).\end{aligned}$$ The action by the representation $$\pi_i(u,v) \otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^a}(t) \oplus
T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^a}(t) \otimes \pi_j(u,v)$$ on basis elements is given by the following table: $$\label{lab:K1actionTable}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $ut$ & $vt$ & $tu$ & $tv$ \\
\hline $x$ & $(-1)^aut$& $(-1)^{a+1}vt$ & $(-1)^a tu$ & $(-1)^{a+1} tv$ \\ \hline
$y$ & $(-1)^{a+1}ut$ & $(-1)^avt$ & $(-1)^{a+1} tu$ & $(-1)^a tv$ \\ \hline
$z$ & $(-1)^{i}ut$ & $(-1)^{i}vt$ & $(-1)^i tu$ & $(-1)^i tv$ \\ \hline
$w$ & $(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^a vt$ & $(-1)^{a+c} {\mathbbm{i}}^a ut$ & $(-1)^{a+c+1} {\mathbbm{i}}^a tv$ & $(-1)^{c+1} {\mathbbm{i}}^a tu$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ It follows that $$\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^a}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\pi_j(ut, (-1)^cvt)&a=0\\
\pi_j(vt,(-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}ut)&a=1
\end{cases}$$ $$T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^a}(t) \otimes \pi_i(u,v) =
\begin{cases}
\pi_j(tu,(-1)^{c+1}tv)&a=0\\
\pi_j(tv, (-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}tu)&a=1
\end{cases}$$ where $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$. Therefore [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} acts inner-faithfully on the AS regular algebras $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)} [t;\sigma]$ where $r = uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$ or $r = u^2 \pm v^2$, $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & (-1)^{a+1}\alpha\end{bmatrix}$ for some $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_i(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^a}(t)$ with $i \in \{1,2\}$ and $a,c \in \{0,1\}$.
The case of [Kashina \#[3]{}]{} is similar. Indeed, the decomposition of $\pi_i^2$ given in remains the same, except the $(-1)^{i+1}$ factors are removed from the second summand of each module generator. Further, one may obtain the table giving the action of [Kashina \#[3]{}]{} by $$\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^{c}{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1}}(t) \oplus
T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1}}(t)\otimes\pi_i(u,v)$$ from by scaling the $w$ row by ${\mathbbm{i}}^i$. Using this modified table, one obtains the following decompositions, where $\{i,j\} = \{1,2\}$: $$\pi_i(u,v)\otimes T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1}}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\pi_j(ut, (-1)^{i+c+1}vt)&a=0\\
\pi_j(vt,(-1)^{i+c}{\mathbbm{i}}ut)&a=1\\
\end{cases}$$ $$T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,(-1)^c {\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1}}(t) \otimes \pi_i(u,v) =
\begin{cases}
\pi_j(tu,(-1)^{i+c}tv)&a=0\\
\pi_j(tv, (-1)^{i+c}{\mathbbm{i}}tu)&a=1\\
\end{cases}.$$ It follows that [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} acts on the same three-generated algebras as [Kashina \#[3]{}]{}, and we summarize these results in the following theorem.
\[innerfaithful13\] [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} and [Kashina \#[3]{}]{} act inner-faithfully on the AS regular algebras $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)} [t;\sigma]$ where $r = uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$ or $r = u^2 \pm v^2$, $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} \alpha & 0 \\ 0 & (-1)^{a+1}\alpha\end{bmatrix}$ for some $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_i(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^a,(-1)^a,-1,\gamma}(t)$ with $i \in \{1,2\},$ $a \in \{0,1\}$, and $\gamma=(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^a$ for [Kashina \#[1]{}]{} or $(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+b}$ for [Kashina \#[3]{}]{}, with $c\in\{0,1\}$.
Invariant Rings
---------------
In this subsection, we determine the fixed rings for each of the actions described in the previous two subsections.
\[lem:restrictToR\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2\times C_2\times C_2$, and let $H$ act inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ as in Theorems \[innerfaithful24\] or \[innerfaithful13\]. Then:
1. Suppose that $mt^\ell$ is an element of $A$ where $m$ is a monomial in $u$ and $v$ with respect to some fixed choice of basis of $A$, and $\ell \geq 0$ is an integer. If $x.mt^\ell = y.mt^\ell = z.mt^\ell = mt^\ell$, then $\ell$ is even, and $m$ has even degree in $u$ and in $v$.
2. Let $R$ denote the subalgebra of $A$ generated by monomials of even $u$, $v$, and $t$ degree. Then the subalgebra of $R$ of elements of $t$ degree zero is commutative.
3. The action of $w$ on $A$ restricts to an action on $R$, and $w$ acts as an automorphism of $R$.
Recall that $x.t = (-1)^at = y.t$. If $x.mt^\ell = mt^\ell$, then one has that the $v$-degree of $m$ is congruent to $a\ell$ modulo 2. Similarly, the action of $y$ implies that the $u$ degree of $m$ is congruent to $a\ell$ modulo 2. It follows that the total degree of $m$ is even, so that $z.m = m$. It therefore follows that $\ell$ must be even as well, which implies that $m$ has both even degree in both $u$ and $v$, proving the first claim.
By the descriptions given in the previous two subsections, the possible relations $r$ defining $A$ are $uv - {\mathbbm{i}}^\beta vu$ for $\beta = 0,1,2,3$, and $u^2 - (-1)^nv^2$ for $n = 0,1$, depending on the Hopf algebra and representation $\pi$ chosen. The subalgebra of $A$ of $t$ degree zero and even $u$ and $v$ degree is either ${\Bbbk}[u^2,v^2]$ in the first case, or ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2,(vu)^2]$ in the second case. A brief calculation shows that each of these rings are commutative. Note that in the first case, we obtain a ring isomorphic to a commutative polynomial ring, and in the second case the ring is isomorphic to ${\Bbbk}[X,Y,Z]/(X^4 - YZ)$.
It is clear that $w$ acts on the subalgebra $R$. Further, since $x,y$ and $z$ all act trivially on $R$, we have that $w$ acts on $R$ as an automorphism by Lemmas \[lem:K2K4trick\] and \[lem:K1K3trick\].
We record the following lemma, which follows from direct calculation.
\[lem:C23evenActions\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2\times C_2\times C_2$, and let $H$ act inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ as in Theorems \[innerfaithful24\] or \[innerfaithful13\]. Then the action of $w$ satisfies the following:
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Kashina & $u^2$ & $v^2$ & $(uv)^2$ & $(vu)^2$ & $t^2$\
1 & $(-1)^{i+1}v^2$ & $(-1)^{i+1}u^2$ & $-(vu)^2$ & $-(uv)^2$ & $t^2$\
2 & $(-1)^{i+1}v^2$ & $(-1)^{i+1}u^2$ & $(vu)^2$ & $(uv)^2$ & $t^2$\
3 & $v^2$ & $u^2$ & $(vu)^2$ & $(uv)^2$ & $-t^2$\
4 & $v^2$ & $u^2$ & $-(vu)^2$ & $-(uv)^2$ & $-t^2$\
Since $w$ acts on $R$ as an automorphism and $R$ is generated by the above elements (depending on the relation $r$ used), we can use this table to determine the invariants. When $u$ and $v$ commute up to a scalar (i.e., $r = uv \pm vu$ or $r = uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$), the following result follows immediately from the table.
Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2\times C_2\times C_2$, and let $H$ act inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ as in Theorems \[innerfaithful24\] or \[innerfaithful13\] where $r = uv - {\mathbbm{i}}^\beta vu$. Then every invariant is of the form: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
{Kashinas \#{1} and \#{2}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}v^{2j}(u^{2k} + (-1)^{ik+k}v^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
{Kashinas \#{3} and \#{4}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}v^{2j}(u^{2k} + (-1)^{m}v^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ for some $\alpha_{j,k,m} \in {\Bbbk}$.
When the relation is $r = u^2 - (-1)^nv^2$, we have to work a bit harder. As mentioned in the proof of Lemma \[lem:restrictToR\], the ring $R$ on which $w$ acts is the subalgebra of $A$ generated by $u^2$, $(uv)^2$ and $(vu)^2$. We will present $R$ as ${\Bbbk}[X,Y,Z]/(X^4 - YZ)$ where $X = u^2$, $Y = (uv)^2$ and $Z = (vu)^2$. A basis of $R$ is given by $$\{X^jY^kt^{2m}~|~j,k,m \geq 0\} \cup \{X^jZ^\ell t^{2m}~|~j,m \geq 0, \ell > 0\}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:C23evenActions\], one has that $w.X = (-1)^{i+n+1}X$ for [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[2]{}]{}, and $w.X = (-1)^nX$ for [Kashinas \#[3]{} and \#[4]{}]{}. Since $w$ acts on $R$ as an automorphism, we therefore have the following theorem:
\[invariantform1234\]
Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2\times C_2\times C_2$, and let $H$ act inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ as in Theorems \[innerfaithful24\] or \[innerfaithful13\] where $r = u^2 - (-1)^nv^2$. Then every invariant is of the form: $$\begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
{Kashina \#{1}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}((uv)^{2k} + (-1)^{(i+n+1)j + k}(vu)^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
{Kashina \#{2}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}((uv)^{2k} + (-1)^{(i+n+1)j}(vu)^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
{Kashina \#{3}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}((uv)^{2k} + (-1)^{nj + m}(vu)^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
{Kashina \#{4}} & $\displaystyle{\sum_{j,k,m} \alpha_{j,k,m} u^{2j}((uv)^{2k} + (-1)^{nj+m+k}(vu)^{2k})t^{2m}}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ for some $\alpha_{j,k,m} \in {\Bbbk}$.
[We summarize the results of this section in the following theorem, which follows from the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4]:]{}
\[fixedrings1234\] [Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2\times C_2\times C_2$, and let $H$ act inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ as in Theorems \[innerfaithful24\] or \[innerfaithful13\]]{}, with $\pi_i$ a two-dimensional representation of $H$. Then the invariant subrings are:
Kashina Relation $r$ Invariant ring
------------------- -------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 $(H_{d:-1,1})$ $uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+(-1)^{i+1}v^2,t^2]$
1 $(H_{d:-1,1})$ $u^2 - (-1)^iv^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,(uv)^2-(vu)^2,u^2((uv)^2+(vu)^2),t^2]$
1 $(H_{d:-1,1})$ $u^2 + (-1)^iv^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2-(vu)^2,t^2]$
2 $(H_{d:1,1})$ $uv \pm vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+(-1)^{i+1}v^2,t^2]$
2 $(H_{d:1,1})$ $u^2 - (-1)^iv^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,u^2((uv)^2-(vu)^2),t^2]$
2 $(H_{d:-1,1})$ $u^2 + (-1)^iv^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,t^2]$
3 $(H_{d:-1,-1})$ $uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
3 $(H_{d:-1,-1})$ $u^2 - v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,((uv)^2-(vu)^2)t^2,t^4]$
3 $(H_{d:-1,-1})$ $u^2 + v^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^4,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,((uv)^2-(vu)^2)t^2,\\u^2((uv)^2-(vu)^2),u^2t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
4 $(H_{d:1,-1})$ $uv \pm vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
4 $(H_{d:1,-1})$ $u^2 - v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2-(vu)^2,((uv)^2+(vu)^2)t^2,t^4]$
4 $(H_{d:1,-1})$ $u^2 + v^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^4,(uv)^2-(vu)^2,u^2((uv)^2+(vu)^2),\\((uv)^2+(vu)^2)t^2,u^2t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
\
Hence the rings of invariants in rows 1, 3, 4, and 6 are AS regular because they are Ore extensions of commutative polynomial rings, while the others are not AS regular by Lemma \[notregular\]. Thus [Kashinas \#[1]{} and \#[2]{}]{} are reflection Hopf algebras for a three-dimensional AS regular algebra.
G(H) = C4 x C2 {#c4xc2}
==============
Throughout this section, let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_4 \times C_2 = {\left\langle x \right\rangle} \times {\left\langle y \right\rangle}$. There is third generator $z$ of $H$ with $\epsilon(z) = 1$ and having coproduct $$\Delta(z) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1 \otimes 1 + y \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes x^2 - y \otimes x^2 \right)(z \otimes z).$$
There are seven non-isomorphic Hopf algebras in this family each of which has different algebra relations involving the element $z$. We list these relations in the following table, grouped according to our treatment of these algebras. In each case we give the notation for the Hopf algebra used in [@kashina], the relations in $H$, and the location in [@kashina] where the algebra is discussed.
$$\label{eqn:C4C2relations}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
Kashina & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Relations}& \cite{kashina} Page \\ \hline \hline
5 ($H_{c: \sigma_1}$) & $zx = xz$ & $zy = x^2yz$ & $z^2 = \frac{1+{\mathbbm{i}}}{2} + \frac{1-{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}x^2$ & p. 629 (2)\\ \hline
7 ($H_{c: \sigma_0}$) & $zx = xz$ & $zy = x^2yz$ & $z^2 = x(\frac{1+{\mathbbm{i}}}{2} + \frac{1-{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}x^2)$ & p. 629 (2) \\ \hline \hline
6 ($H_{b: 1}$)& $zx = x^3z$ & $zy = yz$ & $z^2 = 1$& p. 627 (1) \\ \hline
10 ($H_{b: y}$) & $zx = x^3z$ & $zy = yz$ & $z^2 = y$ & p. 627 (2)\\ \hline
11 ($H_{b: x^2y}$) & $zx = x^3z$ & $zy = yz$ & $z^2 = x^2y$ & p. 628 (3)\\ \hline \hline
8 ($H_{a: 1}$)& $zx = xyz$ & $zy = yz$ & $z^2 = 1$ & p. 626 (1) \\ \hline
9 ($H_{a: y}$)& $zx = xyz$ & $zy = yz$ & $z^2 = y$ & p. 626 (2)\\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$
\[PasLemma16dim\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with $\mathbf{G}(H)=C_4\times C_2$, and let $R={\Bbbk}[C_4\times C_2]$. Let $I$ be a Hopf ideal of $H$. If $I\cap R=0$ then $I=0$.
Arguing as in Lemma \[PasLemma16dimC\_2C\_2C\_2\], we may assume that $H/I$ is isomorphic to $R$ and is therefore commutative. One may check that in all cases above, $z^2$ is a unit of $R$. If the relation $zy = x^2yz$ holds in $H$, then in $H/I$ one has $x^2yz^2 = yz^2$, so that $(x^2y - y)z^2 \in R \cap I$. Since $y$ and $z$ are units, it follows that $1 - x^2 = 0$, a contradiction. One obtains similar contradictions if the relation $zx = x^3z$ or $zx = xyz$ holds.
Next we will study the inner-faithful representations of these Hopf algebras. One can show that the irreducible two-dimensional representations of the above Hopf algebras are all of the form $\pi(u,v)$ where $$\pi(x)=\begin{bmatrix} {\mathbbm{i}}^a&0\\0&{\mathbbm{i}}^b\end{bmatrix},\quad\pi(y)=\begin{bmatrix}(-1)^c&0\\0&(-1)^d\end{bmatrix}, \quad \pi(z) = \begin{bmatrix}0 & \omega^{e} \\ \omega^{f} &0 \end{bmatrix}$$ for certain values $0 \leq a ,b \leq 3$, $0 \leq c,d \leq 1$, and $0 \leq e,f \leq 7$ where $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi {\mathbbm{i}}}{8}}$. Their one-dimensional representations are of the form $T_{{\mathbbm{i}}^a, (-1)^b, {\mathbbm{i}}^c}(t)$, where the subscripts give the action of $x, y, z$, on $t$ respectively, for certain values of $0 \leq a, c \leq 3$ and $0 \leq b \leq 1$.
The following theorem gives the two-dimensional representations that are inner-faithful.
\[IF2dimKashina\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with $\mathbf{G}(H) = C_4 \times C_2$. Let $\pi$ be a two-dimensional representation of $H$ as above. Then one has:
1. If $zy = x^2yz$ then $a = b$. Furthermore, the following are equivalent:
1. $\pi$ is irreducible,
2. $a$ is odd and $c \neq d$, and
3. $\pi$ is inner-faithful
2. If $zy = yz$ then $c = d$. In this case, $\pi$ is not inner- faithful.
3. In either case a representation $\pi$ must satisfy $a \equiv b \mod 2$.
Let $\pi = {\Bbbk}u \oplus {\Bbbk}v$. If $zy = x^2yz$ holds (and hence $zx = xz$), then one has $a = b$. Clearly $\pi$ inner-faithful implies that $\pi$ is irreducible, and $\pi$ irreducible implies that $zy \neq yz$. It follows that $c \neq d$, and that $x^2 \neq 1$, and hence $a \equiv 1\mod 2$. Suppose that $\pi$ is not inner-faithful. Then by [@P Lemma 1.4] and Lemma \[PasLemma16dim\], one has that $1 - x^\beta y^\gamma$ acts trivially on $\pi$ for some $(\beta,\gamma) \neq (0,0)$. It follows that $(\beta,\gamma)$ is a nontrivial solution to the system $$\label{notInnFaithfulEqns}
\begin{aligned}
a\beta + 2c\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 4 \\
b\beta + 2d\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 4. \\
\end{aligned}$$ Since $c \neq d$ and $a = b$, we have that $\gamma = 0$. Since $a \equiv 1\mod 2$, it follows that $\beta = 0$ as well, a contradiction.
If $zy = yz$ then $c = d$. If $zx = xyz$, then it follows that $a\equiv b\mod 2$ (since $y$ must act as $\pm 1$). If instead $zx = x^3z$, then we also obtain $a \equiv b\mod 2$. To prove that $\pi$ is not inner-faithful in this case, we may assume that $\pi$ is irreducible. If $zx = xyz$ and $\pi$ is irreducible then $c = 1$. It follows that if $a$ is even, then $1 - x^2$ acts trivially on $\pi$ and if $a$ is odd, then $1 - x^2y$ acts trivially on $\pi$. If $zx = x^3z$, then if $c = 0$, one has that $1 - y$ acts trivially, and if $c = 1$ then $a \equiv 1\mod 2$, so that $1 - xy$ acts trivially.
A consequence of Theorem \[IF2dimKashina\] is that if $zy = yz$ holds, then all irreducible two-dimensional representations are not inner-faithful. The following theorem characterizes the three-dimensional representations that are inner-faithful.
\[c4c23dim\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H)=C_4\times C_2$ satisfying $zy = yz$. Let $\pi$ be an irreducible representation such that $$\pi(x)=\begin{bmatrix} {\mathbbm{i}}^a&0\\0&{\mathbbm{i}}^b\end{bmatrix},\quad
\pi(y)=\begin{bmatrix}(-1)^c&0\\0&(-1)^d\end{bmatrix}$$ for $a,b \in \{1,3\}$, and $c,d \in \{0, 1\}$. Let $T={\Bbbk}t$ be a one-dimensional representation with $x.t={\mathbbm{i}}^et$ and $y.t=(-1)^ft$ with $e\in\{0,1,2,3\}$ and $f\in\{0,1\}$. Then $\pi \oplus T$ is inner-faithful if and only if $af + ce \equiv 1\mod 2$.
Using the notation of Theorem \[IF2dimKashina\], we have that $a \equiv b\mod 2$ and $c = d$. Again by [@P Lemma 1.4] and Lemma \[PasLemma16dim\], we have that $\pi \oplus T$ is not inner-faithful if and only if there exists a nontrivial solution to the system $$\begin{aligned}
a\beta + 2c\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 4 \\
b\beta + 2c\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 4 \\
e\beta + 2f\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 4.
\end{aligned}$$ Such a solution must have $\beta$ even, since $\beta$ odd implies that $a = b$ which contradicts the irreducibility of $\pi$. Writing $\beta = 2\beta'$, one therefore has a nontrivial solution to the following system, from which the result follows: $$\begin{aligned}
a\beta' + c\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 2 \\
e\beta' + f\gamma & \equiv 0 \mod 2.
\end{aligned}$$
The next lemma is a version of Lemmas \[lem:K2K4trick\] and \[lem:K1K3trick\] for the class of Hopf algebras under consideration in this section.
\[lem:trickC\_4C\_2\] Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H)=C_4\times C_2$, as described at the beginning of this section. Let $B$ and $C$ be $H$-representations, and let $f \in B$, $g \in C$. Then one has $$z.(f\otimes g)=\begin{cases}
z.f\otimes z.g\quad\quad\mathrm{if}\;yz.f=z.f\\
z.f\otimes x^2z.g\quad\mathrm{if}\;yz.f=-z.f.
\end{cases}$$
The following lemma will aid us in the calculations of invariants for actions on algebras with three generators.
Let $H$ be a semisimple Hopf algebra of dimension sixteen with ${\mathbf{G}}(H)=C_4\times C_2$ such that $zy = yz$. Let $\pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ be a three-dimensional inner-faithful representation of $H$ as in the statement of Theorem \[c4c23dim\], and let $A$ be a graded ${\Bbbk}$-algebra with $A_1 = \pi \oplus T$ such that $H$ acts on $A$. If $x.mt^\ell = y.mt^\ell = mt^\ell$, then $\ell$ is even.
If $x.mt^\ell = mt^\ell$, then one has that $a\deg_u m + b\deg_v m + e\ell\equiv 0\mod 4$. Since $a\equiv b\mod 2$, one has that $a\deg m + e\ell\equiv0\mod 2$. Similarly, if $y.mt^\ell = mt^\ell$, then one has $f\ell + c\deg m\equiv 0\mod 2$. Recall that by Theorem \[c4c23dim\] one has that $af + ce \equiv 1\mod 2$, and by Theorem \[IF2dimKashina\], one has $a \equiv b\mod 2$. Therefore if $c = 0$, we have $a \equiv f \equiv 1\mod 2$. It follows that $\ell$ is even.If $c = 1$, then $e \equiv 1 + af\mod 2$. The congruence coming from the $x$ action gives us that $a\deg m + f + af\ell \equiv 0\mod 2$. Since $f\ell \equiv \deg m\mod 2$, one has that $\ell$ is even.
[Kashinas \#[5]{} and \#[7]{}]{}
--------------------------------
The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[5]{}]{} are $T_{\pm1, \pm 1, \pm 1}(t)$, where the subscripts indicate the action of $x$, $y$, and $z$, respectively, on $t$. The irreducible two-dimensional representations are $\pi_1(u,v)$ and $\pi_2(u,v)$ which are defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \omega \\ \omega & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix} -{\mathbbm{i}}& 0
\\ 0 & -{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \omega \\ \omega & 0 \end{bmatrix},$$ where $\omega = e^{\frac{2 \pi {\mathbbm{i}}}{8}}$. The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[7]{}]{} are $T_{1, \pm 1, \pm 1}(t)$ and $T_{-1, \pm 1, \pm {\mathbbm{i}}}(t)$ while the two-dimensional irreducible representations are defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix} -{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.$$ The irreducible two-dimensional representations of [Kashinas \#[5]{} and \#[7]{}]{} can be written as $$\pi(x)=\begin{bmatrix} {\mathbbm{i}}^a&0\\0&{\mathbbm{i}}^a\end{bmatrix},\quad \pi(y)=\begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix},\quad\pi(z)=\begin{bmatrix}0&\omega^b\\\omega^c&0\end{bmatrix},$$ with $a\in\{1,3\}, b,c\in\{0,1,4\}$ and $\omega=e^{\frac{2\pi{\mathbbm{i}}}{8}}$.
One computes that when these Hopf algebras act on an algebra $A$ with $A_1 = \pi(u,v)$, then the actions on the degree two elements are given by the following table:
$u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
----- ------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------
$x$ $-u^2$ $-v^2$ $-uv$ $-vu$
$y$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $-uv$ $-vu$
$z$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}^{c}v^2$ ${\mathbbm{i}}^b u^2$ $-\omega^{b+c}{vu}$ ${\omega^{b+c}uv}$
Since either $c=b=1$ or one is 0 and the other is 4, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(u,v) \otimes \pi(u,v) &= T_{-1,1,{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+1}}(u ^2 + {\mathbbm{i}}v^2)
\oplus T_{-1,1,-{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+1}}(u^2 - {\mathbbm{i}}v^2) \\
&\hphantom{=}\oplus T_{-1,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}\omega^{b+c}} (uv + {\mathbbm{i}}vu) \oplus T_{-1,-1,{-{\mathbbm{i}}\omega^{b+c}}} (uv- {\mathbbm{i}}vu).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore these algebras act on quadratic AS regular algebras of the form $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}$ where $A_1=\pi$ and $r=u^2-(-1)^f {\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ or $r=uv-(-1)^e {\mathbbm{i}}vu$, with $e,f\in\{0,1\}$. These actions are inner-faithful by Theorem \[IF2dimKashina\].
An induction argument shows that $$z.(u^n)=\omega^{cn+4a\binom{n}{2}}v^n,\quad z.(v^n)=\omega^{nb}u^n.$$
We first focus on the relation $uv-(-1)^e{\mathbbm{i}}vu$. The action of $y$ implies that the $v$ degree of an invariant must be even. Let $F$ be an invariant $F=\sum\alpha_{l,k}u^lv^{2k}$. The action of $x$ implies that $al+2ak\equiv0\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$, which implies that $l$ is even. Replacing $l$ with $2l$, we get an invariant of the form $\sum\alpha_{l,k}u^{2l}v^{2k}$, satisfying $l\equiv k\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$. Using the formulae above, it follows that $$z.(u^{2l}v^{2k})={\mathbbm{i}}^{kb+cl+2al}u^{2k}v^{2l},$$ and therefore an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum_{l\equiv k\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)}\alpha_{l,k}(u^{2l}v^{2k}+{\mathbbm{i}}^{kb+cl+2al}u^{2k}v^{2l}),$$ which can be rewritten as $$F=\sum_{k,l \geq 0}\alpha_{l,k}u^{2k}v^{2k}(u^{4l}+(-1)^{cl+k}{\mathbbm{i}}^{k(b+c)}v^{4l}).$$
A similar computation shows that for the relation $u^2-(-1)^f{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$, an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum_{k,l \geq 0}\alpha_{l,k}u^{4l}((uv)^{2k}+(-1)^{l(c+1)}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(b+c)k}(vu)^{2k}).$$ The next theorem follows from Remark 1.14, [@FKMW Lemma 1.10], and the formulae above.
\[fixedrings57\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[5]{}]{} or [Kashina \#[7]{}]{}. Then $H$ acts inner faithfully on the algebras $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}$ with $A_1 = \pi = {\Bbbk}u\oplus{\Bbbk}v$ an irreducible two-dimensional representation and $r=u^2\pm{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ or $r=uv\pm{\mathbbm{i}}vu$. The invariant rings for these actions are:
Kashina Relation $r$ Invariant ring
--------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
$5$ $uv\pm{\mathbbm{i}}vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^4-v^4]$
$5$ $u^2\pm{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,(uv)^2-(vu)^2]$
$7$ $uv\pm{\mathbbm{i}}vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4v^4,u^4+v^4,u^2v^2(u^4+v^4)]$
$7$ $u^2\pm{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^8,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,u^4((uv)^2-(vu)^2)]$
The invariant rings for 5 are commutative polynomial rings, hence [Kashina \#[5]{}]{} is a reflection Hopf algebra for the algebras and actions given, while [Kashina \#[7]{}]{} is not by Lemma \[notregular\].
[Kashinas \#[6]{}, \#[10]{}, and \#[11]{}]{}
--------------------------------------------
The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[6]{}]{} are $T_{\pm1, \pm 1, \pm 1}(t)$, where the subscripts indicate the action of $x$, $y$, and $z$, respectively, on $t$. The irreducible two-dimensional representations are $\pi_1(u,v)$ and $\pi_2(u,v)$ defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}.$$ The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[10]{}]{} are $T_{\pm 1, 1, \pm 1}$ and $T_{\pm 1, -1, \pm {\mathbbm{i}}}(t)$ and the irreducible two-dimensional representations are defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\mathbbm{i}}\\ {\mathbbm{i}}& 0\end{bmatrix}.$$ The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[11]{}]{} are $T_{\pm 1, 1, \pm 1}(t)$ and $T_{\pm 1, -1, \pm {\mathbbm{i}}}(t)$ and the irreducible two-dimensional representations are defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -{\mathbbm{i}}\\ {\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \end{bmatrix}.$$
The two-dimensional representations for [Kashinas \#[6]{}, \#[10]{}, and \#[11]{}]{} can be written as $$\pi(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi(y) = \begin{bmatrix} (-1)^a & 0 \\ 0 & (-1)^a \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\mathbbm{i}}^b \\ {\mathbbm{i}}^c & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ for $a\in\{0,1\}$ and $(b,c) \in \{(2,0), (3,1) \}$. The one-dimensional representations are $T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}$ with $e\in\{0,1\}$ and $f\in\{0,1,2,3\}$.
To compute $\left(\pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}(t) \right) \otimes \left( \pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}(t)\right)$ one checks that
$u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------------------- -------------------------------
$x$ $-u^2$ $-v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
$y$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
$z$ $(-1)^{a+b}v^2$ $(-1)^{a+c}u^2$ $(-1)^a{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+c}vu$ $(-1)^a{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+c}uv$
$ut$ $tu$ $vt$ $tv$ $t^2$
----- -------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -------------
$x$ $(-1)^e{\mathbbm{i}}ut$ $(-1)^e{\mathbbm{i}}tu$ $(-1)^{e+1}{\mathbbm{i}}vt$ $(-1)^{e+1}{\mathbbm{i}}tv$ $t^2$
$y$ $(-1)^{a+1}ut$ $(-1)^{a+1}tu$ $(-1)^{a+1}vt$ $(-1)^{a+1}tv$ $t^2$
$z$ ${\mathbbm{i}}^{b+f} vt$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+f} tv$ ${\mathbbm{i}}^{c+f} ut$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}^{c+f} tu$ $(-1)^ft^2$
therefore $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}(t) \right) \otimes \left( \pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}(t)\right) \\
&=T_{-1,1,(-1)^{a+b+1}}(u ^2 - v^2)\oplus T_{-1,1,(-1)^{a+b}}(u^2 +v^2) \\&\oplus T_{1,1,(-1)^a{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+c}} (uv + vu) \oplus T_{1,1,(-1)^{a+1}{\mathbbm{i}}^{b+c}} (uv-vu) \oplus T_{1,1,(-1)^f}(t^2)\\
&\oplus \text{2 two-dimensional representations.}\end{aligned}$$
The 2 two-dimensional representations appearing in the decomposition above are given in the next table; we give the decomposition for a specific $T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}$. In the remaining cases one gets a similar decomposition.
Kashina $\pi$ $T$ Decomposition
--------- --------- -------------------------- ------------------------------------
6 $\pi_1$ $T_{1,-1,1}$ $\pi_2(ut,vt)\oplus\pi_2(tu,-tv)$
6 $\pi_2$ $T_{1,-1,1}$ $\pi_1(ut,vt)\oplus\pi_1(tu,-tv)$
10 $\pi_1$ $T_{1,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}}$ $\pi_2(ut,vt)\oplus\pi_2(tu,-tv)$
10 $\pi_2$ $T_{1,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}}$ $\pi_1(ut,-vt)\oplus\pi_1(tu,tv)$
11 $\pi_1$ $T_{1,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}}$ $\pi_2(ut,vt)\oplus \pi_2(tu,-tv)$
11 $\pi_2$ $T_{1,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}}$ $\pi_1(ut,-vt)\oplus\pi_1(tu,tv)$
Therefore, [Kashinas \#[6]{}, \#[10]{}, and \#[11]{}]{} act inner-faithfully on quadratic regular algebras of the form $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1 = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$, where $\pi = \pi_1$ or $\pi_2$, $T =T_{(-1)^e,-1,{\mathbbm{i}}^f}$, for $e \in \{0,1\}$ and $ f \in \{ 1,3\}$, $\sigma=\begin{bmatrix}\alpha&0\\0&-\alpha\end{bmatrix}$ with $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $r=uv-(-1)^qvu$ or $r=u^2-(-1)^pv^2$, with $p,q\in\{0,1\}$.
An inductive argument shows that $$z.(u^n)={\mathbbm{i}}^{cn+2a\binom{n}{2}}v^n,\quad z.(v^m)={\mathbbm{i}}^{bm+2a\binom{m}{2}}u^m.$$ We consider the relation $uv-(-1)^qvu$. An invariant must be of the form $F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,k}u^nv^mt^{2k}$. To be invariant under $x$ we must have $n\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$; if this condition is satisfied then $F$ is also invariant under $y$. It follows from the formulae above that if $n\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$, then $$z.(u^nv^mt^{2k})=\begin{cases} (-1)^{fk}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(c+b)n}u^mv^nt^{2k}\quad\quad\;\;\; \mathrm{if}\;n\;\mathrm{even}\\
(-1)^{fk+q}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(c+b)n}u^mv^nt^{2k}\quad\mathrm{if}\;n\;\mathrm{odd\;and\;}a=0\\
-(-1)^{fk+q}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(c+b)n}u^mv^nt^{2k}\quad\mathrm{if}\;n\;\mathrm{odd\;and\;}a=1.\end{cases}$$ When $n\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$, we can write this as $z.(u^nv^mt^{2k})=(-1)^{fk+(q+a)n}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(c+b)n}u^mv^nt^{2k}$. Using the formula above it follows that an invariant must be of the form $$\sum\alpha_{n,m,k}u^mv^m(u^{4n}+(-1)^{fk+(q+a)m}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(c+b)m}v^{4n})t^{2k}.$$
Similarly if the relation is $u^2-(-1)^pv^2$, then an invariant must be of the form $$\sum\alpha_{n,m,k}u^{4m}((uv)^n+(-1)^{an+fk}{\mathbbm{i}}^{(b+c)n}(vu)^n)t^{2k}.$$ The next theorem follows from the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4] and the formulae above.
\[fixedring61011\] Let $H$ be Kashina \#6, \#10, or \#11. Then $H$ acts inner-faithfully on the algebras $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1 = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ where $\pi$ is an irreducible two-dimensional representation given in the table below, $T$ is a one-dimensional representation with $y.t=-t$, $\sigma=\begin{bmatrix}\alpha&0\\0&-\alpha\end{bmatrix}$, for $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $r=uv\pm vu$ or $r=u^2\pm v^2$. The invariant rings for these actions are also given in the table below.
Kashina $\pi$ Relation $r$ Invariant ring
--------- -------------------- -------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 $\pi_1$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,t^2]$
6 $\pi_1$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),t^2]$
6 $\pi_2$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),t^2]$
6 $\pi_2$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,t^2]$
10 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,(u^4-v^4)t^2,t^4]$
10 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),\\uvt^2,(u^4-v^4)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
11 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),\\uvt^2,(u^4-v^4)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
11 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,(u^4-v^4)t^2,t^4]$
6 $\pi_1$ $u^2\pm v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv+vu,t^2]$
6 $\pi_2$ $u^2\pm v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv-vu,t^2]$
10 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $u^2\pm v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv+vu,(uv-vu)t^2,t^4]$
11 $\pi_1$ or $\pi_2$ $u^2\pm v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv-vu,(uv+vu)t^2,t^4]$
[Kashina \#[6]{}]{} is a reflection Hopf algebra in the cases listed in the first and fourth rows of the table above, as the invariant rings are Ore extensions of a commutative polynomial ring; it is not a reflection Hopf algebra in the cases given in the second and third rows of the table above, as the invariant rings are not AS regular by Lemma \[notregular\]. [Kashina \#[10]{}]{} and [Kashina \#[11]{}]{} are not reflection Hopf algebras for any of the algebras and representations described above, by Lemma \[notregular\].
[Kashinas \#[8]{} and \#[9]{}]{}
--------------------------------
The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[8]{}]{} are $T_{\pm 1, 1, \pm 1}(t)$ and $T_{\pm {\mathbbm{i}}, 1, \pm 1}(t)$, where the subscripts indicate the actions of $x$, $y$, and $z$, repsectively, on $T$. The irreducible two-dimensional representations are defined by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix}1 & 0 \\ 0 &-1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}.$$ The one-dimensional representations for [Kashina \#[9]{}]{} are $T_{\pm1,1,\pm1}(t)$ and $T_{\pm {\mathbbm{i}}, 1, \pm 1}(t)$ and the irreducible two-dimensional representations are given by $$\pi_1(x) = \begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 &-{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$$ and $$\pi_2(x) = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(y) = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(z) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}.$$ The irreducible two-dimensional representations for [Kashinas \#[8]{} and \#[9]{}]{} can be written as $$\pi(x)=\begin{bmatrix}{\mathbbm{i}}^a&0\\0&-{\mathbbm{i}}^a\end{bmatrix},\quad \pi(y)=\begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix},\quad \pi(z)=\begin{bmatrix}0&(-1)^b\\1&0\end{bmatrix},$$ with $a,b\in\{0,1\}$. The one-dimensional representations can be written as $T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}$ with $c,d\in\{0,1\}$.
To compute $\left(\pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}(t) \right) \otimes \left( \pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}(t)\right)$ one checks that
$u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
----- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------------
$x$ $(-1)^au^2$ $(-1)^av^2$ $(-1)^{a+1}uv$ $(-1)^{a+1}vu$
$y$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
$z$ $(-1)^{a}v^2$ $(-1)^{a}u^2$ $(-1)^{a+b}vu$ $(-1)^{a+b}uv$
$ut$ $tu$ $vt$ $tv$ $t^2$
----- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------ --------
$x$ $(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1} ut$ $(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1} tu$ $(-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1} vt$ $(-1)^{c+1}{\mathbbm{i}}^{a+1} tv$ $-t^2$
$y$ $-ut$ $-tu$ $-vt$ $-tv$ $t^2$
$z$ $(-1)^{d+1} vt$ $(-1)^d tv$ $(-1)^{b+d+1} ut$ $(-1)^{b+d} tu$ $t^2$
Therefore we have the decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
&\left(\pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}(t) \right) \otimes \left( \pi(u,v) \oplus T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}(t)\right) \\
&=T_{(-1)^a,1,(-1)^{a+1}}(u ^2 - v^2)\oplus T_{(-1)^a,1,(-1)^{a}}(u^2 +v^2) \\&\oplus T_{(-1)^{a+1},1,(-1)^{a+b}} (uv + vu) \oplus T_{(-1)^{a+1},1,(-1)^{a+b+1}} (uv-vu) \oplus T_{-1,1,1}(t^2)\\
&\oplus \text{2 two-dimensional representations.}\end{aligned}$$ The 2 two-dimensional representations appearing in the decomposition above are given in the next table for $c=d=0$; in the remaining cases one gets a similar decomposition.
Kashina $\pi$ Decomposition
--------- --------- ----------------------------------- --
8 $\pi_1$ $\pi_2(vt,-ut)\oplus\pi_2(tv,tu)$
8 $\pi_2$ $\pi_1(ut,-vt)\oplus\pi_1(tu,tv)$
9 $\pi_1$ $\pi_2(vt,ut)\oplus\pi_2(tv,-tu)$
9 $\pi_2$ $\pi_1(ut,-vt)\oplus\pi_1(tu,tv)$
Therefore [Kashinas \#[8]{} and \#[9]{}]{} act inner faithfully on quadratic regular algebras of the form $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ where $A = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ with $\pi = \pi_1$ or $\pi_2$, $T = T_{(-1)^c{\mathbbm{i}},1,(-1)^d}$ for $c,d \in \{ 0,1\}$, $\sigma=\begin{bmatrix}\alpha&0\\0&-\alpha\end{bmatrix}$ with $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $r=uv-(-1)^evu$ or $r=u^2-(-1)^fv^2$, with $e,f\in\{0,1\}$.
An induction argument shows that $$z.(u^n)=(-1)^{a\binom{n}{2}}v^n,\quad z.(v^n)=(-1)^{a\binom{n}{2}+bn}u^n.$$ The previous two formulae imply that if $n\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ then $$z.(u^nv^m)=(-1)^{a\frac{n+m}{2}+bm}v^nu^m.$$ We first assume that the relation is $uv-(-1)^evu$. An invariant must be of the form $F=\sum\alpha_{k,l,m}u^kv^lt^{2m}$. In order to be invariant under $y$, the element $F$ must satisfy $k\equiv l\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$, while in order to be invariant under $x$, it must satisfy $ak+(a+2)l+2m\equiv0\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$. To be invariant under $z$, it must be of the form $$\sum_{\substack{k\equiv l\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)\\ak+(a+2)l+2m\equiv0\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)}}\alpha_{k,l,m}(u^kv^l+(-1)^{a\frac{l+k}{2}+l(b+e)}u^lv^k)t^{2m}.$$ Replacing $2m$ with $4m$ or $4m+2$ we get that an invariant is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{k\equiv l\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)\\ak+(a+2)l\equiv0\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)}}\alpha_{k,l,m}(u^kv^l+(-1)^{l(1+b+e)}u^lv^k)t^{4m}+\\
\sum_{\substack{k\equiv l\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)\\ak+(a+2)l\equiv2\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)}}\alpha_{k,l,m}(u^kv^l-(-1)^{l(1+b+e)}u^lv^k)t^{4m+2}.\end{aligned}$$ One can rewrite the previous sum as $$F=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\sum_{j\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)}\alpha_{j,l,m}u^jv^j(u^{2l}+(-1)^{(b+e)j}v^{2l})t^{2m}\quad \text{ for } a=0\\
\displaystyle\sum_{l\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)}\alpha_{j,l,m}u^jv^j(u^{2l}+(-1)^{k(1+b+e)+l}v^{2l})t^{2m}\quad \text{ for }a=1.
\end{cases}$$
For the relation $u^2-(-1)^fv^2$ one can prove by induction the formulae $$z.((vu)^n)=(-1)^{n(a+b)}(uv)^n,\quad z.((uv)^n)=(-1)^{n(a+b)}(vu)^n,$$ and proceeding as for the relation $uv-(-1)^evu$ it follows that an invariant must be of the form $$F=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\sum_{m\equiv k\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)}\alpha_{n,m,k}u^{2n}((vu)^m+(-1)^{nf+mb}(uv)^m)t^{2k}\quad \text{ for } a=0\\
\displaystyle\sum_{n\equiv k\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)}\alpha_{n,m,l}u^{2n}((vu)^m+(-1)^{n(f+1)+m(b+1)}(uv)^m)t^{2k}\quad \text{ for } a=1.
\end{cases}$$
Using the formulae above we can prove the following
\[fixedrings89\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[8]{}]{} or [Kashina \#[9]{}]{}. Then $H$ acts inner-faithfully on the algebras $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1 \ = \pi(u,v) \oplus T$ where $\pi$ is an irreducible two-dimensional representation given in the table below, $T$ is a one-dimensional representation with $x.t = \pm {\mathbbm{i}}t$, $y.t=t, and \sigma=\begin{bmatrix}\alpha&0\\0&-\alpha\end{bmatrix}$, with $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$, and $r=uv\pm vu$ or $r=u^2\pm v^2$. The invariant rings for these actions are given in the table below.
Kashina $\pi$ Relation Invariant ring
--------- --------- ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 $\pi_1$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[ \begin{array}{ll}u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),\\uv(u^2+v^2)t^2,(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
8 $\pi_1$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_1$ $u^2-v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv-vu,u^2(uv+vu)t^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_1$ $u^2+v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv-vu,u^2t^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_2$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,uvt^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_2$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,uv(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_2$ $u^2-v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,(uv+vu)t^2,t^4]$
8 $\pi_2$ $u^2+v^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[ \begin{array}{ll}u^4,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,u^2((uv)^2-(vu)^2),\\u^2(uv-vu)t^2,(uv+vu)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
9 $\pi_1$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_1$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),\\(u^2-v^2)t^2,uv(u^2+v^2)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
9 $\pi_1$ $u^2-v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv+vu,u^2(uv-vu)t^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_1$ $u^2+v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,uv+vu,u^2t^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_2$ $uv-vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,uv(u^2-v^2)t^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_2$ $uv+vu$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^2+v^2,uvt^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_2$ $u^2-v^2$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,(uv-vu)t^2,t^4]$
9 $\pi_2$ $u^2+v^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[ \begin{array}{ll}u^4,(uv)^2+(vu)^2,u^2((uv)^2-(vu)^2),\\u^2(uv+vu)t^2,(uv-vu)t^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
\
Hence, by Lemma \[notregular\], [Kashina \#[8]{}]{} and [Kashina \#[9]{}]{} are not reflection Hopf algebras for any of these actions.
The calculation of these fixed rings is a combination of the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4] and induction.
For [Kashina \#[8]{}]{}, $\pi_1$, and relation $uv-vu$ an invariant must be of the form $$\sum\alpha_{j,n,k}u^jv^j(u^{4n}+(-1)^jv^{4n})t^{4k}+\sum\beta_{j,n,k}u^jv^j(u^{4n+2}-(-1)^jv^{4n+2})t^{4k+2},$$ which is the same as for [Kashina \#[9]{}]{} , $\pi_1$, relation $uv+vu$. By the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4] the first sum in this invariant is generated by $u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),t^4$. We claim that to generate the second sum one only needs $(u^2-v^2)t^2,uv(u^2+v^2)t^2$. Indeed since $u^2v^2$ and $t^4$ are among the generators one needs to show only that the elements $(u^{4n+2}-v^{4n+2})t^2$ and $uv(u^{4n+2}+v^{4n+2})t^2$ are generated. We induct on $n$. For the first element it suffices to notice that $$(u^{4n}+v^{4n})(u^2-v^2)t^2=(u^{4n+2}-v^{2n+2})t^2-u^2v^2(u^{4n-2}-v^{2n-2})t^2,$$ and for the second $$(u^{4n}+v^{4n})uv(u^2+v^2)t^2=uv(u^{2n+1}+v^{4n+2})t^2+u^3v^3(u^{2n-2}+v^{4n-2})t^2.$$ For [Kashina \#[8]{}]{}, $\pi_1$, and relation $uv+vu$ an invariant must be of the form $$\sum\alpha_{j,n,k}u^jv^j(u^{4n}+v^{4n})t^{4k}+\sum\beta_{j,n,k}u^jv^j(u^{4n+2}-v^{4n+2})t^{4k+2},$$ which is the same as for [Kashina \#[9]{}]{}, $\pi_1$, and relation $uv-vu$. By the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4] the first sum in this invariant is generated by $uv,u^4+v^4,t^4$. We claim that to generate the second sum one only needs $(u^2-v^2)t^2$. It suffices to show that the element $(u^{4n+2}-v^{4n+2})t^2$ can be generated. This follows by induction and from the equality $$(u^{4n}+v^{2n})(u^2-v^2)t^2=(u^{4n+2}-v^{4n+2})t^2-u^2v^2(u^{4n-2}-v^{4n-2})t^2.$$ For [Kashina \#[8]{}]{}, $\pi_1$, and relation $u^2-v^2$ an invariant must be of the form $$\sum\alpha_{l,j,n}u^{4l}((uv)^j+(-1)^j(vu)^j)t^{4n}+\sum\beta_{l,j,n}u^{4l+2}((uv)^j-(-1)^j(vu)^j)t^{4n+2}.$$ By the results in [@FKMW Subsection 1.4], the first sum is generated by $u^4,uv-vu,t^4$. We claim that the invariant $u^2(uv+vu)t^2$ is sufficient to generate the second sum. It suffices to prove by induction that one can generate the element $u^2((uv)^j-(-1)^j(vu)^j)t^2$. This follows from the equality $$\begin{aligned}
((uv)^j+(-1)^j(vu)^j)u^2(uv+vu)t^2&=u^2((uv)^{j+1}-(-1)^{j+1}(vu)^{j+1})t^2+\\
&+u^6((uv)^{j-1}-(-1)^{j-1}(vu)^{j-1})t^2.\end{aligned}$$ All the remaining cases are proved similarly, and therefore we omit the proofs.
${\mathbf{G}}(H) = D_8$ {#d8}
=======================
To study [Kashinas \#[12]{} and \#[13]{}]{}, which are the Hopf algebras $H$ with ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = D_8$ (the dihedral group of order 8), we use the fact that they are both cotwists of group algebras: $$H_{C:1} \cong ({\Bbbk}D_{16})^J \quad \mbox{and} \quad H_E \cong ({\Bbbk}SD_{16})^J$$ where $D_{16} = \langle a, b \mid a^8 = b^2 = 1, ba = a{^{-1}}b \rangle$ and $SD_{16} = \langle a, b \mid a^8 = b^2 = 1, ba = a^3b \rangle$ denotes the semidihedral (quasidihedral) group of order 16. See [@kashina pp 658-9].
Both $D_{16}$ and $SD_{16}$ have a subgroup $F$ isomorphic to the Klein-4 group, in both cases given by $\{1,a^4, b, a^4 b\}$. The specific dual cocycle $J \in F \otimes F$ is given in [@kashina Section 7]. Let $c = a^4$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
J &= \delta_1 \otimes \delta_1 + \delta_1 \otimes \delta_{c} + \delta_1 \otimes \delta_b + \delta_1 \otimes \delta_{c b}
+ \delta_{c} \otimes \delta_1 + \delta_{c} \otimes \delta_{c} + {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{c} \otimes \delta_b - {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{c} \otimes \delta_{c b} \\
&+ \delta_{b} \otimes \delta_1 - {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{b} \otimes \delta_{c} + \delta_{b} \otimes \delta_b + {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{b} \otimes \delta_{c b}
+ \delta_{c b} \otimes \delta_1 + {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{cb} \otimes \delta_{c} - {\mathbbm{i}}\delta_{cb} \otimes \delta_b + \delta_{cb} \otimes \delta_{c b} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1 &= \frac{1}{4} ( 1 + c + b + cb) &
\delta_{c} &= \frac{1}{4} ( 1 + c - b - cb)\\
\delta_{b} &= \frac{1}{4} ( 1 - c + b - cb) &
\delta_{c b} &= \frac{1}{4} ( 1 - c - b + cb)\end{aligned}$$
Kashina \#12
------------
There are three non-isomorphic irreducible two-dimensional representations of $D_{16}$, namely $$\pi_j(a) = \begin{bmatrix} \omega^{j} & 0 \\ 0 & \omega^{-j} \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_j(b) = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$ where $j = 1,2,3$ and $\omega = e^{2 \pi {\mathbbm{i}}/ 8}$. There are four one-dimensional representations $T_{\pm 1, \pm 1}(t)$ where the subscript indicates the action on $a$ and $b$ respectively, on $t$.
If ${\Bbbk}D_{16}$ acts on an algebra $A$ where $A_1=\pi_2$ then the two-sided ideal generated by $1-a^4$ is a Hopf ideal that annihilates this algebra, and therefore the action is not inner-faithfull (one can check that $a^4$ is group-like). Both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ are inner-faithful since $$\pi_1(u,v) \otimes \pi_1(u,v) = \pi_3(u,v) \otimes \pi_3(u,v) = \pi_2(u^2,v^2) \oplus T_{1,1}(uv+vu) \oplus T_{1,-1}(uv-vu),$$ $$\pi_2(u,v)\otimes\pi_2(u,v)=T_{1,1}(uv+vu)\oplus T_{1,-1}(uv-vu)\oplus T_{-1,1}(u^2+v^2)\oplus T_{-1,-1}(u^2-v^2).$$
Therefore, ${\Bbbk}D_{16}$ acts inner-faithfully on ${\Bbbk}[u,v]$ and ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]$. Computations similar to the ones performed for the other Kashinas show that ${\Bbbk}[u,v]^{{\Bbbk}D_{16}}={\Bbbk}[uv,u^8+v^8]$, which is AS regular since, by the Chevalley-Shephard-Todd Theorem, $D_{16}$ is a reflection group for ${\Bbbk}[u,v]$. On the other hand, ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]^{{\Bbbk}D_{16}}={\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^8+v^8,uv(u^8-v^8)]$ is not AS regular since, by [@CKWZ Theorem 2.1], ${\Bbbk}D_{16}$ acts with trivial homological determinant on ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]$ so, by [@CKWZ Theorem 2.3], the fixed ring is not AS regular. By Lemma \[lem.cocycle\], the only two-dimensional AS regular algebras that [Kashina \#[12]{}]{} acts on inner-faithfully are ${\Bbbk}[u,v]_J$ and ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]_J$. By the same Lemma it follows that the fixed rings are the same.
Let $A={\Bbbk}[u,v]_J$ with $A_1 = \pi_1$ or $\pi_3$. Let $*$ denote the multiplication in $A$. Since $c=a^4$ acts as $-1$ and $b$ swaps $u$ and $v$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_1 . u &= 0 & \delta_1 .v &= 0\\
\delta_c.u &= 0 & \delta_c.v &= 0 \\
\delta_b.u &= \frac{1}{2}(u+v) & \delta_b.v &= \frac{1}{2}(u+v)\\
\delta_{cb}.u &= \frac{1}{2}(u-v) & \delta_{cb}.v &= -\frac{1}{2}(u-v)\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
u*u &= \sum (J^{(1)} . u)(J^{(2)} .u) = \frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2) &
u*v &= uv - \frac{{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}(u^2-v^2)\\
v*u &= uv + \frac{{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}(u^2-v^2) &
v*v &= \frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2).\end{aligned}$$
Hence, $A$ is a $(-1)$-skew polynomial ring on the generators $u+v$ and $u-v$. Let $X = \frac{1}{2}(u+v)$ and $Y= \frac{1}{2}(u-v)$ so $A \cong {\Bbbk}_{-1}[X,Y]$. Then $$uv = \frac{1}{4}\left((u+v)*(u+v) - (u-v)*(u-v)\right) = X^2 - Y^2,$$ one can also directly check that $$u^8 + v^8 = (X^2-Y^2)^4+32X^2Y^2(X^2+Y^2)^2.$$
Let $B={\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]_J$, with $A_1=\pi_1$ or $\pi_3$. Let $*$ denote the multiplication in $B$. Then one can check that
$$\begin{aligned}
u*u &= \frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)-{\mathbbm{i}}uv &
u*v &= -\frac{{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}(u^2-v^2)\\
v*u &= \frac{{\mathbbm{i}}}{2}(u^2-v^2) &
v*v &=\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)+{\mathbbm{i}}uv.\end{aligned}$$
By setting $X=\frac{1}{2}(u+v)$ and $Y=\frac{1}{2}(u-v)$ it follows that $B\cong \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle X,Y\rangle}{(X^2-Y^2)}$. Direct computations show that $$\begin{aligned}
u^2v^2&=2X^4+(XY)^2+(YX)^2,\\
u^8+v^8&=140X^8-56X^5(YX)Y-56X^4(YX)^2+2X(YX)^3Y+2(YX)^4,\\
uv(u^8-v^8)&=84{\mathbbm{i}}(X^9Y+X^8(YX))-54{\mathbbm{i}}(X^5(YX)^2Y+X^4(YX)^3)\\&\;\;\;+2{\mathbbm{i}}(XY)^4Y+(YX)^5)\end{aligned}$$ We notice that $$u^8+v^8+14(u^2v^2)^2=16(14X^8+(XY)^4+(YX)^4)$$
From the previous results we can deduce the following
\[fixedring12\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[12]{}]{}. Then $H$ acts inner-faithfully on the algebra $\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle X,Y\rangle}{(r)}$ with $r=XY+YX$ or $r=X^2-Y^2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
a.X=\frac{\sqrt2}{2}(\pm X+{\mathbbm{i}}Y),\quad b.X=X\\
a.Y=\frac{\sqrt2}{2}({\mathbbm{i}}X\pm Y),\quad b.Y=-Y.\end{aligned}$$ The invariant rings are
Relation Invariant ring
----------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$XY+YX$ ${\Bbbk}[X^2-Y^2,X^2Y^2(X^2+Y^2)^2]$
$X^2-Y^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[ \begin{array}{ll}2X^4+(XY)^2+(YX)^2,\\14X^8+(XY)^4+(YX)^4,\\42X^8(XY+YX)-27X^4((XY)^3+(YX)^3)\\+((XY)^5+(YX)^5)\end{array}\right]$
The first invariant ring is a commutative polynomial ring, hence AS regular, while the second one is not AS regular by Lemma \[notregular\]
Kashina \#13
------------
There are three non-isomorphic irreducible two-dimensional representations of $SD_{16}$, namely $$\pi_1(a) = \begin{bmatrix} \omega & 0 \\ 0 & \omega^{3} \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_1(b) = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$ $$\pi_2(a) = \begin{bmatrix} {\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \\ 0 & -{\mathbbm{i}}\end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_2(b) = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$ $$\pi_3(a) = \begin{bmatrix} \omega{^{-1}}& 0 \\ 0 & \omega^{-3} \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_3(b) = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}$$ where $\omega = e^{2 \pi {\mathbbm{i}}/ 8}$. There are four one-dimensional representations $T_{\pm 1, \pm 1}$ where the subscript indicates the action on $a$ and $b$ respectively. Arguing as for [Kashina \#[12]{}]{} we deduce that both $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ are faithful group representations of $SD_{16}$ while $\pi_2$ is not. Hence, ${\Bbbk}SD_{16}$ acts inner-faithfully on two generated algebras $A$ where $A_1 = \pi_1$ or $\pi_3$. We have that $$\pi_1(u,v) \otimes \pi_1(u,v) = \pi_2(u^2,v^2) \oplus T_{-1,1}(uv+vu) \oplus T_{-1,-1}(uv-vu)$$ $$\pi_3(u,v) \otimes \pi_3(u,v) = \pi_2(v^2,u^2) \oplus T_{-1,1}(uv+vu) \oplus T_{-1,-1}(uv-vu).$$ Note that $\pi_1(u,v) \otimes \pi_3(u,v) = \pi_2(vu,uv) \oplus T_{1,1}(u^2+v^2) \oplus T_{1,-1}(u^2-v^2)$ so $\pi_1$ and $\pi_3$ are not isomorphic.
Therefore the two generated AS regular algebras that ${\Bbbk}SD_{16}$ acts inner-faithfully on are ${\Bbbk}[u,v]$ and ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]$. We first compute ${\Bbbk}[u,v]^{{\Bbbk}SD_{16}}$. Let $F=\sum\alpha_{n,m}u^nv^m$ be an invariant. If $b.F=F$ then $\alpha_{n,m}=\alpha_{m,n}$. If $a.F=F$ then $n\equiv 5m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;8)$. Therefore an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum_{5m+8k\geq0}\alpha_{k,m}(u^{5m+8k}v^m+u^mv^{5m+8k}).$$ We show that $F$ is generated by the elements $u^2v^2,uv(u^4+v^4),u^8+v^8$. If $4m+8k\geq0$ then we can write $F$ as $$F=\sum_{5m+8k\geq0}\alpha_{k,m}u^mv^m(u^{4m+8k}+v^{4m+8k}),$$ if $m=2h$ for some $h$ then $u^mv^m$ can be generated by $u^2v^2$, while $(u^8)^{h+k}+(v^8)^{h+k}$ can be generated by $u^8+v^8$ and $u^8v^8$ by [@FKMW Lemma 1.10(1)]. If $m=2h+1$ then it suffices to generate $uv(u^{8(h+k)+4}+v^{8(h+k)+4})$. Indeed $$\begin{aligned}
uv(u^4+v^4)(u^{8(h+k)}+v^{8(h+k)})&=uv(u^4v^{8(h+k)}+v^4u^{8(h+k)})\\
&+uv(u^{8(h+k)+4}+v^{8(h+k)+4}),\end{aligned}$$ if $h+k=0$ then we are done, otherwise we write the first summand as $$u^4v^4uv(u^{8(h+k)-4}+v^{8(h+k)-4})$$ which we can generate by induction. If $4m+8k\leq0$ then a similar argument shows that $$F=\sum_{5m+8k\geq0}\alpha_{k,m}u^{5m+8k}v^{5m+8k}(u^{-4m-8k}+v^{-4m-8k})$$ can be generated by $u^2v^2,uv(u^4+v^4),u^8+v^8$. This fixed ring is not AS regular since $SD_{16}$ is not a classical reflection group.
An analogous proof shows that ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]^{{\Bbbk}SD_{16}}={\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,uv(u^4-v^4),u^8+v^8]$, which is not AS regular.
Using the same change of variables done for [Kashina \#[12]{}]{} one can check that in ${\Bbbk}[u,v]$ $$\begin{aligned}
u^2v^2&=(X^2-Y^2)^2,\\
uv(u^4+v^4)&=2(X^6-Y^6+5X^2Y^2(X^2-Y^2)),\\
u^8+v^8&=(X^2-Y^2)^4+32X^2Y^2(X^2+Y^2)^2.\end{aligned}$$ While in ${\Bbbk}_{-1}[u,v]$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
u^2v^2&=2X^4+(XY)^2+(YX)^2,\\
uv(u^4-v^4)&=8X^2((XY)^2-(YX)^2),\\
u^8+v^8&=140X^8-56X^5(YX)Y-56X^4(YX)^2+2X(YX)^3Y+2(YX)^4.\end{aligned}$$ From the previous results we can deduce the following
\[fixedring13\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[13]{}]{}. Then $H$ acts inner-faithfully on the algebra $\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle X,Y\rangle}{(r)}$ with $r=XY+YX$ or $r=X^2-Y^2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
a.X=\pm{\mathbbm{i}}Y,\quad b.X=X\\
a.Y=\pm{\mathbbm{i}}X,\quad b.Y=-Y.\end{aligned}$$ The invariant rings are
Relation Invariant ring
----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$XY+YX$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}(X^2-Y^2)^2,X^2Y^2(X^2+Y^2)^2\\X^6-Y^6+5X^2Y^2(X^2-Y^2)\end{array}\right]$
$X^2-Y^2$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[ \begin{array}{ll}2X^4+(XY)^2+(YX)^2,\\14X^8+(XY)^4+(YX)^4,\\X^2((XY)^2-(YX)^2)\end{array}\right]$
None of the invariant rings is AS regular by Lemma \[notregular\].
${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2 \times C_2$ {#c2Xc2}
==================================
Kashinas \#14-16 have ${\mathbf{G}}(H) = C_2 \times C_2$. 14 and 16 were considered in [@FKMW], and we include those results at the end of this section.
[Kashina \#[15]{}]{} (see [@kashina] p. 659-60) is a smash coproduct ${\Bbbk}Q_8 \#^{\alpha} {\Bbbk}C_2$ where $Q_8 = \langle a, b \mid a^4 = 1, b^2 = a^2, ba = a{^{-1}}b \rangle$ and $C_2 = \{1,g\}$. The map $\alpha: C_2 \to \operatorname{Aut}({\Bbbk}Q_8)$ where $\alpha_g = \alpha(g)$ is defined by $\alpha_g(a) = b$ and $\alpha_g(b) = a$.
Since the algebra structure on $H$ is simply that of ${\Bbbk}Q_8 \otimes {\Bbbk}C_2$, we may present $H$ as generated by $a,b,g$ subject to the relations $$a^4 = 1, b^2 = a^2, ba = a^3b, gb = ag, ga = bg.$$ To describe the rest of the Hopf algebra structure, let $\delta_1 = (1+g)/2$ and $\delta_g = (1-g)/2$. The comultiplication, antipode, and counit are given by the following (using Sweedler notation): $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta (x\delta_{g^k}) &= \sum_{r+t = k}(x_{(1)}\delta_{g^r}) \otimes (\alpha_{g^r}(x_{(2)})\delta_{g^t}), \\
S(x\delta_{g^k}) &= \alpha_{g^k}(S(x))\delta_{g^{-k}}, \\
\varepsilon (x\delta_{1}) &= \varepsilon(x), \\
\varepsilon (x\delta_{g}) &= 0\end{aligned}$$ for all $x \in {\Bbbk}Q_8$. One can then check that the coproduct of [Kashina \#[15]{}]{} satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(a) &= \frac{1}{2}(a \otimes a + ag \otimes a + a \otimes b - ag \otimes b) \\
\Delta(b) &= \frac{1}{2}(b \otimes b + bg \otimes b + b \otimes a - bg \otimes a) \\
\Delta(g) &= g \otimes g.\end{aligned}$$ The group of grouplikes is $\{1,g,a^2,a^2g\}$. There are eight one-dimensional irreducible representations given by $T_{\pm 1, \pm 1, \pm 1}$ where the subscript indicates the action on $a$, $b$, and $g$ respectively. In the Grothendieck ring, we have $$\label{eqn:K15oneDimlTensor}
\begin{aligned}
T_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma} \otimes T_{\alpha', \beta', 1} &= T_{\alpha \alpha', \beta \beta', \gamma} \\
T_{\alpha, \beta, \gamma} \otimes T_{\alpha', \beta', -1} &= T_{\alpha \beta', \alpha'\beta, -\gamma}.
\end{aligned}$$
There are two non-isomorphic two-dimensional irreducible representations, given by the following matrices, for $i \in \{1,2\}$: $$\pi_i(a) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\mathbbm{i}}\\ {\mathbbm{i}}& 0 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_i(b) = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \quad \pi_i(g) = \begin{bmatrix} (-1)^{i+1} & 0 \\ 0 & (-1)^{i+1}\end{bmatrix}.$$ The action of $H$ on $\pi_1(u,v)^{\otimes 2} \oplus \pi_2(u,v)^{\otimes 2}$ is:
----- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- --------------------
$u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
$a$ $-v^2$ $-u^2$ $-vu$ $-uv$ ${\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $- {\mathbbm{i}}u^2$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}vu$ ${\mathbbm{i}}uv$
$b$ $v^2$ $u^2$ $-vu$ $-uv$ ${\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}u^2$ ${\mathbbm{i}}vu$ $-{\mathbbm{i}}uv$
$g$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$ $u^2$ $v^2$ $uv$ $vu$
----- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------------------- ---------------------- -------------------- --------------------
Therefore one has decompositions: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1(u,v) \otimes \pi_1(u,v) =& ~T_{1,1,1}(uv-vu) \oplus T_{1,-1,1}(u^2-v^2) \oplus \\
& ~T_{-1,1,1}(u^2+v^2) \oplus T_{-1,-1,1}(uv+vu) \\
\pi_2(u,v) \otimes \pi_2(u,v) =& ~T_{1,1,1}(u^2 + {\mathbbm{i}}v^2) \oplus T_{1,-1,1}(uv - {\mathbbm{i}}vu) \oplus \\
& ~T_{-1,1,1}(uv + {\mathbbm{i}}vu) \oplus T_{-1,-1,1}(u^2 - {\mathbbm{i}}v^2)\end{aligned}$$ One may also check that $\pi_i \otimes T_{\beta,\gamma,1} \cong \pi_i$ for $i = 1,2$ and $\beta,\gamma \in \{\pm 1\}$. It follows that [Kashina \#[15]{}]{} does not act inner-faithfully on any two-generated algebras.
The action of [Kashina \#[15]{}]{} on the representation $$\begin{aligned}
(\pi_1(u,v) \otimes T_{\beta,\gamma,-1}) \oplus (T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} \otimes \pi_1(u,v)) \oplus \\
(\pi_2(u,v) \otimes T_{\beta,\gamma,-1}) \oplus (T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} \otimes \pi_2(u,v))\end{aligned}$$ is given in the table below:
----- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
$ut$ $vt$ $tu$ $tv$ $ut$ $vt$ $tu$ $tv$
$a$ $\beta{\mathbbm{i}}vt$ $\beta{\mathbbm{i}}ut$ $\beta tv$ $-\beta tu$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}vt$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}ut$ $\beta tv$ $-\beta tu$
$b$ $\gamma vt$ $-\gamma ut$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}tv$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}tu$ $\beta vt$ $-\beta ut$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}tv$ $\gamma{\mathbbm{i}}tu$
$g$ $-ut$ $-vt$ $-tu$ $-tv$ $ut$ $vt$ $tu$ $tv$
----- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
One therefore has the following decompositions: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1(u,v) \otimes T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} &=
\begin{cases}
\pi_2(ut,\beta vt) & \beta = \gamma \\
\pi_2(vt,\beta ut) & \beta \neq \gamma
\end{cases} \\
T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} \otimes \pi_1(u,v) &=
\begin{cases}
\pi_2(tv,\beta{\mathbbm{i}}tu) & \beta = \gamma \\
\pi_2(tu,-\beta{\mathbbm{i}}tv) & \beta \neq \gamma
\end{cases} \\
\pi_2(u,v) \otimes T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} &=
\begin{cases}
\pi_1(ut,\beta vt) & \beta = \gamma \\
\pi_1(vt,-\beta ut) & \beta \neq \gamma
\end{cases} \\
T_{\beta,\gamma,-1} \otimes \pi_2(u,v) &=
\begin{cases}
\pi_1(tv,\beta{\mathbbm{i}}tu) & \beta = \gamma \\
\pi_1(tu,-\beta{\mathbbm{i}}tv) & \beta \neq \gamma.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that [Kashina \#[15]{}]{} acts inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$, where $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\mathbbm{i}}\alpha \\ \alpha & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ for a nonzero scalar $\alpha$, $r = uv \pm vu$ and $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_1(u,v) \oplus T_{\beta,\gamma,-1}$. Note that $\sigma$ does not induce an automorphism on the base of the Ore extension when $r = u^2 \pm v^2$.
[Kashina \#[15]{}]{} also acts inner-faithfully on $A = \frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u, v \rangle}{(r)}[t;\sigma]$, where $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & \beta\gamma\alpha{\mathbbm{i}}\\ \alpha & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ for a nonzero scalar $\alpha$, $r = u^2 \pm {\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ and $A_1$ is the representation $\pi_2(u,v) \oplus T_{\beta,\gamma,-1}(t)$. Note that $\sigma$ does not induce an automorphism on the base of the Ore extension when $r = uv \pm {\mathbbm{i}}vu$.
\[lem:K15evenTdeg\] The $t$-degree of any invariant must be even.
If $i = 1$, then the claim is immediate from the action of $g$. Suppose that $ft^h$ is a nonzero invariant with $f$ in the subalgebra generated by $u$ and $v$ with $h$ odd, and $i = 2$. It follows that ${\Bbbk}f$ must be a representation which is the multiplicative inverse of the representation ${\Bbbk}t^h$ in the Grothendieck ring. No such nonzero $f$ exists, however, since $g$ acts as $-1$ on ${\Bbbk}t^h$, and all one dimensional representations that appear as a summand of a tensor power of $\pi_2$ have trivial action of $g$ (cf. Equation ).
We now compute the invariants for the action of $H$ on $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(uv\pm vu)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1=\pi_1(u,v)\oplus T_{(-1)^p,(-1)^q,-1}$. Since $g$ acts trivially on $u,v,t^2$ it follows that $a,b$ act as group-like elements on $u,v,t^2$, therefore $$a.(u^nv^mt^{2h})={\mathbbm{i}}^{n+m+2(p+q)h}v^nu^mt^{2h},\quad b.(u^nv^mt^{2h})=(-1)^{m+(p+q)h}v^nu^mt^{2h}.$$ Let $F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^nv^mt^{2h}$ be an invariant (the power of $t$ must be even by Lemma \[lem:K15evenTdeg\]). The action of $a$ and of $b$ imply that if $\alpha_{n,m,h}\neq0$ then ${\mathbbm{i}}^{n+m+2(p+q)h}=(-1)^{m+(p+q)h}$, which implies that $n\equiv m\;(\mathrm{mod}\;4)$. Now arguing as in the previous Kashinas it follows that if $r=uv-vu$ then an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^nv^n(u^{4m}+(-1)^{m+(p+q)h}v^{4m})t^{2h},$$ and if $r=uv+vu$ then $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^nv^n(u^{4m}+(-1)^{(p+q)h}v^{4m})t^{2h}.$$
We now compute the invariants for the action of $H$ on $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v\rangle}{(u^2\pm{\mathbbm{i}}v^2)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1=\pi_2(u,v)\oplus T_{(-1)^p,(-1)^q,-1}$. An induction argument shows $$a.(u^n)={\mathbbm{i}}^{n-\frac{n(n-1)(2n-1)}{6}}v^n,\quad b.(u^n)={\mathbbm{i}}^{\frac{n(n-1)(2n-1)}{6}}v^n,$$ $$a.(vu)^n={\mathbbm{i}}^n(uv)^n,\quad b.(vu)^n={\mathbbm{i}}^{3n}(uv)^n,$$ $$a.(uv)^n={\mathbbm{i}}^{3n}(vu)^n,\quad b.(uv)^n={\mathbbm{i}}^n(vu)^n,$$ $$a.(t^n)=(-1)^{(p+q)\frac{n(n-1)}{2}+pn}t^n,\quad b.(t^n)=(-1)^{(p+q)\frac{n(n-1)}{2}+qn}t^n.$$ By Lemma \[lem:K15evenTdeg\] the degree of $t$ in an invariant must be even, therefore an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^n(vu)^mt^{2h}+\sum\beta_{l,j,k}u^l(vu)^jvt^{2k},$$ the action of $g$ implies that $n$ must be even and $l$ must be odd, therefore replacing $n$ with $2n$ and $l$ with $2l+1$ the invariant $F$ can be written as $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^{2n}(vu)^mt^{2h}+\sum\beta_{l,j,k}u^{2l}(uv)^{j+1}t^{2k}.$$ Since $g$ acts trivially on monomials of even degree it follows that $a$ and $b$ act group-like on products of monomials of even degree, therefore using the formulae above it follows that $$a.(u^{2n}(vu)^mt^{2h})={\mathbbm{i}}^{-n+2n^2+m+2(p+q)h}v^{2n}(uv)^mt^{2h},$$ $$b.(u^{2n}(vu)^mt^{2h})={\mathbbm{i}}^{-n+2n^2+3m+2(p+q)h}v^{2n}(uv)^mt^{2h}.$$ By equating the exponent of the ${\mathbbm{i}}'s$ modulo 4 it follows that $m$ must be even. Similarly it follows that $j$ must be odd. Now arguing as for the previous Kashinas it follows that if $r=u^2-{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ then an invariant must be of the form $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^{2n}((uv)^{2m}+(-1)^{m+(p+q)h}(vu)^{2m})t^{2h},$$ and if $r=u^2+{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ then $$F=\sum\alpha_{n,m,h}u^{2n}((uv)^{2m}+(-1)^{n+m+(p+q)h}(vu)^{2m})t^{2h}.$$
Using the results from [@FKMW Subsection 1.4] we have the following
\[fixedring15\] Let $H$ be [Kashina \#[15]{}]{}. Then $H$ acts inner faithfully on the algebras $A$ and $B$ given below:
1. $A=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v,\rangle}{(uv\pm vu)}[t;\sigma]$ with $A_1 = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ where $\pi$ is an irreducible two-dimensional representation with $g.u=u$, $T$ is a one-dimensional representation with $g.t=-t$, and $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & {\mathbbm{i}}\alpha \\ \alpha & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ for $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$.
2. $B=\frac{{\Bbbk}\langle u,v,\rangle}{(u^2\pm{\mathbbm{i}}v^2)}[t;\sigma]$ with $B_1 = \pi(u,v) \oplus T(t)$ where $\pi$ is an irreducible two-dimensional representation with $g.u=-u$, $T$ is a one-dimensional representation with $a.t=(-1)^pt, b.t=(-1)^qt,g.t=-t$ for $p,q \in \{0, 1\}$, and $\sigma = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & (-1)^{p+q}{\mathbbm{i}}\alpha \\ \alpha & 0 \end{bmatrix}$ with $\alpha \in {\Bbbk}^\times$.
The invariant rings for these actions are:
$\pi$ $r$ $T_{(-1)^p,(-1)^q,-1}$ Invariant ring
--------- -------------------------- --------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\pi_1$ $uv-vu$ $p\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),t^2]$
$\pi_1$ $uv-vu$ $p\not\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^2v^2,u^4+v^4,uv(u^4-v^4),\\(u^4-v^4)t^2,uvt^2,t^4\end{array}\right]$
$\pi_1$ $uv+vu$ $p\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,t^2]$
$\pi_1$ $uv+vu$ $p\not\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[uv,u^4+v^4,(u^4-v^4)t^2,t^4]$
$\pi_2$ $u^2-{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $p\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2, (uv)^2-(vu)^2, t^2]$
$\pi_2$ $u^2-{\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $p \not\equiv q \; (\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[u^2,(uv)^2-(vu)^2, ((uv)^2+(vu)^2)t^2,t^4]$
$\pi_2$ $u^2+ {\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $p \equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\;2)$ ${\Bbbk}[u^4,(uv)^2-(vu)^2, u^2((uv)^2+(vu)^2),t^2]$
$\pi_2$ $u^2 + {\mathbbm{i}}v^2$ $p \not\equiv q\;(\mathrm{mod}\; 2)$ ${\Bbbk}\!\!\left[\begin{array}{ll}u^4, (uv)^2-(vu)^2, u^2((uv)^2+(vu)^2),\\ u^2t^2, ((uv)^2 +(vu)^2)t^2, t^4\end{array}\right] $
The invariant rings in the third and fifth rows are Ore extensions of commutative polynomial rings, and hence [Kashina \#[15]{}]{} is a reflection Hopf algebra for the actions described in those rows. The other invariant rings are not AS regular by Lemma \[notregular\].
[Kashina \#[14]{}]{} ([@kashina p. 638]) is $\mathcal{A}_{16}$ and 16 ([@kashina pp/ 640-1])is $\mathcal{B}_{16}$, in the notation of [@M] and [@FKMW]. See [@FKMW Section 6] for the details on $\mathcal{A}_{16}$ and [@FKMW Section 4] for the details on $\mathcal{B}_{16}$.
([@FKMW Section 6.3, and Theorem 6.10]) \[fixedring14\] $H={\mathcal{A}}_{16}$ has no inner-faithful two-dimensional representations, but acts inner-faithfully on five AS regular Ore extensions of dimension 3, and is a reflection Hopf algebra for three of these algebras.
([@FKMW Section 4.2, Theorems 4.7 and 4.8]) \[fixedring16\] $H={\mathcal{B}}_{16}$ has eight inner-faithful two-dimensional representations, and is a reflection Hopf algebra for four of these algebras.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Ľudmila Bezegová, Borut Lužar, Martina Mockovčiaková,\
Roman Soták[^1], Riste Škrekovski[^2]
title: Star edge coloring of some classes of graphs
---
Introduction
============
A *star edge coloring* of a graph $G$ is a proper edge coloring where at least three distinct colors are used on the edges of every path and cycle of length four, i.e., there is neither bichromatic path nor cycle of length four. The minimum number of colors for which $G$ admits a star edge coloring is called the *star chromatic index* and it is denoted by ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)}$.
The star edge coloring was initiated in 2008 by Liu and Deng [@LiuDen08], motivated by the vertex version (see [@AlbChaKieKunRam04; @BuCraMonRasWan09; @CheRasWan13; @Gru73; @KieKunTim09; @NesOss03]). Recently, Dvořák, Mohar and Šámal [@DvoMohSam13] determined upper and lower bounds for complete graphs.
\[thm:complete\] The star chromatic index of the complete graph $K_n$ satisfies $$2n (1 + o(1)) \le {\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(K_n)} \le n \frac{2^{2\sqrt{2}(1+o(1))\sqrt{\log{n}}}}{(\log{n}^{1/4})}\,.$$ In particular, for every $\epsilon >0$ there exists a constant $c$ such that ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(K_n)} \le cn^{1+\epsilon}$ for every $n\ge 1$.
They asked what is the true order of magnitude of ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(K_n)}$, in particular, if ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(K_n)} = O(n)$. From Theorem \[thm:complete\], they also derived the following near-linear upper bound in terms of the maximum degree $\Delta$ for general graphs.
Let $G$ be an arbitrary graph of maximum degree $\Delta$. Then $${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le {\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(K_{\Delta + 1})} \cdot O \bigg( \frac{\log \Delta}{\log \log \Delta} \bigg)^2\,,$$ and therefore ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le \Delta \cdot 2^{O(1)\sqrt{\log \Delta}}$.
In addition, Dvořak et al. considered cubic graphs and showed that the star chromatic index lies between $4$ and $7$.
- If $G$ is a subcubic graph, then ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le 7$.
- If $G$ is a simple cubic graph, then ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \ge 4$, and the equality holds if and only if $G$ covers the graph of the $3$-cube.
A graph $G$ *covers* a graph $H$ if there is a locally bijective graph homomorphism from $G$ to $H$. While there exist cubic graphs with the star chromatic index equal to $6$, e.g., $K_{3,3}$ or Heawood graph, no example of a subcubic graph that would require $7$ colors is known. Thus, Dvořak et al. proposed the following conjecture.
If $G$ is a subcubic graph, then ${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)}~\le~6$.
In this paper we determine a tight star chromatic index of subcubic outerplanar graphs and trees, and an upper bound for star chromatic index of outerplanar graphs.
Throughout the paper, we mostly use the terminology used in [@BonMur08]. In a graph with colored edges, we say that a color $c$ *appears* at vertex $v$, whenever there is an edge incident with $v$ and colored by $c$. In a rooted tree, the root is considered to be at *level $0$*, its neighbors at *level $1$* ($1$-*level vertices*), etc. An edge is of *level $i$* ($i$-*level edge*) if its two endvertices are at level $i$ and $i+1$. A path of four edges is referred to as a $4$-path.
Trees
=====
A tight upper bound for acyclic graphs is presented in this section. For example, a star chromatic index of every tree with a $\Delta$-vertex whose all neighbors are $\Delta$-vertices achieves the upper bound.
\[thm:trees\] Let $T$ be a tree with maximum degree $\Delta$. Then $${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(T)} \le \bigg \lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \bigg \rfloor\,.$$ Moreover, the bound is tight.
First we prove the tightness of the bound. Let $T$ be a rooted tree with a root $v$ of degree $\Delta$ and let each of its neighbors $v_i$ have $\Delta-1$ leafs. Thus, $T$ has $\Delta (\Delta-1)$ $1$-level edges. In an optimal coloring with $\Delta + k$ colors suppose that each edge $vv_i$ is colored by $i$. Note that for any distinct neighbors $v_i$, $v_j$ of $v$ we have that if the color $j$ appears at $v_i$ the color $i$ does not appear at $v_j$, and vice versa. Thus, colors $1,\ldots, \Delta$ may appear together at most $\Delta(\Delta-1)/2$ times at $1$-level edges. Moreover, each of the colors $\Delta+1,\ldots,\Delta + k$ may appear at each $v_i$, so together they appear $k\Delta$ times at $1$-level edges. Hence, it must hold $$\Delta(\Delta-1)/2 + k\,\Delta \ge \Delta(\Delta-1)\,,$$ which implies that $k \ge (\Delta-1)/2$ and gives the tightness of our bound.
Now, we present a construction of a star edge coloring $\varphi$ of $T$ using colors from a set $C$, where $|C| = \big\lfloor\frac{3}{2}\Delta \big\rfloor$. First, we select an arbitrary vertex $v$ of $T$ to be the root of $T$. Moreover, to every vertex of degree at least $2$ in $T$ we add some edges such that its degree increases to $\Delta$. In particular, every vertex in $T$ has degree $\Delta$ or $1$ after this modification. For every vertex $u$ of $T$ we denote its neighbors by $n_0(u),\dots,n_{\Delta-1}(u)$; here we always choose its eventual predecessor regarding the root $v$ to be $n_0(u)$. By $t(u)$, for $u \neq v$, we denote an integer $i$ such that $u = n_i(n_0(u))$, and by $C(u)$ we denote the current set of colors of the edges incident to $u$.
We obtain $\varphi$ in the following way. First we color the edges incident to the root $v$ such that $\varphi(vn_i(v)) = i + 1$, for $i = 0,1,\dots,\Delta-1$. Then, we continue by coloring the edges incident to the remaining vertices, in particular, we first color the edges incident to the vertices of level 1, then the edges incident to the vertices of level 2 etc.
Let $u$ be a $k$-level vertex whose incident $k$-level edges are not colored yet. Let $C^\prime(n_0(u)) = C\setminus C(n_0(u))$ be the set of colors that are not used for the edges incident to $n_0(u)$. Since $|C^\prime(n_0(u))|=\big\lfloor\frac{\Delta}{2} \big\rfloor$, for the edges $un_{\Delta-i}(u)$ for $i=1,\dots,\big\lfloor\frac{\Delta}{2} \big\rfloor$ we use distinct colors from the set $C^\prime(n_0(u))$.
Next, we color the remaining edges incident to $u$. There are $\big\lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \big\rceil - 1$ of such edges. We color the edges one by one for $i = 1,\dots, \big\lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \big\rceil -1$ $(*)$ with colors from $C(n_0(u))$ as follows. Let $j = (t(u) + i) \bmod{\Delta}$ and set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2stars}
\varphi(un_i(u)) = \varphi(n_0(u)n_{j}(n_0(u)))\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Notice that after the above procedure is performed for each vertex $u$ all the edges of $T$ are colored.
It remains to verify that $\varphi$ is indeed a star edge coloring of $T$. It is easy to see that the edges incident to the same vertex receive distinct colors, so we only need to show that there is no bichromatic $4$-path in $T$. Suppose, for a contradiction, that there is such a path $P = wxyzt$ with $\varphi(xw) = \varphi(yz)$ and $\varphi(xy) = \varphi(tz)$. Assume, without loss of generality, that $d(v,w) > d(v,z)$. Note also that $y = n_0(x)$, $w = n_i(x)$, for some $i > 0$, and $z = n_j(y)$, for some $j \ge 0$. Since $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(xw) &=& \varphi(yz) \\
\varphi(xn_i(x)) &=& \varphi(n_0(x)n_j(n_0(x)))\,,
\end{aligned}$$ by we have that $j = (t(x) + i) \bmod{\Delta}$. Hence, $z = n_{t(x) + i}(y)$ and by $(*)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a}
1\le i \le \bigg\lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \bigg\rceil -1.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, we consider two cases regarding the value of $j$. First, suppose $j = (t(x) + i) \bmod{\Delta} = 0$ (it means that $i + t(x) = \Delta$). Since $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(z t) &=& \varphi(y x) \\
\varphi(n_0(y) n_\ell(n_0(y))) &=& \varphi(y n_{t(x)}(y))\,,
\end{aligned}$$ as above, by , we have that $\ell = (t(y) + t(x)) \bmod{\Delta}$ and by $(*)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:b}
1\le t(x) \le \bigg\lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \bigg\rceil -1.
\end{aligned}$$ By summing and and using $i + t(x) = \Delta$, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta = i + t(x) \le 2 \bigg \lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \bigg \rceil-2 < \Delta,
\end{aligned}$$
a contradiction. Second, let $j > 0$. Then, $y = n_0(z)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(y x) &=& \varphi(z t) \\
\varphi(n_0(z) n_{t(x)}(n_0(z))) &=& \varphi(z n_{\ell}(z))\,.
\end{aligned}$$ By , $t(x) = (t(z) + \ell) \bmod{\Delta}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:c}
1\le \ell \le \bigg \lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \bigg \rceil-1\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $j = t(x) + i$ and $t(z) = j$, we have $$t(x) = (t(z) + \ell) \bmod{\Delta} = (t(x) + i + \ell) \bmod{\Delta}\,.$$ So, $i + \ell = \Delta$ and, similarly as in the previous case, by summing and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta = i + \ell \le 2\bigg \lceil \frac{\Delta}{2} \bigg \rceil < \Delta,
\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction that establishes the theorem.
Outerplanar graphs
==================
In this section we consider outerplanar graphs. First, we use the bound from Theorem \[thm:trees\] to derive an upper bound for outerplanar graphs.
\[thm:outer\] Let $G$ be an outerplanar graph with maximum degree $\Delta$. Then, $${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le \bigg \lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \bigg \rfloor + 12\,.$$
Let $G$ be an outerplanar graph and $v$ a vertex of $G$. Let $T$ be a rooted spanning tree of $G$ with the root $v$ such that for any vertex $u \in V(G)$ is $d_G(v,u) = d_T(v,u)$. By Theorem \[thm:trees\], there exists a star edge coloring $\varphi$ of $T$ with at most $\big \lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \big \rfloor$ colors.
Now, we consider the edges of $G$ which are not contained in $T$. Let $uw \in E(G)\setminus E(T)$ be an edge such that $d(v,u) = k$, $d(v,w) = \ell$, and $k \le \ell$. By the definition of $T$, we have that either $k = \ell$ or $k = \ell - 1$. In the former case, we refer to $uw$ as a *horizontal edge* (or a *$k$-horizontal edge*), and in the latter case, we call it a *diagonal edge* (or a *$k$-diagonal edge*) (see Fig. \[fig:outer\] for an example).
$$\includegraphics{fig_outer}$$
Since outerplanar graphs do not contain $K_{4}$-minors, we have that the horizontal edges induce a linear forest in $G$, i.e., a graph in which every component is a path. It is easy to see that $3$ colors suffice for a star coloring of a path. We use three additional colors for all the $k$-horizontal edges when $k$ is odd, and another three colors for the $k$-horizontal edges when $k$ is even, six additional colors altogether. Obviously, no bichromatic $4$-path is introduced in $G$.
It remains to color the diagonal edges. Let $L_k$ be the bipartite graph whose vertices are the $k$-level and $(k+1)$-level vertices of $G$, and two vertices are adjacent if they are adjacent in $T$ (*red edges*), or they are connected by a $k$-diagonal edge (*blue edges*). Since $G$ is $K_{2,3}$-minor free, $L_k$ is acyclic.
Every $k$-level vertex is incident to at most two blue edges in $L_k$, and every $(k+1)$-level vertex is incident to at most one blue edge in $L_k$. If a $k$-level vertex $w$ is incident to two blue edges $wx$ and $wy$, none of its successors in $T$ is incident to a blue edge in $L_k$, and the predecessors of $x$ and $y$ in $T$ are incident to at most one blue edge in $L_k$.
This properties imply that the $k$-diagonal edges can be colored with two colors such that no bichromatic path is introduced in $G$. For instance, we first color the edges incident to eventual $k$-level vertices that are incident to two $k$-diagonal edges, and then the remaining edges. We use $2$ distinct colors for the $k$-diagonal edges when $k \equiv 0 \pmod{3}$, another two when $k \equiv 1 \pmod{3}$, and two when $k \equiv 2 \pmod{3}$, so $6$ altogether.
Hence, we obtain a star edge coloring of $G$ with at most $\lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \rfloor$ + $12$ colors.
In a special case when a maximum degree of an outerplanar graph is $3$, we prove that five colors suffice for a star edge coloring. Moreover, the bound is tight. Consider a $5$-cycle $v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5$ with one pendent edge at every vertex (see Figure \[fig:outersub\]).
$$\includegraphics{fig_outersub}$$
In case that only four colors suffice, all four should be used on the edges of the cycle and only one could be used twice, so the coloring of the cycle is unique up to the permutation of colors. Consider the coloring of the cycle in Figure \[fig:outersub\]. Only the color $4$ may be used for the pendent edge incident to $v_4$. But, in this case, all the colors are forbidden for the pendent edge incident to $v_1$, which means that we need at least $5$ colors for a star edge coloring of the graph. In particular, we may color all the pendent edges of the graph by color $5$ and obtain a star $5$-edge coloring.
Before we prove the theorem, we present a technical lemma. A *cactus graph* is a (multi)graph in which every block is a cycle or an edge. We say that a cactus graph is a *light* cactus graph if the following properties hold:
- all the vertices have degree $2$ or $4$;
- only the vertices of degree $4$ are cutvertices;
- on every cycle there are at most two vertices of degree $2$. Moreover, if there are two vertices of degree $2$ on a cycle, then they are adjacent.
\[lem:cactus\] Every outerplanar embedding of a light cactus graph admits a proper $4$-edge coloring such that no bichromatic $4$-path exists on the boundary of the outer face.
The proof is by induction on the number $n_c$ of cutvertices of a light cactus graph $L$. The base case with $n_c = 0$ is trivial, since $L$ has at most two edges. In case when $n_c = 1$, $L$ is isomorphic to one of the three graphs depicted in Fig. \[fig:subcubic1\], together with the colorings of the edges.
$$\includegraphics{fig_cactus_small1}$$
Now, let $L$ contain $k$ cutvertices, $k \ge 2$. Then, there is a block $M$ of $L$ that contains at least two cutvertices of $L$. Let $v_1, v_2,\dots,v_\ell$, $2 \le \ell \le k$, be the cutvertices of $L$ in $M$. Every $v_i$ is incident to two edges $t_i^1$ and $t_i^2$ of $L$ such that $t_i^1,t_i^2 \notin E(M)$, we call such edges *tentacles*. Note that these two edges belong to a same block.
Let $L_i$ be the component of $L \setminus E(M)$ containing $v_i$ (and so $t_i^1$ and $t_i^2$). Let $H_i$ be the graph obtained from $L_i$ by connecting the vertex $v_i$ with a new vertex $u_i$ with two edges $e_i$ and $f_i$. By induction hypothesis, every $H_i$ admits a coloring with at most $4$ colors.
Next, let $L_M$ be a subgraph of $L$ consisting of the cycle $M$ and all its tentacles. We color the edges of $L_M$ as follows. If $M$ is an even cycle, we color the edges of $M$ by the colors $1$ and $2$, and the tentacles by colors $3$ and $4$ in such a way that the tentacles of color $3$ are always on the same side, i.e., contraction of the edges of $M$ results in a star with the edges alternately colored by $3$ and $4$ (see Fig. \[fig:tentacles\]).
$$\includegraphics{fig_tentacles}$$
In case when $M$ is an odd cycle, it contains a pair of adjacent cutvertices $u$ and $v$ of $L$. Without loss of generality, we choose $u$ to be incident to an eventual vertex of degree $2$ of $M$. We color the edge $uv$ with color $3$, and the remaining edges of $M$ alternately by the colors $1$ and $2$ starting at the edge incident to $u$. Next, we color the tentacles by colors $3$ and $4$ similarly as in the previous case such that the tentacles of color $3$ are always on the same side, in particular the edge of color $4$ incident to $u$ is consecutive to the edge of color $1$ incident to $u$ on the boundary of the outerface of $L_M$. In the end, we recolor the tentacles incident to the vertices $u$ and $v$ as follows.
In case when $M$ is a cycle of length $3$ with a vertex of degree $2$, we recolor the tentacle of color $3$ incident to $u$ by color $2$, and the tentacles of color $4$ and $3$ incident to $v$ by colors $1$ and $4$, respectively (see the left graph in Fig. \[fig:tentaclesodd\]). Otherwise, if $M$ is not a cycle of length $3$ with a vertex of degree $2$, we recolor the tentacle of color $3$ incident to $u$ by color $2$, and the tentacle of color $3$ incident to $v$ by color $1$ (see the right graph in Fig. \[fig:tentaclesodd\] for an example).
$$\includegraphics{fig_tentaclesodd}$$
Observe that every four consecutive edges along the boundary of the outer face in $L_M$ receive at least three distinct colors. Moreover, every three consecutive edges along the boundary of the outer face of $L_M$ starting at a tentacle receive three distinct colors.
Finally, we permute the colors in each component $L_i$ to match the coloring of $L_M$ (we identify the edges $e_i$ and $f_i$ with the tentacles of $M$ incident to $v_i$). It is easy to see that we obtain an edge coloring without bichromatic $4$-path along the boundary of the outer face of the graph $L$. Namely, let $P$ be a $4$-path along the outer face in $L$. If at least three edges of $P$ are in $L_M$, then $P$ is not bichromatic. On the other hand, if $L_M$ contains at most two edges of $P$, then all the edges of $P$ belong to some component $L_i$. Hence, we have shown that every outerplanar embedding of a light cactus graph $L$ admits a proper $4$-edge coloring such that no bichromatic $4$-path exists on the boundary of the outer face, and so establish the lemma.
\[thm:outersub\] Let $G$ be a subcubic outerplanar graph. Then, $${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le 5\,.$$
Let $G$ be a minimal counterexample to the theorem, i.e., a subcubic outerplanar graph with the minimum number of edges that does not admit a star edge coloring with at most $5$ colors. We also assume that $G$ is embedded in the plane. We first discuss a structural property of $G$ and then show that there exists a star $5$-edge coloring in $G$, hence obtaining a contradiction.
Suppose that $G$ contains a bridge $uv$, where $u$ and $v$ have degree at least $2$ (we call the edge $uv$ a *nontrivial bridge*). Let $G_u$ and $G_v$ be the two components of $G - uv$ containing the vertex $u$ and $v$, respectively. Let $H_u = G[V(G_u) \cup {\ensuremath{\left\{v \right\}}}]$, i.e., a subgraph of $G$ induced by the vertices in $V(G_u) \cup {\ensuremath{\left\{v \right\}}}$, and similarly, let $H_v = G[V(G_v) \cup {\ensuremath{\left\{u \right\}}}]$. By the minimality of $G$, there exist star $5$-edge colorings of $H_u$ and $H_v$. We may assume (eventually after a permutation of the colors), that $uv$ is given the color $5$ in both graphs $H_u$ and $H_v$ and all the edges incident to the edge $uv$ are colored by distinct colors. It is easy to see that the colorings of $H_u$ and $H_v$ induce a star $5$-edge coloring of $G$, a contradiction.
Hence, we may assume that $G$ has no nontrivial bridge, so $G$ is comprised of an outer cycle $C = v_1v_2\dots v_k$, some chords of $C$ and some pendent edges. Now, we construct a star $5$-edge coloring of $G$. We will show that there exists a star edge coloring of the edges of $C$ by the four colors in such a way that every chord of $C$ is incident to the four distinctly colored edges. That means that after we color the chords and pendent edges by the fifth color a star $5$-edge coloring of $G$ is obtained.
First, we remove the pendent edges and then maximize the number of chords of $C$ by joining pairs of nonadjacent $2$-vertices incident to common inner faces. We obtain a $2$-connected subcubic outerplanar graph $G'$ which is either isomorphic to $C_3$ or every inner face $f$ of $G'$ is incident to at most two $2$-vertices. Moreover, if $f$ is incident to two $2$-vertices, they are adjacent.
Now, let $G''$ denote the graph obtained from $G'$ by contracting the chords. Observe that $G''$ is an outerplanar multigraph with vertices of degree $2$ or $4$, where the $4$-vertices are the cutvertices obtained by chord contractions, and the $2$-vertices of $G''$ are the $2$-vertices of $G'$. In fact, $G''$ is a light cactus graph (see Fig. \[fig:lightcactus\] for an example).
$$\includegraphics{fig_precactus}$$
It remains to find a star coloring of $G$. By Lemma \[lem:cactus\], we can color the edges of $G''$ with four colors such that no bichromatic $4$-path exists on the boundary of the outer face. This coloring induces a partial edge coloring of $G$, where only the chords of $C$ and the pendent edges remain noncolored. We color them by color $5$. Since all the edges incident to any edge of color $5$ receive distinct colors, we obtain a star $5$-edge coloring of $G$. This completes the proof.
In Theorem \[thm:outer\], we proved that $\big \lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \big \rfloor + 12$ colors suffice for a star edge coloring of every outerplanar graph. Let us mention that the constant $12$ can be decreased to $9$ using more involved analysis. However, we prefer to present a short proof, since the precise bound is probably considerably lower. In particular, we believe that the following conjecture holds.
Let $G$ be an outerplanar graph with maximum degree $\Delta\ge 3$. Then, $${\chi_{\textrm{st}}'(G)} \le \bigg \lfloor \frac{3}{2} \Delta \bigg \rfloor +1\,.$$
For graphs with maximum degree $\Delta=2$, i.e. for paths and cycles, there exist star edge colorings with at most $3$ colors except for $C_5$ which requires $4$ colors. In case of subcubic outerplanar graphs the conjecture is confirmed by Theorem \[thm:outersub\].
[^1]: Institute of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia. Supported in part by Science and Technology Assistance Agency under the contract No. APVV-0023-10 (R. Soták), Slovak VEGA Grant No. 1/0652/12 (M. Mockovčiakova, R. Soták), and VVGS UPJŠ No. 59/12-13 (M. Mockovčiakova). All the authors where supported in part by bilateral project SK-SI-0005-10 between Slovakia and Slovenia. E-Mails: `[email protected], {ludmila.bezegova,martina.mockovciakova}@student.upjs.sk`
[^2]: Faculty of Information Studies, Novo mesto, Slovenia & Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Partially supported by ARRS Program P1-0383. E-Mails: `{borut.luzar,skrekovski}@gmail.com`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Non-photorealistic rendering techniques work on image features and often manipulate a set of characteristics such as edges and texture to achieve a desired depiction of the scene. Most computational photography methods decompose an image using edge preserving filters and work on the resulting base and detail layers independently to achieve desired visual effects. We propose a new approach for content-aware non-photorealistic rendering of images where we manipulate the visually salient and the non-salient regions separately. We propose a novel content-aware framework in order to render an image for applications such as detail exaggeration, artificial blurring and image abstraction. The processed regions of the image are blended seamlessly for all these applications. We demonstrate that content awareness of the proposed method leads to automatic generation of non-photorealistic rendering of the same image for the different applications mentioned above.'
author:
-
-
title: 'Automatic Content-aware Non-Photorealistic Rendering of Images'
---
Introduction
============
Non-photorealistic rendering of images have traditionally been done globally on the entire image grid. We would like to ask the question: can we achieve much better rendering of the given image if we deal with the image content in a content-aware manner? Content-aware processing has aided application such as re-targeting ([@mansfield2010scene],[@avidan2007seam]) and visual tracking [@yang2009context]. We would like to explore the possibility of modern image filters with content-aware processing for more effective non-photorealistic rendering of images automatically. The challenge is to design a common pipeline for applications such as detail exaggeration, image abstraction and artificial blurring.
Consider an image which needs to be manipulated by an artist in a content-aware manner. She may want to alter certain aspects corresponding to the foreground region in the image without altering the other contents. She would like to alter it using certain image editing software according to her requirements and then use the resulting image for display purposes. To achieve this, she would have to manually select that portion of the image in the software every time. Further, the region needs to be manipulated using specific tools manually which is quite time consuming for multiple images. Instead, if the process of altering the foreground region with the desired manipulation is made automatic, then such a problem can be addressed efficiently. The idea is to make image manipulation software to be content-aware with no human effort, thereby increasing the processing speed for large amount of images.
Recent advances in computational photography applications focus on filtering algorithms for image processing. The need for preserving the edges during the smoothing operation in an image led to the development of edge preserving filters. One such filter is the bilateral filter. Well known filters such as box filter, Gaussian filter, and Laplacian filter perform convolution across the edges in an image. However, edges across low texture variations, i.e, weaker edges, if smoothened will give a cartoon like appearance to the image which is known as image abstraction. Notable applications involving bilateral filter are high dynamic range compression [@durand2002fast], flash/no-flash fusion [@petschnigg2004digital], tone management [@bae2006two] and non-photorealistic relighting [@fattal2007multiscale], to name a few. In this paper, we present three new applications given below.
1. content-aware detail exaggeration using guided filtering,
2. detail exaggeration in salient region with defocused background, and
3. independent abstraction of salient and non-salient regions in the image.
We use guided filter for edge-aware processing of the images in this work ([@bhat2010gradientshop],[@he2013guided]) The reason behind using guided filter instead of the bilateral filter for detail exaggeration is that the edges are relatively better preserved across strong contrast changes and illumination transitions without the introduction of any halos . The user has the freedom to alter the “look" of the image. The image can be manipulated to give a non-photorealistic rendering by selective image abstraction using the bilateral filter. Instead of enhancing the detail in the entire photograph as mentioned in [@bae2006two], [@fattal2007multiscale], [@fattal2009edge1], [@farbman2008edge], [@paris2011local] and [@gastal2011domain], we propose a new application of edge preserving filter aiming to exaggerate the detail only in the most salient region in the image and at the same time defocusing the non-salient region to give a more pronounced look of the salient region. In our case, we have used images which contain a salient foreground object and a background scene. We process only the foreground region and the background scene is left unaltered and vice-versa.
The main contributions of our work are listed below.
1. The proposed application is content-aware, i.e, this approach is well suited to manipulate the visibly significant regions in an image keeping all the other regions unaltered.
2. It is a novel *application* based framework based on edge preserving filtering, defocus blurring, recoloring and stylization techniques that processes the brightness, contrast and texture information in a content-aware manner.
3. Since the method does not make use of any scale space pyramids and involves processing in the same scale, it is computationally less expensive.\
We discuss the existing works, motivation leading to detail enhancement, defocusing approaches and image abstraction in section II. In section III, we describe the framework of our approach. We then present our results in section IV as a new application of edge preserving filters and image stylization, and rendering the manipulated image back in the original photograph using the state-of-the-art image compositing technique. We end the paper with conclusions and scope for future work in section V.
Related Work
============
We derive our motivation from a rich body of existing works on edge preserving filters and their applications to images such as detail enhancement ([@fattal2009edge1], [@fattal2007multiscale], [@bae2006two], [@farbman2008edge], [@paris2011local] and [@gastal2011domain]), defocus blur [@subbarao1994depth], and image abstraction ([@winnemoller2006real] and [@winnemoller2011xdog]), all using different signal processing tools which are explained below.\
Bae *et al.* in [@bae2006two] described a method for spatial detail variation. The amount of high frequency detail (texture) and its spatial variation is manipulated using a new *textureness* map that performs an edge-preserving analysis. Fattal *et al.* in [@fattal2007multiscale] showed detail enhancement in images photographed with a fixed viewpoint but in different lighting conditions. They performed multi-scale decomposition of the images, applied the bilateral filter on them and combined the shading information across all the input images. A new method for edge-preserving multi-scale decomposition was proposed by Farbman *et al.* in [@farbman2008edge]. They incorporate weighted least squares (WLS) optimization framework instead of the base-detail decomposition technique based on bilateral filter which supposedly are limited in their ability to extract details at arbitrary scales. Fattal demonstrated edge-preserving smoothing and detail enhancement using a new edge avoiding wavelet basis as explained in [@fattal2009edge1]. A new scheme for edge based image coarsening is proposed in [@fattal2009edge]. Here they construct a dimensionally reduced image space in which pixels are bound together according to the edge contents of the image using bilateral filter kernels. Gastal and Oliviera in [@gastal2011domain] propose a transform for edge preserving filter based applications. Bhat *et al.* in [@bhat2010gradientshop] proposed a gradient domain optimisation framework for image and video processing which manipulates pixel differences (such as the first order image gradients) in addition to the pixel values of an image.
Blurring in an image can caused due to many reasons. Lens abberations, diffraction, turbulence, camera shake, defocus and fast moving object are some of the causes. Defocus blurring operation is an image smoothing operation. When we capture a scene using a camera, focusing is achieved by adjusting the focal length of a camera. Once a scene is captured, the amount of defocus or blur can be controlled, irrespective of the camera parameter settings, by making use of convolution operation in the spatial domain as presented in [@subbarao1994depth]. The spatial domain approach involves convolution of the image with a fixed or a spatially varying kernel. The most commonly used blurring kernel filter is the Gaussian filter. Defocus has been used in applications involving depth estimation [@subbarao1994depth], video and image matting ([@mcguire2005defocus],[@mcguire2005defocus1]) and geometric shape estimation [@favaro2005geometric] with considerable success.
Image abstraction is the process of abstracting an image by suppressing the weaker edges while preserving the stronger ones iteratively. Decarlo and Santella developed a method to distinguish important parts in an image by drawing bold lines [@decarlo2002stylization]. But their approach needs user intervention and is computationally expensive for long video sequences containing many frames. Winnemoller in *et al.* proposed a real time video and image abstraction method that modified the contrast in the luminance and the color features in the image. Winnemoller proposed a new approach for stylistic depiction applications using the extended difference of Gaussians [@winnemoller2011xdog]. Image quantization after appropriately filtering the image would produce a good abstraction of the image since now the level of variations are fixed and any edges present after the filtering operation can take one of the quantized values [@winnemoller2006real].
Humans are smart to figure out the edges, illumination variations and the flat regions in an image. Over the years our visual attention system has evolved to in its ability to predict the most relevant features of a scene where our eyes fixate in a fixed-time, free-viewing scenario [@harel2006graph]. Itti *et al.* in [@itti1998model] proposed a model of saliency based visual attention that results in a saliency map which is robust to noise. Harel *et al.* in [@harel2006graph] proposed a new approach of visual attention fixation in an image based on Markov chain approach on graphs obtained by connecting pixels in an image and working on the similarity measure among the edges in the graph. The main aim of any saliency algorithm is to highlight the significant locations in an image that is informative according to some criterion, like the human fixation. Li *et al.* in [@li2014secrets] addresses the design bias problems of the existing saliency algorithms that create discomforting disconnections between fixations and salient object segmentation. In other words, a saliency map may include areas that do not constitute the salient object, yet we use such algorithms because they give us a measure of the content-awareness in a given image.
Proposed Methodology
====================
The proposed approach involves the processing of salient region in an image which is directed towards three applications in this paper. The content-aware processing for non-photorealistic image rendering for these applications is a novel contribution. A similar technology is used in the *Smart Looks* plug-in in the Adobe Photoshop Elements 14 in a non context-aware manner[@adobe]. We are not aware of the technology behind this plug-in and any other significant work in this direction to the best of our knowledge. The diagram in Fig. \[Figure 1\] explains our methodology of content-aware non-photorealistic rendering of images for the three applications mentioned in this paper.
Saliency Based Segmentation
---------------------------
As the title of our paper suggests, we aim to make our system content-aware. For this, we first find the salient region in the given image. We employed a graph based visual saliency method proposed by Harel *et al.* in [@harel2006graph]. This helps us in narrowing down to identify the most visually salient region in an image. The images used in our approach were collected from the salient object dataset provided by Li *et al.* in [@li2014secrets]. We obtain a binary mask from the saliency map using Otsu’s threshold [@otsu1975threshold] as shown in Fig. \[Figure2\](b). However, the saliency mask may include portions of the image on which a human eye fixates but it may not be a part of the most salient region in the image. We find a bounding box around the binary mask corresponding to the salient region for each image automatically which is shown in red in Fig. \[Figure2\](b). To ensure that the computer emulates the human perception to understand the visually meaningful parts in an image we make use of GrabCut technique to accurately extract the salient region without any background contribution for further processing [@rother2004grabcut].\
Content-aware Processing and Compositing
----------------------------------------
The bounding box along with the input image of Fig. \[Figure2\](a) is given to the GrabCut algorithm proposed by Rother *et al.* in [@rother2004grabcut] which extracts the complete salient region/object inside the bounding box. A mask of the object extracted using the GrabCut algorithm is shown in Fig. \[Figure2\](c). The input to the GrabCut algorithm should be an image containing the foreground object within the bounding box irrespective of whether or not the object of interest needs to be processed or manipulated with respect to its contents.
### Content-aware Detail Exaggeration
We employ an edge preserving filtering approach taking cues from the existing literature as explained in the related work section. The edge preserving filter is used to get a structure and texture decomposition of the image without any halos. The input image is filtered using a guided filter as explained in [@he2013guided]. Guided filter was proposed by He *et al.* in [@he2013guided] where the output of the filtering operation is a local linear transform of the guidance image. The input image is enhanced with respect to the details present in it as can be seen from Fig. \[Figure2\](d). It can be observed that the image has a similar feel as the original image with the details exaggerated. Fundamentally, detail exaggeration requires one to manipulate the gradients in the detail layer (which is the difference between the input image and the base layer) obtained from the guided filter. The modified gradients need to be re-integrated into the image to (a) prevent gradient reversal, (b) for the manipulations to take place, and (c) for the effects to be visible. The use of bilateral filter introduces halos along edges with strong illumination changes on either side of it because of gradient reversal in the reconstruction step. The detail exaggerated image is obtained by combining the boosted detail layer with the base layer. Unlike bilateral filter, the guided filter does not suffer from gradient reversal artifacts [@he2013guided]. The input image of Fig. \[Figure2\](a) along with the saliency mask in Fig. \[Figure2\](c) and the detail exaggerated image is given as input to the image compositing algorithm proposed in [@tao2013error] to get the content-aware detail exaggerated image as shown in Fig. \[Figure2\](d).
### Content-aware Detail Exaggeration With Defocused Background
As we mentioned in the introduction section, we defocus the background and exaggerate only the salient region to give a more pronounced look of the enhanced image as could be seen from Fig. \[Figure2\](e). As mentioned before, there are spatially variant and spatially invariant blurring kernels for defocus operation. We use a simple approach to defocus the image using a fixed size Gaussian kernel. Every pixel $(x,y)$ in the image is operated upon with a Gaussian filter $G_{\sigma} (x,y)$ of kernel $9\times 9$ with a standard deviation 4 around the neighborhood of the pixel. The larger the value of $\sigma$, the larger is the blurring effect in the image. This filtering operation is given by Eq. \[eq 1\] below:
$$\label{eq 1}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat I(x,y) = I(x,y) \otimes {G_{\sigma} (x,y)}
\end{aligned}$$
So the entire image is defocused. But we want only the background defocused. To achieve this, the defocus blurred image along with the mask in Fig. \[Figure2\](c) and the image in Fig. \[Figure2\](d) are given as input to the image compositing algorithm for a seamless compositing. We used the error tolerant image compositing algorithm proposed by Tao *et al.* in [@tao2013error]. The output of this system is the content-aware detail exaggerated image with defocused background which is shown in Fig. \[Figure2\](e).\
### Content-aware Image Abstraction
Our next application is to show image abstraction in the salient and non-salient regions separately. We make use of the approach proposed in [@winnemoller2006real] for image abstraction. The input color image after conversion to $Lab$ space is filtered using the bilateral filter. For the Gaussian filter, we used a spatial kernel with standard deviation 3 and a range kernel with a standard deviation 0.1. It is converted back to RGB space. Luminance values in the resulting image are quantized into 10 different levels and difference-of-Gaussian filter is applied on the resulting RGB image. These two images are then combined to get the abstracted image which gives a cartoon like appearance to the image as can be seen from Fig. \[Figure2\](f) (foreground abstracted) and Fig. \[Figure2\](g)(background abstracted). To get the abstraction of the visually important region, we again employ the GrabCut technique combined with error tolerant image compositing algorithm. The input image in its entirety is abstracted using the method described above. Mask obtained after the GrabCut technique, along with the input image and the abstracted image is given as the input to image compositing algorithm proposed in [@tao2013error]. The result is that there is content-aware abstraction which can be seen from Fig. \[Figure2\](f). If the binary mask obtained after the GrabCut algorithm is inverted, and the above mentioned operations are performed with this new mask, then the non salient region in the image is abstracted as could be seen from Fig. \[Figure2\](g).
Results and Discussions
=======================
We present the results for a set of six images on the three different filtering applications mentioned in the application pipeline described in the previous section, which are presented from top row to the bottom row of Fig. \[Figure3\]. For every image, we show the content-aware processed images along with the original image. As could be seen from Fig. \[Figure3\](b), the images exaggerated using the guided filter approach [@paris2006fast] produce good exaggeration and this approach was selected from a set of other detail exaggeration methods based on minimal artifacts in the processed image. The background is defocused to give a more pronounced look of the detail exaggerated in the salient region. At the same time, the overall background and foreground illumination in the image is increased and has more contrast as seen in Fig. \[Figure3\](b) column. Column (c) of Fig. \[Figure3\] shows images where the salient region is abstracted and the non salient region is left unaltered. There is illumination and contrast change happening only in the foreground region when the salient region is abstracted. The level of abstraction can be controlled by applying the bilateral filter iteratively to suit the requirements from the user end. The last column of Fig. \[Figure3\], i.e, Fig. \[Figure3\](d) shows the results of abstraction on the background scene. The illumination in the foreground region as compared to the original image is reduced. The robustness of the error tolerant image compositing technique [@tao2013error] ensures the seamless image compositing operation after the processing of the respective content-aware region. It also ensures that there is no background clutter effect and the halos do not appear during processing involved. Our approach is content-aware as it processes only the salient object in the image keeping the rest of the original image as it is.
We performed the experiments in MATLAB environment on a laptop that runs Windows 8 with Intel core i5 (1.7 GHz) processor with 6 GB RAM. Typical time required for an image of size 800 $\times$ 533 for content-aware detail exaggeration is 30 seconds, for content-aware detail exaggeration with defocused background is 37 seconds, for content-aware image abstraction for both salient and non-salinet regions is 75 seconds each. Since we have designed our system to be content-aware, the kind of images our method is well suited for are the ones which contain a salient foreground region and a background scene.
Conclusions
===========
The proposed approach manipulates the details and processes the image in a content-aware manner, i.e, only the most salient object in the image is processed using edge preserving filtering. We do not decompose the input image into scale space pyramids for any of the addressed applications. An image compositing technique is used which takes the mask corresponding to foreground object in an image which has to be composited on a background scene. The proposed approach does not introduce any artifacts in the process of making the system content-aware, be it content-aware detail exaggeration with defocused background or non salient image abstraction which inherently gives cartoon effect to the image. Such an application can be used for non-photorealistic rendering and can be extended to more applications requiring content awareness for various image manipulations.
Future scope involves developing content-aware applications for other computational photography problems such as high dynamic range imaging and flash/no-flash photography. We aim to carry out qualitative analysis and image quality assessment of the results produced using the proposed approach. Subjective studies could also be carried out for determining the visual appeal of the abstracted images and thereby controlling the amount of abstraction suitable for non-photorealistic rendering. We also plan to explore other notions of content-aware processing other than saliency for the proposed applications. We believe that the framework proposed will stimulate research on applications of automatic content-aware non-photorealistic rendering of images.
\
\
\
\
\
[10]{}
A. Mansfield, P. Gehler, L. Van Gool, and C. Rother, “Scene carving: Scene consistent image retargeting,” in [*ECCV*]{}, pp. 143–156, Springer, 2010.
S. Avidan and A. Shamir, “Seam carving for content-aware image resizing,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 26, p. 10, ACM, 2007.
M. Yang, Y. Wu, and G. Hua, “Context-aware visual tracking,” [*Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on*]{}, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1195–1209, 2009.
F. Durand and J. Dorsey, “Fast bilateral filtering for the display of high-dynamic-range images,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 21, pp. 257–266, ACM, 2002.
G. Petschnigg, R. Szeliski, M. Agrawala, M. Cohen, H. Hoppe, and K. Toyama, “Digital photography with flash and no-flash image pairs,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 664–672, ACM, 2004.
S. Bae, S. Paris, and F. Durand, “Two-scale tone management for photographic look,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 25, pp. 637–645, ACM, 2006.
R. Fattal, M. Agrawala, and S. Rusinkiewicz, “Multiscale shape and detail enhancement from multi-light image collections,” [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 26, no. 3, p. 51, 2007.
P. Bhat, C. L. Zitnick, M. Cohen, and B. Curless, “Gradientshop: A gradient-domain optimization framework for image and video filtering,” [ *ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 29, no. 2, p. 10, 2010.
R. Fattal, “Edge-avoiding wavelets and their applications,” [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 28, no. 3, p. 22, 2009.
Z. Farbman, R. Fattal, D. Lischinski, and R. Szeliski, “Edge-preserving decompositions for multi-scale tone and detail manipulation,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 27, p. 67, ACM, 2008.
S. Paris, S. W. Hasinoff, and J. Kautz, “Local laplacian filters: edge-aware image processing with a laplacian pyramid.,” [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 30, no. 4, p. 68, 2011.
E. S. Gastal and M. M. Oliveira, “Domain transform for edge-aware image and video processing,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 30, p. 69, ACM, 2011.
M. W. Tao, M. K. Johnson, and S. Paris, “Error-tolerant image compositing,” [*International journal of computer vision*]{}, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 178–189, 2013.
H. Winnem[ö]{}ller, S. C. Olsen, and B. Gooch, “Real-time video abstraction,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 25, pp. 1221–1226, ACM, 2006.
H. Winnem[ö]{}ller, “Xdog: advanced image stylization with extended difference-of-gaussians,” in [*Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering*]{}, pp. 147–156, ACM, 2011.
R. Fattal, R. Carroll, and M. Agrawala, “Edge-based image coarsening,” [ *ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)*]{}, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 6, 2009.
M. Subbarao and G. Surya, “Depth from defocus: a spatial domain approach,” [*International Journal of Computer Vision*]{}, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 271–294, 1994.
M. McGuire, W. Matusik, H. Pfister, J. F. Hughes, and F. Durand, “Defocus video matting,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 24, pp. 567–576, ACM, 2005.
M. McGuire and W. Matusik, “Defocus difference matting,” in [*ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Sketches*]{}, p. 104, ACM, 2005.
P. Favaro and S. Soatto, “A geometric approach to shape from defocus,” [ *Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on*]{}, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 406–417, 2005.
D. DeCarlo and A. Santella, “Stylization and abstraction of photographs,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 21, pp. 769–776, ACM, 2002.
J. Harel, C. Koch, and P. Perona, “Graph-based visual saliency,” in [ *Advances in neural information processing systems*]{}, pp. 545–552, 2006.
L. Itti, C. Koch, and E. Niebur, “A model of saliency-based visual attention for rapid scene analysis,” [*IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence*]{}, no. 11, pp. 1254–1259, 1998.
Y. Li, X. Hou, C. Koch, J. Rehg, and A. Yuille, “The secrets of salient object segmentation,” in [*IEEE CVPR*]{}, pp. 280–287, 2014.
Adobe, “[Adobe Photoshop Elements 14 - Smart looks]{}.” <https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/how-to/apply-effects-smart-looks.html/>, 2016. .
N. Otsu, “A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,” [ *Automatica*]{}, vol. 11, no. 285-296, pp. 23–27, 1975.
C. Rother, V. Kolmogorov, and A. Blake, “Grabcut: Interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts,” in [*ACM Trans. Graph.*]{}, vol. 23, pp. 309–314, ACM, 2004.
K. He, J. Sun, and X. Tang, “Guided image filtering,” [*Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on*]{}, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1397–1409, 2013.
S. Paris and F. Durand, “A fast approximation of the bilateral filter using a signal processing approach,” in [*ECCV*]{}, pp. 568–580, Springer, 2006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A quaternionic wavefunction consisting of real and scalar functions is found to satisfy the quaternionic momentum eigen value equation. Each of these components are found to satisfy a generalized wave equation of the form $\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\psi_0}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\psi_0+2\left(\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\right)\frac{\partial\psi_0}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{m_0c}{\hbar}\right)^2\psi_0=0$. This reduces to the massless Klein-Gordon equation, if we replace $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rightarrow\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}$. For a plane wave solution the angular frequency is complex and is given by $\vec{\omega}_\pm=i\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\pm c\vec{k} $, where $\vec{k}$ is the propagation constant vector. This equation is in agreement with the Einstein energy-momentum formula. The spin of the particle is obtained from the interaction of the particle with the photon field.'
address: 'Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Khartoum, P.O. Box 321, Khartoum 11115, Sudan'
author:
- 'Arbab I. Arbab'
title: The Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics
---
Introduction
============
Schrodinger equation has been generalized by Dirac and Klein-Gordon where in the former the resulting equation is a first order differential and in the latter is a second order differential equation in space and time. Dirac equation governs the motion of spin - 1/2 particles, while Klein-Gordon governs the motion of spin - 0 particles. Dirac equation expresses the spin of the particle explicitly. Klein-Gordon equation doesn’t explicitly reflect the spin of the particle. The spin of the particle shows up when a charged particle interacts with the electromagnetic field. In Schrodinger formalism the spin of the particle is obtained by replacing the momentum of the particle by its conserved conjugate momentum in the Hamiltonian of the system. Reduction of the Dirac equation for an electron in a magnetic field to its non-relativistic limit yields the Pauli equation with a correction term which represents the interaction of the electron’s intrinsic magnetic moment with the magnetic field giving the correct energy. In this paper we would like to address the formulation of the Klein-Gordon equation. We have recently shown the richness of describing physical laws employing *Quaternions*, where we have found that the quaternionic Maxwell equations predict an existence of new scalar wave \[1\]. With the same fashion, we have unified the hydrodynamics and electromagnetism in an analogous way \[2\]. With the same enthusiasm, we would like here to write the quantum mechanical equations governing the evolution of microscopic world in terms of Quanternions. To this end, we use the eigen value equation, where we represent the wave function representing the microparticle, the energy and momentum operators as quaternions. It is interesting to note that the quaternionic wave function consists of scalar and vector components. The emerging equations can then describe scalar and vector particles. The resulting equations would then mix the scalar and vector components. We anticipate that these two particles could be the bosons and fermions. Hence, one can in some respect unify Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations in a single equation. The spin of the particle shows up when the particle interacts with the photon field. Moreover, the quaternionic uncertainty relation reduces to the ordinary uncertainty relations. This quaternionic relation yields the known Einstein’s energy momentum relation.
The model
=========
The quaternionic momentum eigenvalue problem can be written as $$\widetilde{P}\,\widetilde{\Psi}=m_0c\,\widetilde{\Psi}\,$$ where $$\widetilde{P}=\left(\frac{i}{c}\,E\,, \vec{p}\right)\,,\qquad \widetilde{\Psi}=\left(\frac{i}{c}\,\psi_0\,, \vec{\psi}\right)\,.$$ Equation (1) is in fact similar to Dirac equation \[3\] $$\hat{P}\,\psi=m_0c\,\psi\,,\qquad \hat{P}=i\,\hbar \gamma^\mu\partial_\mu\,.$$ Equation (1) is regarded as the quaternionic Dirac’s equation.\
The product of the two quaternions, $\widetilde{A}=\left(a_0\,, \vec{a}\right)$ and $\widetilde{B}=\left(b_0\,, \vec{b}\right)$ is given by \[4\] $$\widetilde{A}\,\widetilde{B}=\left(a_0b_0-\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b}\,\,,\,\, a_0 \vec{b}+ \vec{a}\,b_0+ \vec{a}\times\vec{b}\right)\,.$$ Apply Eq.(2) in (1) and use Eq.(4) to get $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\psi}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial t}-\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\,\psi_0=0\,,$$ $$\vec{\nabla}\psi_0-\frac{\partial \vec{\psi}}{\partial t}-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar }\,\vec{\psi}=0\,,$$ and $$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi}=0\,,$$ where we have used the operators: $\vec{p}=-i\hbar\vec{\nabla}$ and $E=i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ as in ordinary quantum mechanics. Equations (5) - (7) are first order linear differential equations. They can be compatible with Lorentz transformation. The scalar equation above represents the energy equation, while the vector equation represents the momentum equation. In Dirac formalism, an electron, for instance, is described by a four component wavefunction (spinors). In the present formalism the particle is described by a quaternion wavefunction having also four components. Here, one component is a scalar and the three components are vector components. We may however ask the question that: are the two formalisms equivalent to each other?\
Equations (5) - (7) suggest that the wave functions; $\vec{\psi}$ and $\psi_0$ are not unique so that $\vec{\psi'}$ and $\psi_0'$ can also satisfy Eqs.(5) - (6). This is possible if we define $$\vec{\psi'}=\vec{\psi}+\vec{\nabla}\Lambda\,, \qquad \psi_0'=\psi_0+\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial t}\,,$$ where $\Lambda$ is some scalar function. Substituting Eq.(8) in Eq.(5) yields $$\nabla^2\Lambda-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\Lambda}{\partial t^2}-\left(\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\right)\frac{\partial\Lambda}{\partial t}=0\,,$$ if Eq.(5) is to be invariant under this transformation. Similarly, substituting Eq.(8) in Eq.(6) yields $$\vec{\nabla}\Lambda=0\,,\qquad if\,\,\,\,\,\,\, m_0\ne 0\,,$$ so that Eqs.(9) and (10) imply that $$\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial t}+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\Lambda=0\,,\qquad \Rightarrow\qquad \Lambda=A\exp\,(-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,t)\,,\qquad\rm A=const.,$$ hence $$\vec{\psi'}=\vec{\psi}\,, \qquad \psi_0'=\psi_0-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}A\exp\,(-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,t)\,.$$ However, if $m_0=0$, then $\Lambda$ satisfies the wave equation $$\nabla^2\Lambda-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\Lambda}{\partial t^2}=0\,.$$ In this case the transformation in Eq.(8) is similar to the gauge transformation exhibited by the electromagnetic vector $A$ and scalar $\phi$. Therefore, Eq.(5) - (7) are invariant under the transformation carried out in Eq.(12).
Taking the $\vec{\nabla}$ of both sides of Eq.(5) and using Eq.(6), (7) and the identity $\vec{\nabla}\times(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi})=\vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\psi})-\nabla^2\vec{\psi}$, one gets $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\vec{\psi}}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\vec{\psi}+2\left(\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\right)\frac{\partial\vec{\psi}}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{m_0c}{\hbar}\right)^2\vec{\psi}=0\,.$$ Similarly taking the divergence of Eq.(6) and using Eq.(5), one obtains $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\psi_0}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\psi_0+2\left(\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\right)\frac{\partial\psi_0}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{m_0c}{\hbar}\right)^2\psi_0=0\,.$$ Alternatively, Eq.(14) can be derived if we differentiate Eq.(5) partially with respect to time and use Eq.(6). Equation (13) can be obtained if we differentiate Eq.(6) partially with respect to the time and use Eq.(5) and the vector identity $\vec{\nabla}\times(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi})=\vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\psi})-\nabla^2\vec{\psi}$. Equations (5) and (6) represent vector and scalar waves. To my knowledge, they are new equations. It is interesting to see from Eqs.(14) and (15) that both wavefunction components satisfy the same wave equation. Moreover, Eqs.(13) and (14) are linear equations and hence they satisfy the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. For a massless particle ($m_0=0)$ they reduce to the ordinary wave equation, viz., $\nabla^2\psi_0-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\psi_0}{\partial t^2}=0$. Notice that Eqs.(13) and (14) satisfy the transformation in Eq.(12). They can be written in operator form as $$\hat{\Pi}^2\,\vec{\psi}=0\,,\qquad \hat{\Pi}^2\,\psi_0=0\,,$$ where the operator $\hat{\Pi}$ is defined by $$\hat{\Pi}^2=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2+\frac{2m_0c}{\hbar\,c}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\hbar^2}\,.$$ This can be casted in the form $$\hat{\Pi}^2= \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial\tau^2}-\nabla^2\,,\qquad {\rm where}\qquad \frac{\partial }{\partial\tau}=\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\right).$$ It is thus apparent that Eqs.(13) and (14) when written in terms of the time $\tau$ become Lorentz invariant. Equations (13) and (14) are similar to the evolution of the electric field in lossy medium \[5\].
If we consider a plane wave solution of the form $$\psi_0=C\exp i(\omega \,t-\vec{k}\cdot \vec{r})\,,\qquad C=\rm const.,$$ and apply it in Eqs.(13) or (14), we obtain the dispersion relation $$\omega^2-2i\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\, \omega-\left(\frac{m_0c^4}{\hbar^2}+c^2k^2\right)=0\,.$$ The solution of Eq.(18) is $$\omega_\pm=\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,i\pm c\,k\,.$$ This shows clearly that $\omega$ is complex. This is a quite interesting result. It can be interpreted as having two waves moving in opposite directions (because of the term, $\pm \,c\,k$). The group velocity of these waves is the speed of light in vacuum ($v_g=\frac{\partial \omega_\pm}{\partial k}=\pm \,c$). The phase velocity is given by $v_p=\frac{\omega_\pm}{k}=\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar\, k}\,i\pm c$. The two solutions in (19) may also represent a particle with energy $\hbar\,\omega_+$ and antiparticle with energy $\hbar\,\omega_-$. The difference of their energy states is $\Delta E=\pm 2\hbar\, kc=\pm2\hbar\,\omega_p$, where $\omega_p$ is the photon frequency. This means that if one state is jumped to the other state two photons will be emitted (or absorbed). This interpretation resembles the Dirac theory of antiparticles. It is an interesting relation because it combines the wave and particle properties. It describes a matter wave associated with particles as in de Broglie theory.
Now Eq.(19) yields $$\hbar^2|\omega|^2=m^2_0c^4+k^2\hbar^2c^2\,,$$ so that $$m_0c=\hbar\,k_{\rm eff.}\,,\qquad k_{\rm eff.}=\sqrt{\frac{|\omega_\pm|^2}{c^2}-k^2}\,,$$ is the particle’s momentum in terms of angular frequency and wave number of the wave. Note that for light $p=\hbar\,k$. Equation (20) represents the interaction between particle and wave properties. The refractive index of a medium is related to the frequency of the wave by the relation $$\omega=\frac{kc}{n}\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad n_\pm=\pm\frac{ 1}{1+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar^2k^2}}-i\frac{\frac{m_0c}{\hbar\,k}}{1+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar^2k^2}}\,,$$ where we used Eq.(19). The above equations shows that the refractive index is complex but $|n|=1$. It is a rotation of the vacuum refractive index in the complex plane by an angle $$\alpha=\tan^{-1}\frac{\frac{m_0c}{\hbar\,k}}{1+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar^2k^2}}\,.$$ The imaginary term in Eq.(22) indicates the amount of absorption loss when the wave propagates through the space.
Applying Eq.(19) in Eq.(13) and (14), one obtains $$\psi_0=C\exp (-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,t) \exp i\,(\pm \,kct-\vec{k}\cdot \vec{r})\,,$$ which represents a modulated wave with decaying amplitude. The physical significance of Eqs.(13) and (14) is still under investigation. The decaying factor in Eq.(24) depends on the momentum of the particle. It is apparent that fastly moving particle decays larger than slowly moving one. Hence, the motion of the particle distorts the wave associated with it. Therefore, a matter wave is a distorting light wave. Or equivalently, when light wave passes on a moving particle the wave is distorted by the motion of the particle. However, light wave is not distorted when encounters a stationary particle. Hence, Eqs.(13) and (14) represent the wave-particle interaction. It reflects the de Broglie hypothesis but in a rather different approach.
Klein-Gordon equation (KG)
==========================
It is the equation of motion of a quantum scalar or pseudoscalar field, a field whose quanta are spinless particles. Any solution to the Dirac equation is automatically a solution to the Klein-Gordon equation, but the converse is not true. We would like in this section to deduce the KG from the set of equations given by (5) - (7). We seek the solution of the scalar part of the quaternionic wavefunction, viz., $\psi_0$. We anticipate that the vector part, $\vec{\psi}$, will govern the Dirac particles. Therefore, as in Dirac’s equation case, in Eq.(14), we get $$\Box^2\psi_0+\left(\frac{m_0c}{\hbar}\right)^2\psi_0=-2\left(\frac{m_0}{\hbar}\right)\frac{\partial\psi_0}{\partial t}\,,\qquad\Box^2=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\, .$$ This is a generalized Klein-Gordon equation with a time-dependent source term. The term on the right hand side of Eq.(25) can be seen as a dissipative (damping) term resulting from the inertia of the particle, or the motion of the particle in space-time. This implies that the inertia of the particle distorts the wave nature of the particle from a pure wave. For a massless particle Eq.(25) is a pure wave and the distortion term vanishes. It is evident from Eq.(25) that the damping interaction is inevitable for all non-zero mass particles. Now define the new time coordinate ($\tau$) as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,.$$ Applying this transformation in Eq.(25), we get $$\Box '\,^2\psi_0=0\,\,\,,\qquad{\rm where}\qquad\Box '\,^2=\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2}-\nabla^2=\hat{\Pi^2}\, .$$ Thus, in the $\tau$ coordinate the mass of the particle disappears. Or equivalently, due to the interaction (resistance) a massive particle appears to be massless. Thus, we can call the above transformation a killing mass transformation. Hence, it is interesting that a massive particle in one coordinate system can appear massless in another coordinate system. The electron is found to have an oscillatory motion with the extremely high frequency of $\omega_0=\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}$ in addition to its normal linear motion. Schrodinger labeled that rapid oscillatory motion Zitterbewegung or “*jittery motion*”. Hence, the additional term in Eq.(26) may be attributed to this oscillatory nature of electrons. The oscillation is produced because of the interference between positive and negative energy states as described in Eq.(19). Several physicists proposed the idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment as generated by a localized circulatory motion of the electron. Using eq.(26), Eqs.(5) - (7) become $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\psi}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial \tau}=0\,,$$ $$\vec{\nabla}\psi_0-\frac{\partial \vec{\psi}}{\partial \tau}=0\,,$$ and $$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi}=0\,.$$ Now write $\psi_0(r,t)=\psi(r)\,\varphi(t)$ and consider the wavefunction where $\psi_0(r)=\rm const.$. In this case Eq.(25) reduces to a damped simple harmonic oscillator with a dissipative (damping) term proportional to the mass of the particle, i.e., $$\frac{d^2\varphi}{dt^2}+\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}\frac{d\varphi}{dt}+\left(\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\right)^2\varphi=0\,.$$ This has a solution of the form $$\varphi(t)=B\exp\,(-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,t)+D\,t\exp\,(-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar\,}\,t)\,,\qquad B \,\,\,, D\,\,\,: \rm const.,$$ or $$\varphi(t)=B\exp\,(-\frac{\omega_0}{2}\,t)+D\,t\exp\,(-\frac{\omega_0}{2\,}\,t)\,,\qquad B \,\,\,, D\,\,\,: \rm const.,$$ The general solution of Eq.(25) as given by Eq.(24) now becomes $$\psi_0=C\exp (-\frac{\omega_0}{2}\,t)\,\exp\,(\pm\, kc\,t-\vec{k}\cdot \vec{r})\,i\,.$$ This wave depends on the rest mass of the particle and the propagation constant only. This shows that every mode with $m_0\ne 0$ damps exponentially to zero.
We remark here that the energy equation in Eq.(20) coincides with the Einstein’s relativistic energy-momentum formula, viz., $E^2=p^2c^2+m_0^2c^4$, where $\hbar\,k=p$. In this case Eq.(22) implies that a dissipative particle wave is described by the refractive index $$n_\pm=\pm\frac{1}{1+\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\hbar^2k^2}}-i\frac{\frac{m_0c}{\hbar\,k}}{1+\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\hbar^2k^2}}\,.$$ The refractive index approaches that of vacuum as the particle’s mass approaches the speed of light in vacuum, i.e., $n\rightarrow 1$ as $m_0\rightarrow 0$. Alternatively, for the high energy particle ($\hbar^2k^2>> m_0c^2$) one has $n\rightarrow 1$ as well.
Interacting particles with electromagnetic radiation
====================================================
If the particle described by Eq.(2) interacts with an electromagnetic field defined by $$\widetilde{A}=\left(\frac{i}{c}\varphi\,\,, \vec{A} \right)\,,$$ the momentum in Eq.(2) becomes $$\widetilde{P}\rightarrow \widetilde{P}+q\widetilde{A} \,\qquad\Rightarrow \qquad\vec{p}\rightarrow \vec{p}+q\vec{A}\,\qquad {\rm and}\qquad E\rightarrow E+q\,\varphi\,.$$ Applying Eq.(4) in Eq.(2) and using Eq.(33) yields $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{\psi}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial t}-\frac{m_0}{\hbar }\,\psi_0=0\,,$$ $$\vec{\nabla}\psi_0-\frac{\partial \vec{\psi}}{\partial t}+\frac{qc}{\hbar}\vec{A}\times\vec{\psi}-\frac{m_0c^2}{\hbar }\,\vec{\psi}=0\,,$$ $$\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi}=\frac{q}{\hbar\,c}\left(\varphi \,\vec{\psi}+\vec{A}\,\psi_0\right)\,,$$ and $$\varphi\,\psi_0+c^2\vec{A}\cdot\vec{\psi}=0\,.$$ These are two scalar equations and two vector equations. The scalar equation in Eq.(35) is the same as the scalar equation in Eq.(5). However, the vector equations are altered due to presence of the photon field. Now take the divergence of Eq.(35) to obtain $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 \psi_0}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\psi_0+\frac{2m_0}{\hbar}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial t}+\frac{qc}{\hbar}\,\vec{\psi}\cdot\vec{B}+\left(\frac{m_0^2c^2}{\hbar^2}+\frac{q^2}{\hbar^2}(A^2-\frac{\varphi}{c^2})\right)\psi_0=0,$$ where we have used that fact that $$\vec{B}=\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi}\,\,,\qquad \vec{\nabla}\cdot(\vec{A}\times\vec{\psi})= \vec{\psi}\cdot(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{A})-\vec{A}\cdot(\vec{\nabla}\times\vec{\psi})\,.$$ The Klein-Gordon equation for a charged particle of mass $m$ in an electromagnetic field, $A_\mu$, reads $$\left(D^\mu D_\mu+\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2}\right)\psi_0=0\,,\qquad {\rm where} \qquad D_\mu=\partial_\mu+\frac{q}{\hbar} A_\mu\,.$$ The covariant derivative in Eq.(40) can be compared with the transformation in Eq.(26) if we set $q\varphi=m_0c^2$. Equation (39) can be written as $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 \psi_0}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\psi_0+\frac{2m_0}{\hbar}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial t}+\frac{qc}{\hbar}\,\vec{\psi}\cdot\vec{B}+\left(\frac{M\,c}{\hbar}\right)^2\,\psi_0=0\,,$$ where $$M^2=m_0^2+m_q^2\,\,, \qquad m_q=\frac{q}{c}\sqrt{A^2-\frac{\varphi^2}{c^2}}\,\,,$$ is the effective mass of the interacting charged particle. The second term in Eq.(42) represents the mass of the photon felt by the charged particle due to the particle nature of the photon. It is interesting to see that this term is vanishingly small. For an electron with velocity $\vec{v}$ one has $\varphi=\vec{v}\cdot\vec{A}$ so that $$m_q=q\,\frac{A}{c}\,\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}\,\,.$$ For the photon ($v=c$), $m_q=0$. This is unlike the relativistic mass where $m\rightarrow \infty$ as $v\rightarrow c$. For a charged particle in a constant vector field ($\vec{A}$), Eq.(41) reads $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2 \psi_0}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\psi_0+\frac{2m_0c}{\hbar c}\frac{\partial \psi_0}{\partial t}+\left(\frac{M\,c}{\hbar}\right)^2\psi_0=0\,.$$ Upon using Eq.(26) the above equation reduces to $$\Box\,'\psi_0+\frac{m_q^2c^2}{\hbar^2}\,\psi_0=0\,.$$ This is a Klein-Gordon equation representing a charged massless (inertially) particle having an induced mass $m_q$. Equation (42) represents the effective mass of the particle which is a function of space-time through $\vec{A}$ and $\varphi$. It is so amazing that the effective mass of such an interacting charged particle with electromagnetic field is directly proportional to its charge. The fourth term on the LHS of Eq.(39) can also be linked to the spin of the particle, if we relate $\vec{\psi}$ to the spin $\vec{S}$ and $\psi_0$ by the relation $$\vec{\psi}=\frac{1}{\hbar\,c}\vec{S}\,\psi_0\qquad\Rightarrow\qquad \frac{qc}{\hbar}\,\vec{\psi}\cdot\vec{B}=\left(\frac{q}{\hbar^2}\right)\,\vec{S}\,\cdot\vec{B}\,\psi_0\,,$$ which corresponds to the interaction term ($H_{int.})$ of the spin of the particle with the magnetic field of the photon, when a proper field theoretic model is found for the present formalism, viz., $$H_{int.}=\left(\frac{q}{m}\right)\vec{S}\,\cdot\vec{B}=-\vec{\mu}\cdot\vec{B}\,\,,\qquad \vec{\mu}=-\frac{q}{m}\vec{S}\,.$$ Using Eq.(45), the quaternion wave function can nw be defined as $$\widetilde{\psi}=\frac{i}{c}\,\psi_0+\vec{\psi}=\exp(-\frac{iqc}{\hbar^2}\,\vec{S}\,\cdot\vec{B})\,\frac{i}{c}\,\psi_0\,,$$ which means that the quaternionic wave function is a rotation (phase factor) of $\psi_0$. Applying Eq.(45) in Eq.(38) we get $$\varphi=-\frac{c}{\hbar}\vec{A}\cdot\vec{S}\,.$$ Now upon using Eq.(26) in Eq.(41), we obtain $$\Box '\,^2 \psi_0+(\frac{q}{\hbar^2}\vec{S}\,\cdot\vec{B})\,\psi_0+\frac{m_q^2\,c^2}{\hbar^2}\,\psi_0=0\,,$$ which represents the Klein-Gordon equation with a spin term. It is remarkable that the interacting Eqs.(35) - (38) reduce to the free Eqs.(5) - (7) when $\vec{A}=0$.
Taking the divergence of E.q(36) and using Eqs.(35), (38) and the vector identity $\vec{\nabla}\cdot(f\vec{A})=f(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{A})+(\vec{\nabla}f)\cdot\vec{A}$, one gets $$\left(\vec{\nabla}\varphi-\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}\right)\cdot\vec{\psi}+\left(\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{A}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t}\right)\psi_0=0 \,.$$ If we replace $\vec{A}$ by -$\vec{A}$, which is equivalent to choosing the complex field $\widetilde{A}^*$ instead of $\widetilde{A}$, the above equation yields $$\vec{E}\cdot\vec{\psi}=0\,,$$ where $$\vec{E}=-\left(\vec{\nabla}\varphi+\frac{\partial \vec{A}}{\partial t}\right)\,,\qquad \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{A}+\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial t}=0 \,.$$ Applying Eq.(51) in Eq.(45) implies that $\vec{E}\cdot\vec{S}=0$, i.e., the direction of the electric field is perpendicular to the spin of the particle. It is understood that the spin of the particle is connected with the magnetic field. However, there is no interaction of the particle spin with the electric field. Thus, Eq.(51) can account for this fact. *Interestingly, Dirac just ignored this term, calling it unphysical for a point charge to have a polarization!* It is very interesting here to see that Eq.(51) is satisfied if the Lorentz gauge is guaranteed. Hence, Eq.(49) is the generalized Klein-Gordon equation defining the spin of the particle. This is unlike the ordinary Klein-Gordon equation where the spin of the particle is not accounted for. Applying Eq.(45) and (48) in Eq.(3) we obtain $$\vec{S}\times\vec{p}=i\hbar\, q\left(\vec{A}-\frac{\vec{A}\cdot\vec{S}}{\hbar^2}\, \vec{S}\right).$$ This implies that $S^2=\hbar^2$. This can result from the combination of two spin- $1/2$ particles. This supports the idea of supersymmetry that a boson results from two interaction fermions. Hence, the spin-orbit interaction term can be described by $$\vec{r}\cdot(\vec{S}\times\vec{p}\,)=-\vec{L}\cdot\vec{S}=i\hbar\, q\left(\vec{r}\cdot\vec{A}-\frac{\vec{A}\cdot\vec{S}}{\hbar^2}\, \vec{r}\cdot\vec{S}\right),$$ where $\vec{p}$, $\vec{S}$ and $\vec{A}$ are treated as operators. The average of the spin-orbit term vanishes. This implies that no such term can arise in a random motion of particles in an electromagnetic field. However, this can show up in an atom where it has been observed in Zeeman effect.
The continuity equation
=======================
The continuity equation governs the flow of any fluid. We would like to derive the continuity equation governing the particle flow represented Eqs.(5) - (7) and (35) - (38). Notice here that Eqs.(35) - (38) are the generalization of Eqs.(5) - (7). Multiply Eq.(35) from left by $\psi_0$ and take the divergence of Eq.(36) with $\vec{\psi}$ and add the resulting equations to get $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J}+\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=-\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}\rho\,,$$ where $$\vec{J}=\psi_0\vec{\psi}\,\,\,,\qquad \rho=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\psi_0^2}{c^2}+|\vec{\psi}|^2\right)=-\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{\Psi}^*\,\,\widetilde{\Psi}\,.$$ The RHS of Eq.(53) doesn’t vanish as usual because of the dissipative effect of the mass of the particle. However, when $m_0=0$, Eq.(53) reduces to the familiar continuity equation. It is interesting to note that the continuity equation is not affected by the presence of the fields ($\vec{A},\varphi$). This merit is also exhibited by Brans-Dicke theory where a scalar field is introduced to couple to gravity in addition to graviton \[6\]. Now apply Eq.(45) in (54) to get $$\vec{J}=\frac{\psi_0^2}{\hbar c}\vec{S}\,\,\,,\qquad \rho=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\psi_0^2}{c^2}\left(1+\frac{S^2}{\hbar^2}\right)\,.$$ Since the current density is directly related to the spin of the particle, then this is a spin current density. In Eq.(55) $\rho$ represents spin density. The current density and probability spin density are related by the familiar relation of if $S=\hbar$, where we obtain $J=-\rho\, c$. This implies that spin wave travels at speed of light. This equation can be written in the form $$\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J}+\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=T=-\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}\rho\,,$$ where $T=-\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}\rho$ is the torque density result from the two spin states. These two spin states behave like a dipole in the electric field of the photon. Hence, producing a polarization, $\vec{P}_s$ given by $T=-\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{P}_s$ \[7\]. Hence, Eq.(56) is transformed into $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}+\vec{\nabla}\cdot(\vec{J}+\vec{P}_s)=0\,,$$ which implies that the new current $\vec{J}_{\rm eff.}=\vec{J}+\vec{P}_s $ is conserved. Alternatively, if we define a new time coordinate by the relation $$\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\frac{2m_0c^2}{\hbar}\,,$$ then the continuity equation above reduces to $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial \eta}+\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J}=0\,.$$ The factor of ’2’ appearing in the transformation in Eq.(58), when compared with Eq.(26), can be attributed to the fact that the particle acquires two energy states associated with its spin when it is placed in a photon field. This allow us to deduce that the particle has two spin-state. Hence, with such setting the continuity equation takes the normal form in the new time coordinate.
Quaternionic uncertainty relation
=================================
The quaternionic uncertainty relation can be written as $$\left(\Delta\widetilde{r}\right)(\Delta\widetilde{P})\ge \frac{\hbar}{2}\,.$$ Applying the multiplication rule in Eq.(4) yields $$\Delta \vec{r}\cdot \Delta \vec{p}+\Delta t\, \Delta E\ge\frac{\hbar}{2}\,,$$ $$\Delta \vec{r}\,\, \Delta E+c^2\Delta t\, \Delta \vec{p}=0\,,$$ and $$\Delta \vec{r} \times \Delta \vec{p}=0\,.$$ Equation (62) implies that $$\frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}=c^2 \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta E}\qquad \Rightarrow\qquad v=c^2\frac{p}{E}\,,$$ where $v=|\frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}|$ is the velocity of the particle. Equation (64) is the combination of the two relativistic relations; $E=mc^2$ and $p=mv$, where $m$ is the relativistic mass. It may also define the group velocity of the wavepacket, since $$v_g=\frac{\partial E}{\partial p}= \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta E}=\frac{c^2}{v}\,.$$ Equation (63) implies that $$\Delta y \, \Delta p_z=\Delta z \, \Delta p_y\,,\qquad \Delta z \, \Delta p_x=\Delta x \, \Delta p_z\,,\qquad \Delta x \, \Delta p_y=\Delta y \, \Delta p_x\,.$$ These equations imply that the fractional error in all components of the momenta and positions of the particle in any direction is the same (or the momentum gradient), i.e., $\frac{\Delta p_x}{\Delta x}=\frac{\Delta p_y}{\Delta y}=\frac{\Delta p_z}{\Delta z}$. The quantity $\frac{\Delta p_x}{\Delta x}$ defines a current or mass rate. It thus implies that the mass current is conserved when a particle moves in space. It can be attributed to conservation of current or the continuity equation that can be written in the form $\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{p}+\frac{\partial m}{\partial t}=0$ for a particle with fixed volume.
Conclusions
===========
We have investigated in this work the quaternionic eigen value problem in quantum mechanics. We have written the wave function, energy and momentum of the particle as quaternionic quantities. The eigen value equation reveals that the scalar and vector parts of the wavefunction are governed by a new wave equation. This is a new equation that we wish it will describe bosons and fermions. The quaternionic uncertainty relation predicts the Einstein relativistic formula of energy and momentum. When the interaction of the particle with an electromagnetic field is introduced a spin term appeared in the equation of motion. The scalar equation doesn’t change due to the interaction of the electromagnetic field with the particle. However, the vector equations are altered. We generalized the ordinary uncertainty relation to a quaternionic one. This generalization provides us with the energy momentum relation of Einstein and the remaining uncertainty relations. Hence, by adopting the quaternionic quantum mechanics, namely, Dirac equation, we arrived at a dissipative or generalized Klein-Gordon equation with a particle spin. This formalism gives rise to the generation of spin angular momentum of the particle when a photon field is introduced in the equation of motion. Further investigation is going on to explore the physics of these two waves.
Acknowledgements
================
This work is supported by the University of Khartoum research fund. We appreciate very much this support. Special thanks are due to F. Amin for the fruitful discussions. I would like to thank Sultan Qaboos university, Oman, for their hospitality, where par of this work is carried out.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
$[1]$ Arbab, A. I., *On the analogy between the electrodynamics and hydrodynamics using quaternions*, to appear in the 14th International Conference on Modelling Fluid Flow (CMFF’09), Budapest, Hungary, 9-12 September (2009).\
$[2]$ Arbab, A. I., and Satti., Z., *Progress in Physics*, 2, 8 (2009).\
$[3]$ Griffiths, D., *Introduction to elementary particles*, John Wiley, (1987).\
Bjorken, J. D., and Drell, S. D., *Relativistic Quantum Fields*, Mc-Graw, New York, (1965).\
$[4]$ Tait, P. G., *An elementary treatise on quaternions*, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press (1873).\
$[5]$ Harmuth, H. F., Barrett, T. W., and Meffert, B., *Modified Maxwell equations in quantum electrodynamics*, Singapore; River Edge, N.J., *World Scientific*, (2001).\
$[6]$ Brans, C. H., and Dicke, R. H., *Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation*,*Physical Review* 124, 925 (1961).\
$[7]$ Culcer, D., Sinova, J., Sintsyn, N. A., Jungwirth, T., MacDonald, A.H., and Niu, Q., *Phy. Rev. Lett.*,93, 046602, (2004).\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the regularized Riesz $\a$-energy for closed submanifolds $M$ in $\RR^n$ blows up as $M$ degenerates to have double points if $\a\le-2\dim M$. This gives theoretical foundation of numerical experiments to evolve surfaces to decrease the energy which have been carried out since 90’s.'
author:
- 'Jun O’Hara[^1]'
title: 'Self-repulsiveness of energies for closed submanifolds'
---
[2010 [*Mathematics Subject Classification:*]{} 53C45, 57R99.]{}
Introduction
============
The [*energy*]{} of a knot $$\label{def_energy_knot}
E(K)=\int_K\left[\lim_{\e\to 0^+}\left(\int_{K, |x-y|\ge\e}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^2}-\frac{2}\e\right)\right]dx$$ was introduced in [@O1][^2] motivated by a problem proposed by Fukuhara and Sakuma to ask for a functional on the space of knots which produces an “optimal knot” for each isotopy class (knot type) as an embedding that gives the minimum value within the isotopy class. For this purpose we like to evolve a knot along the gradient of the functional. To prevent self-crossing during the evolution process since it might change the knot type, we impose our functional to blow up if a knot degenerates to a singular knot with double points. This property is called [*self-repulsiveness*]{} ([@O1]) and has been studied in [@BR; @Di-Er-Re98; @LO; @O92; @R; @SSvdM2013] etc. We remark that this property is called [*charge*]{} in [@Di-Er-Re98].
It turns out that the energy $E$ is invariant under Möbius transformations $T$ of $\RR^3\cup\{\infty\}$ that do not open the knot, i.e. $E(T(K))=E(K)$ as far as $T(K)$ is compact. The [*Möbius invariance*]{} was proved by Freedman, He, and Wang [@FHW], and $E+4$ is called the [*Möbius energy*]{} of knots. They used Möbius invariance to show that in each prime knot type there is a knot that minimizes the energy $E$ in the knot type. Other Möbius invariant knot energies were studied in [@KS; @LO].
Various generalizations of $E$ have been studied. Note that the energy is obtained by the regularization (renormalization) of a divergent integral $\iint_{K\times K}|x-y|^{-2}dxdy$. The technique used in is called [*Hadamard’s regularization*]{}, which was applied to surfaces by Auckly and Sadun [@AS]. Doyle and Schramm found the [*cosine formula*]{} of $E(K)$ (reported in [@AS; @KS]), which was generalized for surfaces and closed submanifolds by Kusner and Sullivan [@KS]. In both cases, the generalization was carried out keeping the Möbius invariance property. On the other hand, Brylinski reformulated the energy $E$ using analytic continuation (meromorphic regularization), which was generalized to higher dimension by Fuller and Vemuri [@FV] and also to compact bodies by Solanes and the author [@OS2].
In higher dimensions, while the Möbius invariance has been studied in [@AS; @KS; @OS2], the self-repulsiveness does not seem to have been studied as far as the author knows except for the case of integral Menger curvature [@SvdM], even though numerical experiments to evolve surfaces so as to decrease the energy have been carried out since 90’s, for example [@Bra1]. In this paper we show the self-repulsiveness of the generalized energies for surfaces and higher dimensional closed submanifolds in $\RR^n$ when the energies are either scale invariant or “stronger” (subcritical) using results of recent studies on regularized Riesz energies [@O2019; @OS2]. Thus we give theoretical foundation of numerical experiments. We also discuss the behavior or the energy when surfaces have double points.
Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Professor Paul M.N. Feehan for the inquiry of this problem.
Preparation from regularized Riesz energies
===========================================
Let us explain a general scheme of Hadamard regularization. Suppose $\int_X\omega$ blows up on $\Delta\subset X$. Restricts the integration to the complement of an $\e$-neighborhood of $\Delta$, expands the result in a Laurent series in $\e$ (possibly with a $\log$ term and terms with non-integral powers), and finally take the constant term in the series. The constant is called [*Hadamard’s finite part*]{} of the integral, denoted by $\Pf\int_X\omega$. It can be considered as a generalization of Cauchy’s principal value.
For an $m$-dimensional closed submanifold $M$ in $\RR^n$ and for any real number $\a$ we define the [*regularized $\a$-energy*]{} $E_\a(M)$ by $$E_\a(M)=\int_M\left(\Pf\int_M {|x-y|}^\a dy\right)dx
$$ ([@OS2]). Note that we do not need regularization when $\a>-m$. The argument in [@OS2] shows that $E_\a(M)$ is same as the quantity obtained by applying meromorphic regularization (regularization via analytic continuation) to $z\mapsto\iint_{M\times M}{|x-y|}^z dxdy$, where $z$ is a complex variable. This is why we can use the results in [@O2019; @OS2] which have been obtained by meromorphic regularization.
In what follows we fix the dimensions of submanifolds, $m$, and of the ambient space, $n$.
\[def\_M(e,b,V)\] Let $\e_0, b, V$ be positive numbers. Let $\mathcal{M}(k,\e_0,b,V)$ $(k\ge3)$ be the set of immersed submanifolds $M'$ in $\RR^n$ with volume not greater than $V$ such that for each $M'$ there is a closed manifold $M$ of class $C^{k}$ and an immersion $f\colon M\to M'=f(M)$ of class $C^{k}$ that satisfy the following conditions.
1. For any point $x$ of $M'$, $f^{-1}(B_{\e_0}(x)\cap M')$ is a disjoint union of $W_1, \dots, W_\ell$.
2. Each $W_i$ is $C^{k}$-diffeomorphic to an $m$-ball.
3. The restriction of $f$ to $W_i$ is a $C^{k}$-diffeomorphism to $W_i'=f(W_i)\subset M'$ for each $i$.
4. Each $W_i'$ can be expressed as a graph of a function of class $C^{k}$ $$h_i\colon U_i\to {\big(T_{x}W_i'\,\big)}^\perp\cong\RR^{n-m}, \quack U_i\subset T_{x}W_i'$$ that satisfies $\left|\partial^\mu h_i\right|\le b$ on $U_i$ for any multi-index $\mu$ with $0\le |\mu|\le k$.
As above, put $\psi_{x,i}(t)$ $(1\le i\le l, 0\le t\le \e_0)$ to be the volume of $B_t(x)\cap W_i'$. Proposition 2.3 of [@O2019], which is a kind of $C^k$ analogues of Theorem 3.3 of [@FV] and Proposition 3.1 and Corollary 3.2 of [@OS2], implies that each $\psi_{x,i}'(t)$ can be expressed by $$\psi_{x,i}'(t)=t^{m-1} \, \overline{\varphi}_{x,i}(t),$$ for some $\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}(t)$ of class $C^{k-2}$ that satisfies $$\label{overline_varphi_coeff}
\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}(0)=\sigma_{m-1}, \hspace{0.5cm}
\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}^{\,(2j-1)}(0)=0
\>\>\>(1\le 2j-1 \le k-2), \nonumber$$ where $\sigma_{m-1}$ is the volume of the unit $(m-1)$-dimensional sphere.
We remark that the reason why the regularity of $\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}$ is lower than that of $h_i$ by $2$ is to include $0$ in the domain of $\psi_{x,i}$ and $\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}$. We need a step to substitute a function $g$ satisfying $g(0)=g'(0)=0$ by $g(t)/t$, where the differentiability drops.
The proof of Proposition 2.3 of [@O2019] implies that $\psi_{x,i}^{(j)}(t)$ $(0\le j\le k-1)$ depends continuously on $\partial^\mu h_i$ $(0\le |\mu|\le j+1)$. Since $\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}^{\,(j)}(t)\equiv0$ for $j\ge1$ if $h_i\equiv0$, there holds
\[lemma\_overline\_b\] Put $\overline\a=\max\{\lfloor -\a \rfloor-m,0\}$ for $\a\in\RR$. There is a positive constant $\overline b=\overline b(\a,\e_0,b)$ such that $\big|\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}^{\,(j)}(t)\big|\le \overline b$ for any $M'\in \mathcal{M}(\overline\a+3,\e_0,b,V)$, $x\in M'$, $i$, $j$ with $1\le j\le \overline\a+1$ and $t\in[0,\e_0]$.
\[lemma1\] For any real number $\a$ and for any positive numbers $\e_0,b,V$ there is a positive number $b^0=b^0(\a,\e_0,b)$ such that for any $M'$ in $\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$, for any point $x$ in $M'$, for any $W_i'$, where $W_i'$ is as in Definition \[def\_M(e,b,V)\], we have $$\left|\Pf \int_{B_{\e_0}(x)\cap W_i'}{|x-y|}^\a dy \right|\le b^0.
$$
We may assume that $\a\le-m$ and hence $\overline\alpha=\lfloor -\a \rfloor-m$ since if $\a>-m$ then the conclusion is trivial as the integral converges without regularization.
We use the convention $\xi^0/0=\log \xi$ fot $\xi>0$ in what follows to make the formulae simpler.
The argument in what follows is somehow parallel to that in [@O2019; @OS2]. We use the coarea formula to reduce the integrand of the energy into an integral of the form which has been studied in the theory of generalized functions [@GS] (cf. [@B; @FV]).
For $0<\e\le\e_0$ we have $$\label{f_l22-1}
\int_{(B_{\e_0}(x)\cap W_i')\setminus B_{\e}(x)}{|x-y|}^\a dy
=\int_\e^{\e_0}t^{\a+m-1}\,\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)\,dt.$$ Noting that $\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)$ is of class $\overline\a+1$ we see $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \int_\e^{\e_0}t^{\a+m-1}\,\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)\,dt
&=&\displaystyle \int_\e^{\e_0}t^{\a+m-1}\left(\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)-\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{j!}\,t^j\right)dt \label{f_l22-3}\\[2mm]
&&\displaystyle +\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{(\a+m+j)j!}\,\left({\e_0}^{\a+m+j}-{\e}^{\a+m+j}\right). \label{f_l22-4}\end{aligned}$$ We agree that if $\a\in\ZZ$ the last term of when $j=\overline\a$, where $\overline\a=-\a-m$, is meant to be $$\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(\overline\a)}(0)}{\overline\a\, !}\,\left(\log{\e_0}-\log{\e}\right)$$ by our convention $\xi^0/0=\log\xi$ for $\xi>0$.
As $$\label{f_l22-2}
\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{j!}\,t^j
+\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(\overline\a+1)}(ct)}{(\overline\a+1)!}\,t^{\overline\a+1} \quack (0<\exists c<1),$$ Lemma \[lemma\_overline\_b\] implies that $$\label{f25}
\left| t^{\a+m-1}\left(\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)-\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{j!}\,t^j\right) \right|\le \frac{\overline b}{(\overline\a+1)!}\,t^{\a+m+\overline\a},$$ where $\overline b=\overline b(\a,\e_0,b)$ is a positive constant given by Lemma \[lemma\_overline\_b\]. Since $\a+m+\overline\a>-1$ the integral in the right hand side of converges as $\e$ tends to $0$.
Therefore, by subtracting negative power terms of $\e$ and a log term if exists, we obtain Hadamard’s finite part: $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle \Pf \int_{B_{\e_0}(x)\cap W_i'}{|x-y|}^\a dy
&=&\displaystyle \lim_{\e\to0^+}\left(\int_\e^{\e_0}t^{\a+m-1}\,\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)\,dt+\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{(\a+m+j)j!}\,{\e}^{\a+m+j}\right) \nonumber \\&=&\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{(\a+m+j)j!}\,{\e_0}^{\a+m+j} \label{eq_Pf}\\&&\displaystyle +\int_0^{\e_0}t^{\a+m-1}\left(\overline\varphi_{x,i}(t)-\sum_{j=0}^{\overline\a}\frac{\overline\varphi_{x,i}^{(j)}(0)}{j!}\,t^j\right)dt. \label{eq_Pf2}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\big|\overline{\varphi}_{x,i}^{\,(j)}(0)\big|\le \overline b$ $(1\le j\le \overline\a)$ by Lemma \[lemma\_overline\_b\], , and imply $$\left|\Pf \int_{B_{\e_0}(x)\cap W_i'}{|x-y|}^\a dy \right|
\le
\frac{\sigma_{m-1}}{|\a+m|}\,{\e_0}^{\a+m}+
\sum_{j=1}^{\overline\a+1}\frac{\overline b}{|\a+m+j|\,j!}\,{\e_0}^{\a+m+j},$$ which completes the proof.
Self-repulsiveness of energies
==============================
We say that a functional on the space of submanifolds of $\RR^n$ is self-repulsive with respect to $C^k$-topology if the value of the functional blows up as a submanifold approaches with respect to $C^k$-topology to an immersed submanifold with double points.
Regularized Riesz energy
------------------------
### Self-repulsiveness
The regularized $\a$-energy $E_\a$ restricted to $\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ is self-repulsive with respect to $C^0$-topology if $\a\le-2m$ in the following sense.
\[theorem1\] Let $\e_0,b,V>0$. If $\a\le-2m$ then for any positive number $C$ there is a positive number $\delta$ such that if an embedded closed submanifold $M\in\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ satisfies the following conditions then $E_\a(M)>C$.
1. There are an immersed submanifold $M'\in\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ with a double point $x'$ and a $C^{\overline\a+3}$-immersion $f\colon M\to M'=f(M)$ such that $|f(x)-x|<\delta$ for any $x$ in $M$.
2. $f^{-1}\big(B_{\e_0}(x')\cap M'\,\big)$ is a disjoint union of $W_1,\dots, W_l$ $(l\ge2)$, each $W_i$ is $C^{\overline\a+3}$-diffeomorphic to an $m$-ball, and that $f|_{W_i}\colon W_i\to M'$ is a $C^{\overline\a+3}$-embedding.
Lemma \[lemma\_overline\_b\] implies that one can find a positive number $\e_1$ with $\e_1\le\e_0$ such that if $M'\in\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ then for any $x'\in M'$ and for any $\rho$ with $0<\rho\le\e_1$ we have $$\mbox{Vol}\left((B_\rho(x')\setminus B_{\rho/2}(x'))\cap W_i\right)
\ge 0.9\left(1-\left(\frac12\right)^m\right)\rho^m\,\mbox{Vol}(B^m) \quack \forall i,$$ where $W_i$ is as in Definition \[def\_M(e,b,V)\] and $B^m$ is a unit $m$-ball. Put $c_1=0.9\left(1-(1/2)^m\right)\mbox{Vol}(B^m)$ so that the right hand side above is given by $c_1\rho^m$.
Let $W_0(x, \e)$ denote the connected component of $B_{\e}(x)\cap M$ that contains a point $x$ of $M$.
Assume $M\in\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ satisfies the conditions (1) and (2) of the theorem. Put $x_i={(f|_{W_i})}^{-1}(x')$ $\>(i=1,2)$. Since the curvature is bounded there is a positive number $\e_2=\e_2(\a,\e_0,b)$ such that $B_{r}(x_i)\cap W_i$ coincides with $W_0(x_i, r)$ if $0<r\le 2\e_2$ for each $i$.
Put $\e_3=\min\{\e_1,\e_2\,,1\}$. Consider a pair of “annuli” $$A_1(\rho)=(B_\rho(x_1)\setminus B_{\rho/2}(x_1))\cap W_1, \>\>
A_2(\rho)=(B_\rho(x_2)\setminus B_{\rho/2}(x_2))\cap W_2 \quack (0<\rho\le\e_3).$$ Since $|x_1-x_2|<2\delta$, if $x\in A_1(\rho)$ and $y\in A_2(\rho)$ then $|x-y|<2\rho+2\delta$. Therefore the interaction energy between $A_1(\rho)$ and $A_2(\rho)$ can be estimated from below by $$\int_{A_1(\rho)}\int_{A_2(\rho)}{|x-y|}^\a\,dxdy
\ge {(2\rho+2\delta)}^\a\big(c_1\rho^m\big)^2
=2^\a c_1^2\,\rho^{2m+\a}\left(1+\frac\delta\rho\right)^\a$$ Let the right hand side above be denoted by $\lambda_\a(\delta,\rho)$. It is a decreasing function of $\delta$ if we fix $\rho$.
Since $W_0(x_i,\e_3)=B_{\e_3}(x_i)\cap W_i$ $(i=1,2)$ includes the disjoint union of the interiors of $A_i(2^{-j}\e_3)$ $(j\ge0)$, which we denote by $\mbox{int}A_i(2^{-j}\e_3)$, we have $$W_0(x_1,\e_3)\times W_0(x_2,\e_3) \supset \bigsqcup_{j\ge0} \mbox{int}A_1(2^{-j}\e_3)\times \mbox{int}A_2(2^{-j}\e_3).$$ Remark that if $x\in W_0(x_1,\e_3)$ then $W_0(x,\e_3)$ and $W_0(x_2,\e_3)$ are disjoint because $W_0(x,\e_3)\subset W_0(x_1, 2\e_2)\subset W_1$, $W_0(x_2,\e_3)\subset W_0(x_2, 2\e_2)\subset W_2$, and $W_1$ and $W_2$ are disjoint by the assumption (2). Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
E_\a(M)&=&\displaystyle \int_M\left(\int_{M\setminus W_0(x,\e_3)}{|x-y|}^\a dy+\Pf\int_{W_0(x,\e_3)} {|x-y|}^\a dy\right)dx \nonumber \\&\ge&\displaystyle \int_{W_0(x_1,\e_3)}\left(\int_{W_0(x_2,\e_3)}{|x-y|}^\a dy\right)dx +\int_M\left(-b^0(\a,\e_3,b)\right)dx \nonumber
\\
&\ge&\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^\infty \lambda_\a\left(\delta,\frac{\e_3}{2^j}\right) -b^0(\a,\e_3,b)V, \label{f_lbv}\end{aligned}$$ where $b^0(\a,\e_3,b)$ is the constant given in Lemma \[lemma1\]. Put $$l_0=\left\lceil \frac{C+b^0(\a,\e_3,b)V}{2^{2\a}c_1^2} \right\rceil \quack \mbox{ and } \quack \delta_0=\frac{\e_3}{2^{l_0}},$$ then as $\e_3\le 1$ and $2m+\a\le0$ we have $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle
\sum_{j=0}^{l_0} \lambda_\a\left(\delta_0,\frac{\e_3}{2^j}\right)
&\ge&\displaystyle \sum_{j=0}^{l_0} \lambda_\a\left(\frac{\e_3}{2^j},\frac{\e_3}{2^j}\right)
=2^{2\a}c_1^2 \sum_{j=0}^{l_0} {\left(\frac{\e_3}{2^j}\right)}^{2m+\a}
> 2^{2\a}c_1^2 l_0\ge C+b^0(\a,\e_3,b)V,
\end{array}$$ which, together with , implies $E_\a(M)>C$.
We remark that our proof needs the condition (4) of $\mathcal{M}(\overline\alpha+3,\e_0,b,V)$ in Definition \[def\_M(e,b,V)\] for technical reason. It was not necessary in the case of knots [@O1].
### Behavior of the energy of surfaces with double points
In the case of knots, $E_\a(K')$ is finite even if $K'$ has transversal self-intersection when $\a>-2$ [@O94]. Let us study in the case of surfaces whether $E_\a(M')$ is finite or not if $M'$ has a double point when $\a>-4$ according to the type of the double point.
\(1) Suppose $n\ge4$ and $M'$ has an orthogonal self-intersection at a point $x'$. Then for a sufficientlly small positive number $\rho$, the order of contribution of $M\cap B_\rho(x')$ to the energy can be estimated by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \int_0^\rho\int_0^\rho {\left(t^2+s^2\right)}^{\a/2} {(2\pi)}^2ts\,dsdt
&=&\displaystyle 4\pi^2 \,\rho^{\a+4}\int_0^1\int_0^1 {\left(t^2+s^2\right)}^{\a/2} ts\,dsdt \\[4mm]
&=&\displaystyle \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle 8\pi^2 \,\rho^{\a+4}\frac{{\sqrt2}^{\,\a+2}-1}{(\a+2)(\a+4)} & \quack\mbox{ if }\a>-4, \\
\displaystyle \infty & \quack \mbox{ if }\a\le-4.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}$$ Therefore, when the dimension $n$ of the ambient space is greater than or equal to $4$, $E_\a$ is not self-repulsive if $\a>-4$.
\(2) Suppose $M$ has a tangential double point. For example, if a neighbourhood of the tangent point is isometric to that of the union of a unit sphere and a tangent plane, the contribution of a small neighbourhood of the tangent point to the energy can be estimated, up to multiplication and summation by constants, by $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle \int_0^{R}\left(\int_0^{R}{\left(\left(\frac\rho2\right)^4+r^2\right)}^{\alpha/2}r\,dr\right)\rho\,d\rho
&\sim&\displaystyle \int_0^{R}\frac{\rho^{2\a+5}}{2^{\a+2}(\a+2)}\,d\rho+O(1), \quad 0<R\ll 1,
\end{array}$$ which is finite if and only if $\a>-3$, where we used a convention $\xi^0/0=\log\xi$ $(\xi>0)$ as before.
\(3) Let us consider a degenerate case. Suppose $M$ has a cone singularity, say, of the type $x^2+y^2-z^2=0$. Then the interaction energy between the upper and lower cones can be estimated, up to multiplication by a constant, by $$\int_0^1\left(\int_0^1 {(r+\rho)}^\a \rho\,d\rho\right)r\,dr
=\int_0^1\frac{r^{\a+3}}{(\a+1)(\a+2)}\,dr+O(1),$$ which is finite if and only if $\a>-4$.
Assume $\a\le-4$. Suppose $\{M_j\}$ is a sequence of embedded surfaces that degenerate to a singular surface with a double point with respect to $C^0$-topology. Let $x_j$ and $y_j$ be points in $M_j$ such that the intrinsic (geodesical) distance between them in $M_j$ is bounded below by a positive constant and that $|x_j-y_j|$ tends to $+0$ as $j$ goes to $\infty$. Assume that $x_j$ and $y_j$ are at the tip of conical protrusions, say $C^1_j$ and $C^2_j$, whose “hights” are bounded below by a positive constant. The interaction energy between $C^1_j$ and $C^2_j$ (the contribution of $C^1_j\times C^2_j$ to $E_\a(M_j)$) can be bounded if the “radii” of $C_j^i$ $(i=1,2)$ go to $+0$ according as $|x_j-y_j|$ goes to $+0$, but then we conjecture that the energies of $C_j^i$ $(i=1,2)$ blow up by the argument for the energy $E_{AS}$ of a cylinder by Auckly and Sadun [@AS].
Thus we are lead to the following conjecture:
The regularized $\a$-energy $E_\a$ for smooth closed surfaces is self-repulsive with respect to $C^0$-topology if and only inf $\a\le-4$, while $E_\a$ restricted to the space of surfaces in $\RR^3$ with curvature bounded by a constant $b$ $(b>0)$ is self-repulsive if and only inf $\a\le-3$.
Auckly-Sadun’s regularized surface energy
-----------------------------------------
[*Auckly-Sadun’s surface energy*]{} [@AS] is given by $$E_{AS}(M)=\int_M \left[\lim_{\e\to0}\left(\int_{M, |x-y|\ge\e}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^4}-\frac\pi{\e^2}+\frac{\pi(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2}{16}\log\left((\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2\e^2\right)+\frac{\pi \kappa_1\kappa_2}4\right)\right] dx,$$ where $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ are principal curvatures of $M$ at $x$, which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
E_{AS}(M)&=&
\int_M \left[\lim_{\e\to0}\left(\int_{M, |x-y|\ge\e}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^4}-\frac\pi{\e^2}+\frac{\pi(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2}{8}\log\e\right)\right] dx
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\pi}{16}\int_M(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2\log (\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2dx
+\frac{\pi^2}2\chi(M) \nonumber \\[1mm]
&=&\displaystyle \int_M\left(\Pf\int_M\frac{dy}{|x-y|^4}\right)dx
+\frac{\pi}{16}\int_M(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2\log (\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2dx+\frac{\pi^2}2\chi(M) \nonumber \\[1mm]
&=&\displaystyle E_{-4}(M)
+\frac{\pi}{16}\int_M(\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2\log (\kappa_1-\kappa_2)^2dx+\frac{\pi^2}2\chi(M), \label{E_AS_E4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi(M)$ is the Euler characteristic. We remark that the second term of was added to make $E_{AS}$ Möbius invariant, and that $E_{-4}(M)$ is not Möbius invariant as was pointed out in [@OS2].
Now the self-repulsiveness in the sense of Theorem \[theorem1\] of Auckly-Sadun’s surface energy follows from that of the regularized Riesz energy $E_{-4}$.
Kusner-Sullivan’s $\vect{(1-\cos\theta)^m}$ energy
--------------------------------------------------
Let $M$ be an $m$-dimensional oriented closed submanifold of class $C^2$ in $\RR^n$. For a pair of points of $M$, $x$ and $y$, we define a Möbius invariant angle $\theta=\theta_M(x,y)$ as follows.
Let $\Sigma_x(y)$ be an $m$-sphere which is tangent to $M$ at $x$ that passes through $y$. Remark that $\Sigma_x(y)$ is uniquely determined. Suppose $\Sigma_x(y)$ is endowed with the orientation that coincides with that of $M$ at point $x$. Put $\Pi_y=T_yM$ and $\Pi_x=T_y\Sigma_x(y)$. Let $u_1,\dots, u_m$ and $v_1,\dots, v_m$ be ordered orthonormal bases of $\Pi_x$ and $\Pi_y$ that give positive orientations of $\Pi_x$ and $\Pi_y$ respectively. Let $\theta$ be the angle between $u_1\wedge \dots \wedge u_m$ and $v_1\wedge \dots \wedge v_m$ in the Grassmannian, i.e. $$\cos\theta=\langle u_1\wedge \dots \wedge u_m, v_1\wedge \dots \wedge v_m\rangle
=\det(u_i\cdot v_j),$$ where $u_i\cdot v_j$ is the standard inner product of $u_i$ and $v_j$. The angle $\theta$ is called [*combined angle*]{} in [@KS]. Now [*Kusner-Sullivan’s energy*]{} [@KS] is given by $$E_{KS}(M)=\iint_{M\times M}\frac{{(1-\cos\theta_M(x,y))}^m}{{|x-y|}^{2m}}\,dxdy.$$ It is a natural generalization of the [cosine formula]{} of the energy for knots by Doyle and Schramm ([@AS; @KS]).
\[theorem2\] Kusner-Sullivan’s energy $E_{KS}$, restricted to the space of submanifolds of class $C^2$ with curvature bounded by $b$ $(b>0)$, is self-repulsive with respect to $C^2$-topology.
Since $E_{KS}$ is continuous with respect to $C^2$-topology and the integrand is non-negative, it is enough to show that if $M'$ is an immersed submanifold with a double point $x'$ then for any positive number $C$ there are positive numbers $\delta_1,\delta_2$ $(\delta_1<\delta_2)$ such that $A_{\delta_1,\delta_2}=M'\cap(B^m_{\delta_2}(x')\setminus B^m_{\delta_1}(x'))$ satisfies $$\iint_{A_{\delta_1,\delta_2}\times A_{\delta_1,\delta_2}}\frac{{(1-\cos\theta_M(x,y))}^m}{{|x-y|}^{2m}}\,dxdy>C.$$
Suppose for some $\e_0>0$ $B_{\e_0}(x')\cap M'=W_1'\cup W_2'$ with $W_i'$ being diffeomorphic to $B^m$. Let $\Pi_i$ be $T_{x'}W_i'$ $(i=1,2)$. Assume that each $W_i'$ can be expressed as graph of a function $h_i$ from a subset $U_i$ of $\Pi_i$ to ${\big(T_{x}W_i'\,\big)}^\perp\cong\RR^{n-m}$. We use the coordinates of $\Pi_i$ so that $x'$ is the origin in what follows. We take $\e_0$ sufficiently small so tat $W_i$ is enough close to $U_i$ in $C^1$-topology.
We show that for any positive number $C$ there are a natural number $l$ and a set of mutually disjoint subsets $\{V^i_{j}\}_{i=1,2, \,1\le j\le l}$ of $U_i$ such that
1. $h_1(V_j^1), h_2(V_{j'}^2)$ $(1\le j,j'\le l)$ are mutually disjoint.
2. $\displaystyle \sum_{j=1}^l\int_{h_1(V_j^1)}\int_{h_2(V_j^2)}\frac{{(1-\cos\theta_{M'}(x,y))}^m}{{|x-y|}^{2m}}\,dxdy>C.$
To satisfy the condition (2), we look for $V^i_{j}$ $(i=1,2,\,j\in\NN)$ so that we can find a positive constants $c_2,c_3$ such that
1. if $x\in h_1(V_j^1)$ and $y\in h_2(V_j^2)$ then $1-\cos\theta_{M'}(x,y)\ge c_2$ for any $j$,
2. $\displaystyle {\left(\max_{x\in h_1(V_j^1),\,y\in h_2(V_j^2)}|x-y|\right)}^{-2m}\,\mbox{Vol}\left(h_1(V_j^1)\right)\mbox{Vol}\left(h_2(V_j^2)\right)\ge c_3$ for any $j$.
This can be done as follows. Case 1. Suppose $W'_1$ and $W'_2$ are not tangent, i.e. $\Pi_1\ne \Pi_2$. One can find a positive constant $c_2$ and a pair of points $p_0\in \Pi_1$ and $q_0\in\Pi_2$ so that $1-\cos\theta_{\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2}(p_0,q_0)>2c_2$. Put $p_j=2^{-j}p_0$ and $q_j=2^{-j}q_0$. Remark that $\theta_{\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2}(p_j,q_j)=\theta_{\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2}(p_0,q_0)$ for any $j$ since $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$ are affine $m$-planes. Take a natural number $j_0$ such that if $j\ge j_0$ then $|\theta_{\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2}(p_j,q_j)-\theta_{M'}(h_1(p_j),h_2(q_j))|<c_2$, which implies the condition (a) above. One can choose positive numbers $r$ and $c_3$ so that $V^1_{j}=B_{2^{-j}r}(p_j)$ and $V^2_{j}=B_{2^{-j}r}(q_j)$ satisfy the conditions (1) and (b) above for any $j\ge j_0$ since $|p_j-q_j|\sim 2^{-j}|p_0-q_0|$ and $\mbox{Vol}\left(h_i(V_j^i)\right)\sim 2^{-jm}r^m\mbox{Vol}(B^m)$ for $i=1,2$.
Case 2. Suppose $W'_1$ and $W'_2$ are tangent, i.e. $\Pi_1= \Pi_2$, which we denote by $\Pi$. First, take a positive number $\e_1$ $(\e_1\le\e_0)$ such that $\Pi\cap B_{\e_1}(x')\subset U_1\cap U_2$. Put $\Pi(\e)=\Pi\cap B_\e(x')$ and $W_i'(\e)=h_i(\Pi(\e))$ $(i=1,2)$ for $\e$ with $0<\e\le\e_1$. We can choose a positive number $\e_2$ $(\e_2\le\e_1)$ such that $T_{h_i(p)}W_i'$ is close enough to $\Pi$ for any $p$ in $\Pi(\e_2)$ so that there are positive numbers $\mu_1, \mu_2$ $(\mu_1<\mu_2)$ and $c_2$ satisfying $1-\cos\theta_{M'}(h_1(p),h_2(q))>c_2$ for any $p,q\in\Pi(\e_2)$ if $(h_1-h_2)(p)\ne0$ and $\mu_1|h_1(p)-h_2(p)|\le|p-q|\le\mu_2|h_1(p)-h_2(p)|$. Put $\mu=(\mu_1+\mu_2)/2$.
Next, note that since $W'_1$ and $W'_2$ are tangent we have $h_i(0)=0$ and $\partial_1h_i(0)=\dots \partial_mh_i(0)=0$ for $i=1,2$. Take the smallest $k$ such that there is a coordinate axis $\xi$ of $\Pi$ that satisfies $$\frac{\partial^{\,k}(h_1-h_2)}{{\partial \xi}^k}(0)\ne0.$$ Take a positive number $\e_3$ $(\e_3\le\e_2)$ so that if $p$ $(p\ne x')$ is in the intersection of $\Pi(\e_3)$ and the $\xi$-axis then $h_1(p)\ne h_2(p)$. Take $p_0$ $(p_0\ne x')$ in the intersection of $\Pi(\e_3)$ and the $\xi$-axis and put $p_j=2^{-j}p_0$, $h_0=|h_1(p_0)-h_2(p_0)|$, and $q_j=p_j-2^{-jk}\mu h_0$. Then we can find positive numbers $r$ and $c_3$ such that $V^1_{j}=B_{2^{-jk}r}(p_j)$ and $V^2_{j}=B_{2^{-jk}r}(q_j)$ satisfy the conditions (1), (a) and (b) above since $|p_j-q_j|\sim 2^{-jk}|p_0-q_0|$ and $\mbox{Vol}\left(h_i(V_j^i)\right)\sim 2^{-jkm}r^m\mbox{Vol}(B^m)$ for $i=1,2$.
We remark that even in the case of knots we used the bound of length and curvature to show the self-repulsiveness for technical reason (cf. [@LO] Theorem 5.7).
[OS]{} D. Auckly and L. Sadun, [*A family of Möbius invariant 2-knot energies*]{}, Geometric Topology (Proceedings of the 1993 Georgia International Topology Conference) AMS/IP Studies in Adv. Math., W. H. Kazez ed. Amer. Math. Soc. and International Press, Cambridge, MA. (1997), 235–258.
S. Blatt and P. Reiter, [*Modeling repulsive forces on fibres via knot energies*]{}, Mol. Based Math. Biol. 2 (2014), 56–72.
K. Brakke, [*The Surface Evolver,*]{} Exper. Math. [**1**]{} (1992), 141–165, see also http://facstaff.susqu.edu/brakke/evolver/evolver.html
J.-L. Brylinski, [*The beta function of a knot.*]{} Internat. J. Math. [**10**]{} (1999), 415–423.
Y. Diao, C. Ernst, and E. J. Janse van Rensburg, [*Properties of knot energies*]{}. In: Whittington S.G., De Sumners W., Lodge T. (eds) Topology and Geometry in Polymer Science. The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, vol 103. Springer, New York, NY (1998), 37–47.
M. H. Freedman, Z-X. He and Z. Wang, [*Möbius energy of knots and unknots.*]{} Ann. of Math. **139** (1994), 1–50.
E. J. Fuller and M.K. Vemuri. [*The Brylinski Beta Function of a Surface*]{}, Geometriae Dedicata 179 (2015), 153–160.
I.M. Gel’fand and G.E. Shilov, [*Generalized Functions. Volume I: Properties and Operations*]{}, Academic Press, New York and London, 1967
R. Kusner, and J. M. Sullivan, [*Möbius-invariant Knot Energies,*]{} Ideal Knots. A. Stasiak, V. Katrich, L. H. Kauffman eds., World Scientific, Singapore (1998), 315–352.
R. Langevin and J. O’Hara. [*Conformally invariant energies of knots,*]{} J. Institut Math. Jussieu 4 (2005) 219–280.
J. O’Hara, [*Energy of a knot.*]{} Topology [**30**]{} (1991), 241–247.
J. O’Hara, *Family of energy functionals of knots,* Topology Appl. **48** (1992), 147–161.
J. O’Hara, *Energy functionals of knots II,* Topology Appl. **56** (1994), 45–61.
J. O’Hara. [*Energy of knots and conformal geometry,*]{} Series on Knots and Everything Vol. 33, World Scientific, Singapore, xiv + 288 pages (2003).
J. O’Hara, [*Characterization of balls by generalized Riesz energy*]{}, Math. Nachr. 292 (2019), 159–169.
J. O’Hara and G. Solanes, [*Regularized Riesz energies of submanifolds*]{}, Math. Nachr. 291 (2018), 1356–1373.
P. Reiter, [*Repulsive knot energies and pseudodifferential calculus for O’Hara’s knot energy family $E(\a), \,\a\in[2,3)$*]{}, Math. Nachr. 285 (2012), 889–913.
P. Strzelecki and H. von der Mosel, [*Integral Menger curvature for surfaces*]{}, Adv. Math. 226 (2011), 2233–2304.
P. Strzelecki, M. Szumańska, H. von der Mosel, [*On some knot energies involving Menger curvature*]{}, Topology Appl. 160 (2013), 1507–1529.
Jun O’Hara
Department of Mathematics and Informatics,Faculty of Science, Chiba University
1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage, Chiba, 263-8522, JAPAN.
E-mail: [email protected]
[^1]: Supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K03462.
[^2]: To be precise, in [@O1] we defined the energy by $\displaystyle E_O(K)=\int_K\left[\lim_{\e\to 0^+}\left(\int_{K, d_K(x,y)\ge\e}\frac{dy}{|x-y|^2}-\frac{2}\e\right)\right]dx,$ where $d_K(x,y)$ is the arc-length between $x$ and $y$ along the knot. As was pointed out in [@Obook] Remark 2.2.1, $E_O(K)$ and $E(K)$ coincide.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this talk, electroweak baryogenesis in the nMSSM is discussed following Ref [@Huber:2006wf]. We focus on differences compared to the MSSM. We conclude that electroweak baryogenesis in the nMSSM is rather generic. Still, sfermions of the first two generations are required to be heavy to evade constraints from electric dipole moments.'
author:
- 'T. Konstandin [^1]'
title: 'Electroweak Baryogenesis in the nMSSM [^2] '
---
[ address=[ Department of Theoretical Physics, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), AlbaNova University Center, Roslagstullsbacken 21, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden]{} ]{}
Introduction to Electroweak Baryogenesis and the nMSSM
======================================================
A viable baryogenesis mechanism aims to explain the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe (BAU), $\eta = \frac{n_B - n_{\bar B}}{s}
\approx 8.7(3) \times 10^{-11}$, and the celebrated Sakharov conditions state the necessary ingredients for baryogenesis: (i) C and CP violation, (ii) non-equilibrium, (iii) B number violation.
B number violation is present in the hot Universe due to sphaleron processes while C is violated in the electroweak sector of the Standard Model (SM). Electroweak baryogenesis (EWBG) requires a strong first-order electroweak phase transition (PT) to drive the plasma out of equilibrium. The CP violation is induced by the moving phase boundary and has to be communicated into the symmetric phase, where the sphaleron process is active [@Cohen:1990it]. Thus, the two important aspects of EWBG are transport and CP violation. This makes it essential to derive transport equations that contain CP-violating quantum effects in a genuine manner.
Compared to other baryogenesis mechanisms, EWBG has the attractive property that the relevant energy scale will be accessible by the next generation of collider experiments.
The nMSSM of Ref. [@Panagiotakopoulos:2000wp] consists of the MSSM extended by a gauge singlet and the superpotential W\_[NMSSM]{} = S H\_1 H\_2 + S + W\_[MSSM]{}. In this model, a $\mathbb{Z}_5$ or $\mathbb{Z}_7$ symmetry is imposed to solve the domain wall problem without destabilizing the electroweak hierarchy. The $\mu$ term is forbidden and only induced after electroweak symmetry breaking. Thus the $\mu$ problem is solved. The discrete symmetries also eliminate the singlet self coupling. A rather large value of $\lambda$ is needed in the nMSSM to fulfill current mass bounds on the Higgsinos and charginos, which might lead to a Landau pole below the GUT scale.
EWBG in the MSSM and its extensions
===================================
In the MSSM and its extensions the dominant contribution to baryogenesis comes from the charginos (Higgsino - Wino - mixing) with the mass matrix \_R = , \_L = , m(z) =
M\_2 & g H\_2\^\* (z)\
g H\_1\^\* (z) & (z)
, where the Wino mass parameter $M_2$ and the $\mu$ parameter contain complex phases. In the nMSSM the $\mu$ parameter is proportional to the vev of the singlet field and hence changes during the phase transition, while it is constant in the MSSM.
As mentioned above, to obtain unambiguous results for the predicted BAU, a formalism is required that treats transport and CP violation in a genuine manner. This formalism is given by the Kadanoff-Baym equations that constitute the statistical analog to the Schwinger-Dyson equations.
The simplest example of CP violation in transport equations is given by the one-flavour case with a $z-$dependent complex phase in the mass term [@Joyce:1994zn], $m(z)= |m(z)| \times e^{i \theta(z)}$. The transport equation for the particle distribution function $f$ is in this case of the Vlasov type ($\omega^2=k^2+m^2$) \_z f\_s + F\_s \_[k\_z]{} f\_s = , F\_s = - + s \[sem\_cl\_force\]. Notice that the second part of the force $F_s$ violates CP and hence sources EWBG.
{width="30.00000%"} {width="40.00000%"} \[MSSM\_EWBG\]
The multi flavour case can be treated in linear approximation [@Konstandin:2004gy]. In this case new sources of baryogenesis are present that are based on flavour mixing. However, these sources are suppressed by flavour oscillations and are only relevant for almost mass degenerate charginos. Former approaches neglected the flavour oscillation what lead to larger results, especially away from mass degeneracy [@Carena:2000id]. The left plot of Fig. \[MSSM\_EWBG\] shows the produced baryon asymmetry for a maximal CP-violating phase in the chargino mass matrix using the system of diffusion equations suggested in Ref. [@Huet:1995sh] for the MSSM. The black area denotes the region of the parameter space where EWBG is viable. We note that EWBG in the MSSM is only possible if: (i) The charginos are nearly mass degenerate such that mixing effects are not suppressed. (ii) The CP phases in the chargino sector are ${\cal O}(1)$. Similar to chargino mediated EWBG, neutralinos can give rise to a contribution to the BAU of similar size [@Cirigliano:2006dg].
Electroweak phase transition
----------------------------
![ The left/right plot shows both sides of the inequality (\[PT\_ineq\]) for random nMSSM models with/without a first-order phase transition.\[PT\_NMSSM\]](figs/check1.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![ The left/right plot shows both sides of the inequality (\[PT\_ineq\]) for random nMSSM models with/without a first-order phase transition.\[PT\_NMSSM\]](figs/check2.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
In contrast to the MSSM, no light stop is needed in the nMSSM, since the additional singlet terms in the Higgs potential strengthen the phase transition [@Huber:2000mg]. In the nMSSM case these terms read: = [L]{}\_[MSSM]{} + m\_s\^2 |S|\^2 + \^2 |S|\^2 (H\_1\^H\_1 + H\_2\^H\_2) + t\_s (S + h.c.) + (a\_S H\_1 H\_2 + h.c.). The parameters $a_\lambda$ and $t_s$ are SUSY breaking and all sources of CP violation in this potential can be contributed to $t_s$. In a simplified scheme without CP violation, a first-order phase transition due to tree-level dynamics occurs if [@Menon:2004wv] m\_s\^2 < | - m\_s a |, a = 2 , \^2 = \^2 2+ \^2 2. \[PT\_ineq\] Fig. \[PT\_NMSSM\] displays Eq. (\[PT\_ineq\]) for random nMSSM models with/without a strong first-order PT and shows that this criterion is also decisive if CP violation and the one-loop effective potential are taken into account [@Huber:2006wf].
EDM constraints and baryon asymmetry
------------------------------------
Since the trilinear term in the superpotential contributes to the Higgs mass, $\tan (\beta)$ is generically of ${\cal O}(1)$. Hence two-loop contributions from the charginos to the electron EDM are naturally small. The one-loop contributions to the electron EDM can, as in the MSSM, be reduced by increasing the sfermion masses.
The effective $\mu$ parameter is dynamical in the nMSSM and its complex phase changes during the phase transition. This leads to new CP-violating sources in the chargino sector that are of second order in the gradient expansion as the contributions in the one flavour case of Eq. (\[sem\_cl\_force\]). These contributions do not rely on flavour mixing and are not suppressed by the flavour oscillations. Thus mass degenerate charginos are not required for viable EWBG in the nMSSM. Additionally, the bubble wall tends to be thinner than in the MSSM what further enhances second order sources compared to first order sources. This leads to the fact that it is rather generic to generate the observed baryon asymmetry in the nMSSM [@Huber:2006wf]. The right plot of Fig. \[MSSM\_EWBG\] shows the binned BAU for a random set of nMSSM models with a strong first order PT.
Conclusions
===========
The nMSSM provides a framework in which electroweak baryogenesis seems to be possible without tuning.
I would like to thank S. Huber, M.G. Schmidt and T. Prokopec for the fruitful collaboration on the presented subject. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge financial support by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsr[å]{}det), Contract No. 621-2001-1611 and Resebidrag.
[9]{}
S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec and M. G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B [**757**]{} (2006) 172. A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Nucl. Phys. B [**349**]{} (1991) 727. C. Panagiotakopoulos and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 055003. M. Joyce, T. Prokopec and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{} (1996) 2930. K. Kainulainen, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and S. Weinstock, JHEP [**0106**]{} (2001) 031. T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec and M. G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B [**716**]{} (2005) 373. T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt and M. Seco, Nucl. Phys. B [**738**]{} (2006) 1. M. Carena, J. M. Moreno, M. Quiros, M. Seco and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B [**599**]{} (2001) 158. M. Carena, M. Quiros, M. Seco and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B [**650**]{} (2003) 24. P. Huet and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D [**53**]{} (1996) 4578. V. Cirigliano, S. Profumo and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP [**0607**]{} (2006) 002. S. J. Huber and M. G. Schmidt, Nucl. Phys. B [**606**]{}, 183 (2001). A. Menon, D. E. Morrissey and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 035005.
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Talk presented at SUSY06, the 14th International Conference on Supersymmetry and the Unification of Fundamental Interactions, UC Irvine, California, 12-17 June 2006
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'When each data point is a large graph, graph statistics such as densities of certain subgraphs (motifs) can be used as feature vectors for machine learning. While intuitive, motif counts are expensive to compute and difficult to work with theoretically. Via graphon theory, we give an explicit quantitative bound for the ability of motif homomorphisms to distinguish large networks under both generative and sampling noise. Furthermore, we give similar bounds for the graph spectrum and connect it to homomorphism densities of cycles. This results in an easily computable classifier on graph data with theoretical performance guarantee. Our method yields competitive results on classification tasks for the autoimmune disease *Lupus Erythematosus*.'
address:
- '[(Andreas Haupt)]{} Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, University of Bonn, Bonn 53115, Germany'
- '[(Mohammad Khatami)]{} Department of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Bonn 53113, Germany'
- '[(Thomas Schultz)]{} Department of Computer Science, University of Bonn, Bonn 53113, Germany'
- '[(Ngoc Mai Tran)]{} Department of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, Texas TX 78712, USA'
author:
- Andreas Haupt
- Mohammad Khatami
- Thomas Schultz
- Ngoc Mai Tran
bibliography:
- 'motifs.bib'
title: 'Classification on Large Networks: A Quantitative Bound via Motifs and Graphons'
---
Introduction
============
This paper concerns classification problems when each data point is a large network. In neuroscience, for instance, the brain can be represented by a structural connectome or a functional connectome, both are large graphs that model connections between brain regions. In ecology, an ecosystem is represented as a species interaction network. On these data, one may want to classify diseased vs healthy brains, or a species network before and after an environmental shock. Existing approaches for graph classification can be divided broadly into three groups: (1) use of graph parameters such as edge density, degree distribution, or densities of motifs as features, (2) parametric models such as the stochastic $k$-block model, [@abbe2017community], and (3) graph kernels, [@gartner2003graph], and graph embeddings, [@riesen2010graph]. Amongst these methods, motif counting is perhaps the least rigorously studied. Though intuitive, only small motifs are feasible to compute, and thus motif counting is often seen as an ad-hoc method with no quantitative performance guarantee.
Contributions
-------------
In this paper, we formalize the use of motifs to distinguish graphs using graphon theory, and give a tight, explicit quantitative bound for its performance in classification (cf. Theorem \[thm:main1\]). Furthermore, we use well-known results from graph theory to relate the spectrum (eigenvalues) of the adjacency matrix one-to-one to cycle homomorphism densities, and give an analogous quantitative bound in terms of the spectrum (cf. Theorem \[thm:main2\]). These results put motif counting on a firm theory, and justify the use of spectral graph kernels for counting a family of motifs. We apply our method to detect the autoimmune disease *Lupus Erythematosus* from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data, and obtain competitive results to previous approaches (cf. §\[sec:application\]).
Another contribution of our paper is the first study of a general model for random weighted graphs, *decorated graphons*, in a machine learning context. The proof technique can be seen as a broad tool for tackling questions on generalisations of graphons. There are three key ingredients. The first is a generalization of the Counting Lemma, [@lovasz2012large Theorem 10.24], on graphons to decorated graphons. It allows one to lower bound the cut metric by homomorphism densities of motifs, a key connection between motifs and graph limits. The second is Kantorovich duality, [@villani2008optimal Theorem 5.10], which relates optimal coupling between measures and optimal transport over a class of functions and which is used in relating spectra to homomorphism densities. In this, Duality translates our problem to questions on function approximation, to which we use tools from approximation theory to obtain tight bounds. Finally, we use tools from concentration of measure to deal with sampling error an generalise known sample concentration bounds for graphons, [@borgs2008convergent Lemma 4.4].
Our method extends results for discrete edge weights to the continuous edge weight case. Graphs with continuous edge weights naturally arise in applications such as neuroscience, as demonstrated in our dataset. The current literature for methods on such graphs is limited, [@feragen2013scalable; @neumann2012efficient], as many graph algorithms rely on discrete labels, [@shervashidze2011weisfeiler; @borgwardt2005shortest].
Related Literature
------------------
Graphons, an abbreviation of the words “graph” and “function”, are limits of large vertex exchangeable graphs under the cut metric. For this reason, graphons and their generalizations are often used to model real-world networks, [@borgs2014p; @veitch2015class; @cai2016edge]. Originally appeared in the literature on exchangeable random arrays, [@aldous1981representations], it was later rediscovered in graph limit theory and statistical physics, [@lovasz2012large; @diaconis2007graph].
There is an extensive literature on the inference of graphons from one observation, i.e. *one* large but finite graph, [@klopp2017oracle; @wolfe2013nonparametric; @borgs2015private; @airoldi2013stochastic]. This is distinct from our classification setup, where one observes multiple graphs drawn from several graphons. In our setting, the graphs might be of different sizes, and crucially, they are unlabelled: There is no *a priori* matching of the graph nodes. That is, if we think of the underlying graphon as an infinitely large random graph, then the graphs in our i.i.d sample could be glimpses into entirely different neighborhoods of this graphon, and they are further corrupted by noise. A naïve approach would be to estimate one graphon for each graph, and either average over the graphs or over the graphons obtained. Unfortunately, our graphs and graphons are only defined up to relabelings of the nodes, and producing the optimal labels between a pair of graphs is NP-complete (via subgraph isomorphism). Thus, inference in our setting is not a mere “large sample” version of the graphon estimation problem, but an entirely different challenge.
A method closer to our setup is graph kernels for support-vector machines, [@gartner2003graph; @vishwanathan2006fast]. The idea is to embed graphs in a high-dimensional Hilbert space, and compute their inner products via a kernel function. This approach has successfully been used for graph classification, [@vishwanathan2010graph]. Most kernels used are transformations of homomorphism densities/motifs as feature vectors for a class of graphs (cf [@yanardag2015deep subsection 2.5]): [@shervashidze2009efficient] propose so-called *graphlet counts* as features. These can be interpreted as using *induced homomorphism densities* (cf [@lovasz2012large (5.19)]) as features which can be linearly related to homomorphism densities as is shown in [@lovasz2012large (5.19)]. The random walk kernel from [@gartner2003graph p. 135 center] uses the homomorphism densities of all paths as features. Finally, [@ramon2003expressivity Prop. 5 and discussion thereafter] uses homomorphism densities of trees of height $\le k$ as features.
However, as there are many motifs, this approach has the same problem as plain motif counting: In theory, performance bounds are difficult, in practice, one may need to make *ad hoc* choices. Due to the computational cost, [@gartner2003graph], in practice, only small motifs of size up to 5 have been used for classification, [@shervashidze2009efficient]. Other approaches chose a specific class of subgraphs such as paths, [@gartner2003graph] or trees, [@shervashidze2011weisfeiler], for which homomorphism densities or linear combinations of them can be computed efficiently. In this light, our Theorem \[thm:main2\] is a theoretical advocation for cycles, which can be computed efficiently via the graph spectrum.
Organization
------------
We recall the essentials of graphon theory in §\[sec:background\]. For an extensive reference, see [@lovasz2012large]. Main results are in §\[sec:main\], followed by applications in §\[sec:application\]. Our proofs can be found in the appendix.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
A graph $G = (V,E)$ is a set of vertices $V$ and set of pairs of vertices, called edges $E$. A label on a graph is a one-to-one embedding of its vertices onto $\mathbb{N}$. Say that a random labelled graph is vertex exchangeable if its distribution is invariant under relabelings.
A labelled graphon $W$ is a symmetric function from $[0,1]^2$ to $[0,1]$. A relabelling $\phi$ is an invertible, measure-preserving transformation on $[0,1]$. An unlabelled graphon is a graphon up to relabeling. For simplicity, we write “a graphon $W$” to mean *an unlabelled graphon equivalent to the labelled graphon $W$*. Similarly, by *a graph $G$* we mean *an unlabelled graph which, up to vertex permutation, equals to the labelled graph $G$*.
The cut metric between two graphons $W, W'$ is $$\delta_\Box(W,W')=\inf_{\phi,\varphi} \sup_{S,T} \left\lvert \int_{S \times T} W(\varphi(x),\varphi(y)) - W'(\phi(x),\phi(y))\,\, {\mathrm d}x\,{\mathrm d}y \right\rvert,$$ where the infimum is taken over all relabelings $\varphi$ of $W$ and $\phi$ of $W'$, and the supremum is taken over all measurable subsets $S$ and $T$ of $[0,1]$. That is, $\delta_\Box(W,W')$ is the largest discrepancy between the two graphons, taken over the best relabeling possible. A major result of graphon theory is that the space of unlabelled graphons is compact and complete w.r.t. $\delta_\Box$. Furthermore, the limit of any convergent sequence of finite graphs in $\delta_\Box$ is a graphon ([@lovasz2012large Theorem 11.21]). In this way, graphons are truly *limits of large graphs*.
A motif is an unlabelled graph. A graph homomorphism $\phi \colon F\to G$ is a map from $V(F)$ to $V(G)$ that preserves edge adjacency, that is, if $\{u,v\} \in E(F)$, then $\{\phi(u),\phi(v)\} \in E(G)$. Often in applications, the count of a motif $F$ in $G$ is the number of different embeddings (subgraph isomorphisms) from $F$ to $G$. However, homomorphisms have much nicer theoretical and computational properties ([@lovasz2012large par. 2.1.2]). Thus, in our paper, “motif counting” means “computation of homomorphism densities”. The homomorphism density $t(F,G)$ is the number of homomorphisms from $F$ to $G$, divided by $|V(G)|^{|V(F)|}$, the number of mappings $V(F) \to V(G)$. Homomorphisms extend naturally to graphons through integration with respect to the kernel $W$, [@lovasz2012large subsec. 7.2.]. That is, for a graph $F$ with $e(F)$ many edges, $$t(F,W) = \int_{[0,1]^{e(F)}} \prod_{\{x,y\} \in E(F)} W(x,y)\, {\mathrm d}x {\mathrm d}y.$$ The homomorphism density for a weighted graph $G$ on $k$ nodes is defined by viewing $G$ as a step-function graphon, with each vertex of $G$ identified with a set on the interval of Lebesgue measure $1/k$. For a graph $G$ and a graphon $W$, write $t(\bullet,G)$ and $t(\bullet,W)$ for the sequence of homormophism densities, defined over all possible finite graphs $F$.
A finite graph $G$ is uniquely defined by $t(\bullet,G)$. For graphons, homomorphism densities distinguish them as well as the cut metric, that is, $\delta_\Box(W,W') = 0$ iff $t(\bullet,W) = t(\bullet,W')$, [@lovasz2012large Theorem 11.3]. In other words, if one could compute the homomorphism densities of all motifs, then one can distinguish two convergent sequences of large graphs. Computationally this is not feasible, as $(t(\bullet,W))_{F \text{ finite graph}}$ is an infinite sequence. However, this gives a sufficient condition test for graphon inequality: If $t(F,W) \neq t(F,W')$ for some motif $F$, then one can conclude that $\delta_\Box(W,W') > 0$. We give a quantitative version of this statement in the appendix, which plays an important part in our proof. Theorem \[thm:main1\] is an extension of this result that accounts for sampling error from estimating $t(F,W)$ through the empirical distribution of graphs sampled from $W$.
Decorated graphons
------------------
Classically, a graphon generates a random unweighted graph ${\mathbb{G}}(k, W)$ via uniform sampling of the nodes, $$\begin{aligned}
U_1, \dots, U_k &{\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}{\operatorname{Unif}}_{[0,1]}& ({\mathbb{G}}(k, W)_{ij} | U_1, \dots, U_k) &{\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}{\operatorname{Bern}}(W(U_i,U_j)), \forall i,j \in [k]. \end{aligned}$$ Here, we extend this framework to decorated graphons, whose samples are random *weighted* graphs.
Let $\Pi([0,1])$ be the set of probability measures on $[0,1]$. A decorated graphon is a function $\mathcal{W} \colon [0,1]^2 \to \Pi ([0,1])$.
For $k \in \mathbb{N}$, the $k$-sample of a measure-decorated graphon ${\mathbb{G}}(k,\mathcal{W})$ is a distribution on unweighted graphs on $k$ nodes, generated by $$\begin{aligned}
U_1, \dots, U_k& {\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}{\operatorname{Unif}}_{[0,1]} & ({\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W})_{ij} | U_1, \dots, U_k)& {\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}\mathcal{W}(U_i,U_j), \forall i,j \in [k]. \end{aligned}$$
We can write every decorated graphon $\mathcal{W}$ as $\mathcal{W}_{W, \mu}$ with $W(x,y)$ being the expectation of $\mathcal{W}(x,y)$, and $\mu (x,y)$ being the centered measure corresponding to $\mathcal{W} (x,y)$. This decomposition will be useful in formulating our main results, Theorems \[thm:main1\] and \[thm:main2\].
One important example of decorated graphons are *noisy* graphons, that is, graphons perturbed by an error term whose distribution does not vary with the latent parameter: Given a graphon $W: [0,1]^2 \to [0,1]$ and a centered noise measure $\nu \in \Pi([0,1])$, the $\nu$-noisy graphon is the decorated graphon $\mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$, where $\mu (x,y) = \nu$ is constant, i.e. the same measure for all latent parameters. Hence, in the noisy graphon, there is no dependence of the noise term on the latent parameters.
As weighted graphs can be regarded as graphons, one can use the definition of homomorphisms for graphons to define homomorphism numbers of samples from a decorated graphon (which are then random variables). The $k$-sample from a decorated graphon is a distribution on weighted graphs, unlike that from a graphon, which is a distribution on unweighted (binary) graphs. The latter case is a special case of a decorated graphon, where the measure at $(x,y)$ is a centered variable taking values $W(x,y)$ and $1-W(x,y)$. Hence, our theorems generalise results for graphons.
Spectra and Wasserstein Distances
---------------------------------
The spectrum $\lambda(G)$ of a weighted graph $G$ is the set of eigenvalues of its adjacency matrix, counting multiplicities. Similarly, the spectrum $\lambda(W)$ of a graphon $W$ is its set of eigenvalues when viewed as a symmetric operator [@lovasz2012large (7.18)]. It is convenient to view the spectrum $\lambda(G)$ as a counting measure, that is, $\lambda(G) = \sum_\lambda\delta_\lambda$, where the sum runs over all $\lambda$’s in the spectrum. All graphs considered in this paper have edge weights in $[0,1]$. Therefore, the support of its spectrum lies in $[-1,1]$. This space is equipped with the Wasserstein distance (a variant of the earth-movers distance) $$\label{eq:innerwasserstein}{\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu, \nu) = \inf_{\gamma \in \Pi ([-1,1]^2)} \int_{(x,y) \in [-1,1]^2} \lvert x - y \rvert {\mathrm d}\gamma (x,y)$$ for $\mu,\nu \in \Pi([-1,1])$, where the first (second) marginal of $\gamma$ should equal $\mu$ ($\nu$). Analogously, equip the space of random measures $\Pi(\Pi([-1,1]))$ with the Wasserstein distance $$\label{eq:outerwasserstein}{\mathcal{W}^1}(\bar{\mu}, \bar{\nu}) = \inf_{\gamma \in \Pi (\Pi([-1,1])^2)} \int_{{(\mu,\nu) \in \Pi([-1,1])^2}} {\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu,\nu) {\mathrm d}\gamma (\mu,\nu).$$ where again the first (second) marginal of $\gamma$ should equal $\bar\mu$ ($\bar\nu$).
Equation says that one must first find an optimal coupling of the eigenvalues for different realisations of the empirical spectrum and then an optimal coupling of the random measures. Equation is a commonly used method for comparing point clouds, which is robust against outliers, [@mullen2010signing]. Equation is a natural choice of comparison of measures on a continuous space. Similar definitions have appeared in stability analysis of features for topological data analysis, [@bubenik2015statistical].
Graphons for Classification: Main Results {#sec:main}
=========================================
Consider a binary classification problem where in each class, each data point is a finite, weighted, unlabelled graph. We assume that in each class, the graphs are i.i.d realizations of some underlying decorated graphon $\mathcal{W} = \mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$ resp. $\mathcal{W}' = \mathcal{W}_{W',\mu'}$. Theorem \[thm:main1\] says that if the empirical homomorphism densities are sufficiently different in the two groups, then the underlying graphons $W$ and $W'$ are different in the cut metric. Theorem \[thm:main2\] gives a similar bound, but replaces the empirical homomorphism densities with the empirical spectra. Note that we allow for the decorated graphons to have different noise distributions and that noise may depend on the latent parameters.
Here is the model in detail. Fix constants $k, n \in \N$. Let $\mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{W',\mu'}$ be two decorated graphons. Let $$\begin{aligned}
G_1, \dots, G_n&{\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}{\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W}_{W,\mu})&
G'_1, \dots, G'_n&{\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}}{\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W}_{W',\mu'})\end{aligned}$$ be weighted graphs on $k$ nodes sampled from these graphons. For a motif graph $F$ with $e(F)$ edges, let $$\bar{t}(F) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \delta_{t(F,G_i)}$$ be the empirical measure of the homomorphism densities of $F$ with respect to the data $(G_1, \ldots, G_n)$ and analogously $\bar t'(F)$ the empirical measure of the homomorphism densities of $(G_1', \ldots, G'_n)$.
[theorem]{}[mainone]{}\[thm:main1\] There is an absolute constant $c$ such that with probability $1-2\exp\left(\frac{kn^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2e(F)^2}\right)-2e^{-.09cn^{\frac{2}{3}}}$ and weighted graphs $G_i$, $G_i'$, $i=1, \dots, n$ generated by decorated graphons $\mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{W',\mu'}$, $$\delta_\Box(W, W') \ge e(F)^{-1} ({\mathcal{W}^1}(t, \bar t)- 9n^{-\frac{1}{3}}).\label{eq:bound.by.t.graphon}$$
Note that the number of edges affect both the distance of the homomorphism densities ${\mathcal{W}^1}(\bar t, \bar t')$ and the constant $e(F)^{-1}$ in front, making the effect of $e(F)$ on the right-hand-side of the bound difficult to analyze. Indeed, for any fixed $v \in \N$, one can easily construct graphons where the lower bound in Theorem \[thm:main1\] is attained for $k, n \to \infty$ by a graph with $v = e(F)$ edges. Note furthermore, that the bound is given in terms of the expectation of the decorated graphon, $W$, unperturbed by variations due to $\mu$ resp. $\mu'$. Therefore, in the large-sample limit, motifs as features characterise exactly the expectation of decorated graphons.
Our next result utilizes , Theorem \[thm:main1\] and Kantorovich duality to give a bound on $\delta_\Box$ with explicit dependence on $v$. Let $\overline{\lambda}$, $\overline{\lambda}'$ be the empirical random spectra in the decorated graphon model, that is, $\overline{\lambda} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda(G_i)$, $\overline{\lambda}' = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda(G'_i)$.
[theorem]{}[maintwo]{}\[thm:main2\] There is an absolute constant $c$ such that the following holds: Let $v \in \N$. With probability $1-2v\exp\left(\frac{kn^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2v^2}\right)-2ve^{-.09cn^{\frac{2}{3}}}$, for weighted graphs generated by decorated graphons $\mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{W',\mu'}$, $$\delta_\Box (W, W')\ge v ^{-2}2^{-1} (4e)^{-v} \left(\mathcal{W}_{{\mathcal{W}^1}}^1 (\bar \lambda, \bar \lambda')- \frac{3}{\pi v} - 18v(4e)^vn^{-\frac{1}{3}}\right)$$
The parameter $v$ can be interpreted as the length of the longest cycle that is involved as a motif. Theorems \[thm:main1\] and \[thm:main2\] give a test for graphon equality. Namely, if ${\mathcal{W}^1}(\bar \lambda', \bar\lambda)$ is large, then the underlying graphons $W$ and $W'$ of the two groups are far apart. This type of sufficient condition is analogous to the result of [@bubenik2015statistical Theorem 5.5] from topological data analysis. It should be stressed that this bound is purely nonparametric. In addition, we do not make any regularity assumption on either the graphon or the error distribution $\mu$. The theorem is stable with respect to transformations of the graph: A bound analogous to Theorem \[thm:main2\] holds for the spectrum of the graph Laplacian and the degree sequence, as we show in the appendix in §\[sec:degreefeatures\]. In addition, having either $k$ or $n$ fixed is merely for ease of exposition. We give a statement with heterogenous $k$ and $n$ in the appendix in §\[sec:hetsampsizes\].
An Application: Classification of Lupus Erythematosus {#sec:application}
=====================================================
*Systemic Lupus Erythematosus* (SLE) is an autoimmune disease of connective tissue. Between 25-70% of patients with SLE have neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSLE), [@feinglass1976neuropsychiatric]. The relation of neuropsychiatric symptoms to other features of the disease is not completely understood. Machine learning techniques in combination with expert knowledge have successfully been applied in this field, [@khatami2015bundlemap].
(r)[DTI image\
$M \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3 \to {\mathbb{R}}^{3\times 3}$]{}; (normalised)\[below=of r\][standardised image\
$B \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3 \to {\mathbb{R}}^{3\times 3}$]{}; (fiber)\[right=of r\][fibers\
$\tilde\gamma_{ij}^k \colon [0,1] \to M\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}^3$\
$k \in [n_{ij}]$]{}; (segmentation)\[below =of fiber\][regions\
$ B = \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i$]{}; (normalisedfiber)\[right=of fiber\][fibers\
$\gamma_{ij}^k \colon [0,1] \to B$, $k \in [n_{ij}]$\
$\gamma_{ij}^k (0) \in A_i, \gamma_{ij}^k (1) \in A_j$]{}; (weightedconn)\[below=of normalisedfiber\][weighted connectome\
$(G, c)$,$c(\{u, v\}) =$\
$= \frac{1}{n_{ij}} \sum_{k \in [n_{ij}]}\int_{\gamma_{uv}^k} F(z) {\mathrm d}z$]{}; (r) edge node [standard-\
isation]{} (normalised) (normalised) edge node[segmen-\
tation]{} (segmentation) (r) edge node[tracto-\
graphy]{} (fiber) (segmentation) edge node [avera-\
ging]{} (weightedconn) (fiber) edge node [normal-\
isation]{} (normalisedfiber) (normalisedfiber) edge node [averaging]{} (weightedconn);
We analyse a data set consisting of weighted graphs. The data is extracted from diffusion tensor images of 56 individuals, 19 NPSLE, 19 SLE without neuropsychiatric symptoms and 18 human controls (HC) from the study [@schmidt2014diminished]. The data was preprocessed to yield 6 weighted graphs on $1106$ nodes for each individual. Each node in the graphs is a brain region of the hierarchical Talairach brain atlas by [@talairach1988co].
The edge weights are various scalar measures commonly used in DTI, averaged or integrated along all fibres from one brain region to another as in the pipeline depicted in Figure \[fig:pipeline\]. These scalar measures are the *total number* (of fibers between two regions), the *total length* (of all fibers between two regions), *fractional anisotropy* (FA), *mean diffusivity* (MD), *axial diffusivity* (AD) and *radial diffusivity* (RD), cf. [@basser2000vivo].
The paper [@khatami2015bundlemap] used the same dataset [@schmidt2014diminished], and considered two classification problems: HC vs NPSLE, and HC vs SLE. Using 20 brain fibers selected from all over the brain (such as the fornix and the anterior thalamic radiation) they used manifold learning to track the values AD, MD, RD and FA along fibers in the brain. Using nested cross-validation, they obtain an optimal disretisation of the bundles, and use average values on parts of the fibers as features for support-vector classification. They obtained an accuracy of $73\%$ for the HC vs. NPSLE and $76\%$ for HC vs. SLE, cf Table \[table\].
To directly compare ourselves to [@khatami2015bundlemap], we consider the same classification problems. For each weighted graph we reduce the dimension of graphs by averaging edge weights of edges connecting nodes in the same region on a coarser level of the Talairach brain atlas, [@talairach1988co]. Inspired by Theorem \[thm:main2\], we compute the spectrum of the adjacency matrix, the graph Laplacian and the degree sequence of the dimension-reduced graphs. We truncate to keep the eigenvalues smallest and largest in absolute value, and plotted the eigenvalue distributions for the six graphs, normalized for comparisons between the groups and graphs (see Figure \[fig:density\]). We noted that the eigenvalues for graphs corresponding to length and number of fibers show significant differences between HC and NPSLE. Thus, for the task HC vs NPSLE, we used the eigenvalues from these two graphs as features (this gives a total of 40 features), while in the HC vs SLE task, we use all 120 eigenvalues from the six graphs. Using a leave-one-out cross validation with $\ell^1$-penalty and a linear support-vector kernel, we arrive at classification rates of $78\%$ for HC vs. NPSLE and $67.5\%$ for HC vs. SLE both for the graph Laplacian. In a permutation test as proposed in [@ojala2010permutation], we can reject the hypothesis that the results were obtained by pure chance at 10% accuracy. Table \[table\] summarises our results.
[.3]{}
table [-4 1.4565217458998e-09 -3.95979899497487 3.59862436946492e-09 -3.91959798994975 8.6468989322529e-09 -3.87939698492462 2.02072307339473e-08 -3.8391959798995 4.59300231105782e-08 -3.79899497487437 1.01543916807571e-07 -3.75879396984925 2.18376524334699e-07 -3.71859296482412 4.56861050298414e-07 -3.67839195979899 9.29874423686127e-07 -3.63819095477387 1.84148155361977e-06 -3.59798994974874 3.54862411531582e-06 -3.55778894472362 6.6551109289342e-06 -3.51758793969849 1.21482476290013e-05 -3.47738693467337 2.15875559671758e-05 -3.43718592964824 3.73510052472607e-05 -3.39698492462312 6.29357675891869e-05 -3.35678391959799 0.000103296975463604 -3.31658291457286 0.000165189685803811 -3.27638190954774 0.000257458344015006 -3.23618090452261 0.000391198644452792 -3.19597989949749 0.00057970475560579 -3.15577889447236 0.000838117162497145 -3.11557788944724 0.00118270866110236 -3.07537688442211 0.0016297910202746 -3.03517587939699 0.00219429026605841 -2.99497487437186 0.00288811641782412 -2.95477386934673 0.00371853069636885 -2.91457286432161 0.00468677374853446 -2.87437185929648 0.0057872466300753 -2.83417085427136 0.0070075199761421 -2.79396984924623 0.00832937948670912 -2.75376884422111 0.00973099773496423 -2.71356783919598 0.0111901602988975 -2.67336683417085 0.0126882821610024 -2.63316582914573 0.0142147498280034 -2.5929648241206 0.0157709462652463 -2.55276381909548 0.0173731989359744 -2.51256281407035 0.019053880442386 -2.47236180904523 0.0208600267570987 -2.4321608040201 0.0228491416735491 -2.39195979899498 0.0250823155681258 -2.35175879396985 0.0276153440195179 -2.31155778894472 0.0304890836516231 -2.2713567839196 0.0337206945325913 -2.23115577889447 0.0372975560453325 -2.19095477386935 0.0411754107366817 -2.15075376884422 0.045281668723422 -2.1105527638191 0.0495238726650679 -2.07035175879397 0.05380225463685 -2.03015075376884 0.0580243499622172 -1.98994974874372 0.0621190160603356 -1.94974874371859 0.0660471256401557 -1.90954773869347 0.0698067359933324 -1.86934673366834 0.0734316043953598 -1.82914572864322 0.076983306681195 -1.78894472361809 0.0805386096279418 -1.74874371859296 0.0841748162694516 -1.70854271356784 0.0879562810877831 -1.66834170854271 0.0919250502324999 -1.62814070351759 0.0960976640349915 -1.58793969849246 0.100468771864617 -1.54773869346734 0.105020671457734 -1.50753768844221 0.109736548055669 -1.46733668341709 0.114614353385564 -1.42713567839196 0.119678110631031 -1.38693467336683 0.124983980902105 -1.34673366834171 0.130619543579574 -1.30653266331658 0.136696170139107 -1.26633165829146 0.143335792115326 -1.22613065326633 0.150654475977642 -1.18592964824121 0.15874579966613 -1.14572864321608 0.16766698458151 -1.10552763819095 0.177430122981957 -1.06532663316583 0.187999825143111 -1.0251256281407 0.199297433653775 -0.984924623115578 0.211210857080641 -0.944723618090452 0.223608248058278 -0.904522613065327 0.236353286029643 -0.864321608040201 0.249319725115746 -0.824120603015075 0.262403074093105 -0.78391959798995 0.27552771062457 -0.743718592964824 0.288648333012656 -0.703517587939698 0.301745380349319 -0.663316582914573 0.314814871300492 -0.623115577889447 0.327853961844697 -0.582914572864321 0.340844294952839 -0.542713567839196 0.353735763601459 -0.50251256281407 0.366433487656415 -0.462311557788945 0.378790528270189 -0.422110552763819 0.390608145564625 -0.381909547738693 0.401644368987794 -0.341708542713568 0.41163048540856 -0.301507537688442 0.420293949876689 -0.261306532663316 0.427385322055116 -0.221105527638191 0.432706182692268 -0.180904522613065 0.436134593757857 -0.14070351758794 0.437644545815504 -0.100502512562814 0.437316056404865 -0.0603015075376883 0.435333269443841 -0.0201005025125629 0.431969176468021 0.0201005025125625 0.427557443751202 0.0603015075376883 0.422454090841183 0.100502512562814 0.416994006606128 0.14070351758794 0.411448940811381 0.180904522613066 0.405994120065236 0.221105527638191 0.40068966614383 0.261306532663316 0.395480568161585 0.301507537688442 0.390215517573376 0.341708542713568 0.384681222266422 0.381909547738694 0.378645761952719 0.42211055276382 0.371902888936013 0.462311557788945 0.36430931688888 0.50251256281407 0.355808899483182 0.542713567839196 0.346440652271992 0.582914572864322 0.33633099727701 0.623115577889448 0.325673550795795 0.663316582914573 0.314701581156811 0.703517587939698 0.30365866624016 0.743718592964824 0.292772232232938 0.78391959798995 0.282233026403153 0.824120603015076 0.272181764055671 0.864321608040201 0.262702705033659 0.904522613065327 0.253823037700879 0.944723618090452 0.245516687185844 0.984924623115578 0.237711326501302 1.0251256281407 0.230297687773404 1.06532663316583 0.22314053198359 1.10552763819095 0.216090744996769 1.14572864321608 0.208998004873697 1.18592964824121 0.201723386324613 1.22613065326633 0.194151198534787 1.26633165829146 0.186199313676844 1.30653266331658 0.1778272221655 1.34673366834171 0.169041039263203 1.38693467336683 0.159894718428128 1.42713567839196 0.150486874375526 1.46733668341709 0.14095296235179 1.50753768844221 0.131453126181944 1.54773869346734 0.122156747610448 1.58793969849246 0.113225439620697 1.62814070351759 0.104796717108593 1.66834170854271 0.0969706718770174 1.70854271356784 0.0898016014170127 1.74874371859296 0.083295754492673 1.78894472361809 0.0774153393066652 1.82914572864322 0.0720879243891085 1.86934673366834 0.06721956002477 1.90954773869347 0.0627094928897329 1.94974874371859 0.0584642742579318 1.98994974874372 0.0544093263091167 2.03015075376884 0.0504965403168108 2.07035175879397 0.0467071346072722 2.1105527638191 0.043049710163849 2.15075376884422 0.0395541305796175 2.19095477386935 0.0362624458944566 2.23115577889447 0.0332184975177429 2.2713567839196 0.0304580075002867 2.31155778894472 0.0280008177764532 2.35175879396985 0.0258465029477744 2.39195979899498 0.0239739025682119 2.4321608040201 0.0223443409130302 2.47236180904523 0.0209075968761788 2.51256281407035 0.0196092179563061 2.55276381909548 0.0183976459489276 2.5929648241206 0.0172298516841018 2.63316582914573 0.016074678871484 2.67336683417085 0.0149137196148819 2.71356783919598 0.0137401120005458 2.75376884422111 0.0125560216386378 2.79396984924623 0.0113696753445686 2.83417085427136 0.0101926738050278 2.87437185929648 0.00903800895016926 2.91457286432161 0.00791887185150471 2.95477386934673 0.00684806901863081 2.99497487437186 0.0058377355734679 3.03517587939699 0.00489905151829048 3.07537688442211 0.00404179074006247 3.11557788944724 0.00327369361542741 3.15577889447236 0.00259978696462287 3.19597989949749 0.00202183734531673 3.23618090452261 0.00153810615058315 3.27638190954774 0.00114349765520036 3.31658291457286 0.000830089956781334 3.35678391959799 0.000587949949565343 3.39698492462312 0.000406081666843236 3.43718592964824 0.000273350359976868 3.47738693467337 0.000179255293609716 3.51758793969849 0.000114476227856474 3.55778894472362 7.11740470610979e-05 3.59798994974874 4.30710861172212e-05 3.63819095477387 2.53642177779328e-05 3.678391959799 1.45330879239891e-05 3.71859296482412 8.10097409685012e-06 3.75879396984925 4.3925041042645e-06 3.79899497487437 2.31656237382578e-06 3.8391959798995 1.18823149217153e-06 3.87939698492462 5.92730753633062e-07 3.91959798994975 2.87535855111667e-07 3.95979899497487 1.35639861009356e-07 4 6.22198862245187e-08 ]{}; table [-4 1.80670775431364e-08 -3.95979899497487 3.94177155490379e-08 -3.91959798994975 8.38729414407687e-08 -3.87939698492462 1.74060568680648e-07 -3.8391959798995 3.52331974913863e-07 -3.79899497487437 6.95675029083128e-07 -3.75879396984925 1.33998025555648e-06 -3.71859296482412 2.51807878351808e-06 -3.67839195979899 4.61708656394759e-06 -3.63819095477387 8.26137461452791e-06 -3.59798994974874 1.44274839026198e-05 -3.55778894472362 2.45959574680489e-05 -3.51758793969849 4.09418307828104e-05 -3.47738693467337 6.65600864647918e-05 -3.43718592964824 0.000105714911879703 -3.39698492462312 0.000164093008621192 -3.35678391959799 0.000249033260627251 -3.31658291457286 0.000369700244632311 -3.27638190954774 0.000537170002506999 -3.23618090452261 0.000764405091912183 -3.19597989949749 0.00106611226430929 -3.15577889447236 0.00145849753964323 -3.11557788944724 0.00195895437593034 -3.07537688442211 0.00258573346735319 -3.03517587939699 0.00335763997118578 -2.99497487437186 0.00429378132972081 -2.95477386934673 0.00541334808564857 -2.91457286432161 0.00673536068358932 -2.87437185929648 0.0082782735657289 -2.83417085427136 0.010059313266771 -2.79396984924623 0.0120934557915229 -2.75376884422111 0.0143920262430625 -2.71356783919598 0.0169610211366073 -2.67336683417085 0.0197993856183142 -2.63316582914573 0.0228975868393907 -2.5929648241206 0.0262368717649255 -2.55276381909548 0.0297895532270821 -2.51256281407035 0.0335205232006155 -2.47236180904523 0.0373899651025315 -2.4321608040201 0.0413569714958412 -2.39195979899498 0.0453835317892554 -2.35175879396985 0.0494382018566169 -2.31155778894472 0.0534987562198684 -2.2713567839196 0.0575532771117786 -2.23115577889447 0.0615994379857257 -2.19095477386935 0.065642135700069 -2.15075376884422 0.0696900269807864 -2.1105527638191 0.0737518278460699 -2.07035175879397 0.0778333475850172 -2.03015075376884 0.0819360982050164 -1.98994974874372 0.0860579527289886 -1.94974874371859 0.090195796301489 -1.90954773869347 0.0943495547365895 -1.86934673366834 0.0985265537369434 -1.82914572864322 0.102744997262417 -1.78894472361809 0.107035528871137 -1.74874371859296 0.111440331566099 -1.70854271356784 0.116009904587619 -1.66834170854271 0.120798332029839 -1.62814070351759 0.125858314593947 -1.58793969849246 0.131237310964413 -1.54773869346734 0.136975777729816 -1.50753768844221 0.143107790969476 -1.46733668341709 0.149663482441044 -1.42713567839196 0.156671994891903 -1.38693467336683 0.164163301819357 -1.34673366834171 0.172167396094287 -1.30653266331658 0.180710027614109 -1.26633165829146 0.1898052029233 -1.22613065326633 0.199445772966574 -1.18592964824121 0.209594312678052 -1.14572864321608 0.220176872236532 -1.10552763819095 0.231081914626216 -1.06532663316583 0.242165872352189 -1.0251256281407 0.253265439439013 -0.984924623115578 0.264215252383242 -0.944723618090452 0.274868327930378 -0.904522613065327 0.285115795333518 -0.864321608040201 0.294902263071692 -0.824120603015075 0.304233641582393 -0.78391959798995 0.31317532416684 -0.743718592964824 0.321840127596527 -0.703517587939698 0.33036707025201 -0.663316582914573 0.338893654709393 -0.623115577889447 0.347525571445914 -0.582914572864321 0.356308439889466 -0.542713567839196 0.365206209241902 -0.50251256281407 0.374090103871643 -0.462311557788945 0.382740578995855 -0.422110552763819 0.39086283518775 -0.381909547738693 0.398114316212005 -0.341708542713568 0.404140643531079 -0.301507537688442 0.408614987026673 -0.261306532663316 0.411275227866583 -0.221105527638191 0.411953586504903 -0.180904522613065 0.41059463000047 -0.14070351758794 0.407259511211182 -0.100502512562814 0.402116553258246 -0.0603015075376883 0.395420434189294 -0.0201005025125629 0.387483839537706 0.0201005025125625 0.378646249922528 0.0603015075376883 0.369244419008041 0.100502512562814 0.359588177572478 0.14070351758794 0.349943742173664 0.180904522613066 0.340525074383426 0.221105527638191 0.331492391261446 0.261306532663316 0.32295594654889 0.301507537688442 0.314982819130105 0.341708542713568 0.307604635764579 0.381909547738694 0.300824760148724 0.42211055276382 0.294624263270074 0.462311557788945 0.288966705274704 0.50251256281407 0.283802216085308 0.542713567839196 0.279071467935758 0.582914572864322 0.274709906731763 0.623115577889448 0.270652166342423 0.663316582914573 0.266836105367372 0.703517587939698 0.263205563982341 0.743718592964824 0.259710883387188 0.78391959798995 0.256306527316916 0.824120603015076 0.252945760093001 0.864321608040201 0.249573139226212 0.904522613065327 0.246116374351567 0.944723618090452 0.242479666826532 0.984924623115578 0.238540785905208 1.0251256281407 0.234153751761906 1.06532663316583 0.229158095694194 1.10552763819095 0.223394394812708 1.14572864321608 0.216724379890074 1.18592964824121 0.209052694224397 1.22613065326633 0.200346629817388 1.26633165829146 0.190650094515356 1.30653266331658 0.180088743313896 1.34673366834171 0.168864550530735 1.38693467336683 0.157239868611424 1.42713567839196 0.145512872083535 1.46733668341709 0.133987848394702 1.50753768844221 0.122944748033493 1.54773869346734 0.112612544029221 1.58793969849246 0.103150244222076 1.62814070351759 0.094637995079351 1.66834170854271 0.0870789062912899 1.70854271356784 0.0804103850287129 1.74874371859296 0.0745222683621694 1.78894472361809 0.0692781657740328 1.82914572864322 0.064536305565901 1.86934673366834 0.060166779302419 1.90954773869347 0.0560632005853709 1.94974874371859 0.0521481412768063 1.98994974874372 0.0483729611788527 2.03015075376884 0.0447135461176206 2.07035175879397 0.0411638721855055 2.1105527638191 0.0377292192274394 2.15075376884422 0.0344203865696358 2.19095477386935 0.0312496141413377 2.23115577889447 0.0282282871344651 2.2713567839196 0.0253660571077717 2.31155778894472 0.0226708168467817 2.35175879396985 0.0201490011321636 2.39195979899498 0.0178058668290038 2.4321608040201 0.0156456250739827 2.47236180904523 0.013671464040872 2.51256281407035 0.0118855650176521 2.55276381909548 0.010289180539803 2.5929648241206 0.00888275318262592 2.63316582914573 0.00766596479907353 2.67336683417085 0.00663756687163148 2.71356783919598 0.00579487574504882 2.75376884422111 0.00513291376986187 2.79396984924623 0.00464330674186151 2.83417085427136 0.00431316675353028 2.87437185929648 0.00412425887446425 2.91457286432161 0.00405274616009201 2.95477386934673 0.00406972687068827 2.99497487437186 0.00414263668307087 3.03517587939699 0.00423741790263401 3.07537688442211 0.00432119494389429 3.11557788944724 0.00436507678501919 3.15577889447236 0.00434665951578831 3.19597989949749 0.00425183714631868 3.23618090452261 0.00407564032510336 3.27638190954774 0.00382198761590519 3.31658291457286 0.00350241794436678 3.35678391959799 0.00313403757534109 3.39698492462312 0.00273702779672515 3.43718592964824 0.00233210072929294 3.47738693467337 0.00193825787661422 3.51758793969849 0.00157111325957956 3.55778894472362 0.00124191601065611 3.59798994974874 0.000957276096131673 3.63819095477387 0.000719487842069069 3.678391959799 0.000527276368155643 3.71859296482412 0.000376767406175191 3.75879396984925 0.000262496122734112 3.79899497487437 0.000178313104738562 3.8391959798995 0.000118100553184403 3.87939698492462 7.62653441773492e-05 3.91959798994975 4.80184410675453e-05 3.95979899497487 2.94777040556881e-05 4 1.7643450857036e-05 ]{}; table [-4 0.00210571889396558 -3.95979899497487 0.0025112485178231 -3.91959798994975 0.00292219487062555 -3.87939698492462 0.00331800545829342 -3.8391959798995 0.0036764120762867 -3.79899497487437 0.00397559499965214 -3.75879396984925 0.00419660322830013 -3.71859296482412 0.00432571236288742 -3.67839195979899 0.00435638624244285 -3.63819095477387 0.00429055526239377 -3.59798994974874 0.00413902512658897 -3.55778894472362 0.00392096278889758 -3.51758793969849 0.00366254169530271 -3.47738693467337 0.00339493683424875 -3.43718592964824 0.00315192118364104 -3.39698492462312 0.00296732317207795 -3.35678391959799 0.00287256956320232 -3.31658291457286 0.00289448088108531 -3.27638190954774 0.00305343164226644 -3.23618090452261 0.00336195408490542 -3.19597989949749 0.00382385797296941 -3.15577889447236 0.00443395158579233 -3.11557788944724 0.00517845968051309 -3.07537688442211 0.00603621897278233 -3.03517587939699 0.00698067318323509 -2.99497487437186 0.0079825861783353 -2.95477386934673 0.0090132609342042 -2.91457286432161 0.0100479281605002 -2.87437185929648 0.0110688922355754 -2.83417085427136 0.0120680271047745 -2.79396984924623 0.0130483136976989 -2.75376884422111 0.0140242872066936 -2.71356783919598 0.0150214736341866 -2.67336683417085 0.0160750802483245 -2.63316582914573 0.0172283056381953 -2.5929648241206 0.0185306152043327 -2.55276381909548 0.0200361867100253 -2.51256281407035 0.0218025076982901 -2.47236180904523 0.0238888729926201 -2.4321608040201 0.0263543680742049 -2.39195979899498 0.0292549008285393 -2.35175879396985 0.0326389917291597 -2.31155778894472 0.0365423341840561 -2.2713567839196 0.040981528837076 -2.23115577889447 0.0459477828576993 -2.19095477386935 0.0514016453676369 -2.15075376884422 0.0572699403527599 -2.1105527638191 0.0634459166867456 -2.07035175879397 0.0697932705149101 -2.03015075376884 0.0761541663181387 -1.98994974874372 0.0823607825272761 -1.94974874371859 0.0882493423976774 -1.90954773869347 0.093675158811282 -1.86934673366834 0.0985269926300493 -1.82914572864322 0.102739028874205 -1.78894472361809 0.106299003086797 -1.74874371859296 0.109251417668358 -1.70854271356784 0.111695310090242 -1.66834170854271 0.113776602133196 -1.62814070351759 0.115675610574225 -1.58793969849246 0.117590790260608 -1.54773869346734 0.119720181986889 -1.50753768844221 0.122242331734955 -1.46733668341709 0.125298616378091 -1.42713567839196 0.12897892739782 -1.38693467336683 0.133312492534325 -1.34673366834171 0.138265219011841 -1.30653266331658 0.143744302290107 -1.26633165829146 0.149609982938157 -1.22613065326633 0.155693331667455 -1.18592964824121 0.161817942140841 -1.14572864321608 0.167822602574692 -1.10552763819095 0.173581598674274 -1.06532663316583 0.179019427405266 -1.0251256281407 0.184117434286942 -0.984924623115578 0.188911157711623 -0.944723618090452 0.193478770203111 -0.904522613065327 0.197922645646685 -0.864321608040201 0.202347414008638 -0.824120603015075 0.20683859563408 -0.78391959798995 0.211445859481773 -0.743718592964824 0.216174113700337 -0.703517587939698 0.220984175321237 -0.663316582914573 0.225802975708606 -0.623115577889447 0.230541500356482 -0.582914572864321 0.23511727515839 -0.542713567839196 0.239477440081675 -0.50251256281407 0.243618397339435 -0.462311557788945 0.247598637824069 -0.422110552763819 0.251542470033723 -0.381909547738693 0.255633766586273 -0.341708542713568 0.26010026417956 -0.301507537688442 0.265190204572241 -0.261306532663316 0.271144055472157 -0.221105527638191 0.278164638053227 -0.180904522613065 0.286389198957348 -0.14070351758794 0.295866810565462 -0.100502512562814 0.306543981881239 -0.0603015075376883 0.318260535283255 -0.0201005025125629 0.330756691470228 0.0201005025125625 0.343690986626742 0.0603015075376883 0.356667260215373 0.100502512562814 0.369267691876711 0.14070351758794 0.381087950899051 0.180904522613066 0.391770146485352 0.221105527638191 0.401029545151644 0.261306532663316 0.408671942305811 0.301507537688442 0.414599991965022 0.341708542713568 0.418808456745657 0.381909547738694 0.421369935098749 0.42211055276382 0.422413872205958 0.462311557788945 0.4221023685566 0.50251256281407 0.42060639108498 0.542713567839196 0.418085513992348 0.582914572864322 0.414673413312509 0.623115577889448 0.410470205667219 0.663316582914573 0.405541559665271 0.703517587939698 0.399923494391976 0.743718592964824 0.393631045316109 0.78391959798995 0.386668604100606 0.824120603015076 0.379039752840942 0.864321608040201 0.370754790058202 0.904522613065327 0.361834808580353 0.944723618090452 0.352312011274843 0.984924623115578 0.342226784459286 1.0251256281407 0.331622728609179 1.06532663316583 0.32054123506017 1.10552763819095 0.309017217012319 1.14572864321608 0.297077254575108 1.18592964824121 0.284740781679391 1.22613065326633 0.27202417758595 1.26633165829146 0.258946906898659 1.30653266331658 0.245538344199182 1.34673366834171 0.231843733146595 1.38693467336683 0.217927896999503 1.42713567839196 0.203875787853631 1.46733668341709 0.18978962000242 1.50753768844221 0.17578302870741 1.54773869346734 0.161973280289292 1.58793969849246 0.14847291639803 1.62814070351759 0.135382282151803 1.66834170854271 0.12278416446703 1.70854271356784 0.110741311274542 1.74874371859296 0.0992970156680832 1.78894472361809 0.0884783541584398 1.82914572864322 0.0783011845934917 1.86934673366834 0.0687757293485259 1.90954773869347 0.0599115401149433 1.94974874371859 0.0517208547935604 1.98994974874372 0.0442197561329042 2.03015075376884 0.0374270307502258 2.07035175879397 0.0313610974789975 2.1105527638191 0.0260357293434924 2.15075376884422 0.0214554714583299 2.19095477386935 0.0176116408900924 2.23115577889447 0.0144796117463329 2.2713567839196 0.0120177997038467 2.31155778894472 0.0101684386492076 2.35175879396985 0.00885995590008933 2.39195979899498 0.00801054880500544 2.4321608040201 0.00753246439914677 2.47236180904523 0.00733647974007079 2.51256281407035 0.00733615013361375 2.55276381909548 0.00745150421529985 2.5929648241206 0.007611988213511 2.63316582914573 0.0077585730730495 2.67336683417085 0.00784502345379275 2.71356783919598 0.00783838246015143 2.75376884422111 0.007718753570825 2.79396984924623 0.00747847001497186 2.83417085427136 0.007120742331971 2.87437185929648 0.00665787677934482 2.91457286432161 0.00610916685899411 2.95477386934673 0.00549857852026034 2.99497487437186 0.00485237205591821 3.03517587939699 0.00419682178451668 3.07537688442211 0.00355619867669938 3.11557788944724 0.00295116393930926 3.15577889447236 0.00239768132956629 3.19597989949749 0.00190649720436315 3.23618090452261 0.00148317005126747 3.27638190954774 0.00112856819921167 3.31658291457286 0.00083970734833239 3.35678391959799 0.000610776205159961 3.39698492462312 0.000434200791874347 3.43718592964824 0.000301622161081467 3.47738693467337 0.000204700503223364 3.51758793969849 0.000135701644551793 3.55778894472362 8.7861254203354e-05 3.59798994974874 5.55518760256785e-05 3.63819095477387 3.42956325617781e-05 3.678391959799 2.06715708737719e-05 3.71859296482412 1.21636529382048e-05 3.75879396984925 6.98677285084648e-06 3.79899497487437 3.91725476634944e-06 3.8391959798995 2.14365038218072e-06 3.87939698492462 1.14490845306446e-06 3.91959798994975 5.96778150171581e-07 3.95979899497487 3.03573370710166e-07 4 1.50698369174013e-07 ]{};
[.3]{}
table [-4 5.87449142948196e-15 -3.95979899497487 2.14899624799376e-14 -3.91959798994975 7.61818436710947e-14 -3.87939698492462 2.61709424011419e-13 -3.8391959798995 8.71246949510291e-13 -3.79899497487437 2.81073296295833e-12 -3.75879396984925 8.78733534020196e-12 -3.71859296482412 2.66230384605059e-11 -3.67839195979899 7.81673001208286e-11 -3.63819095477387 2.22415408096558e-10 -3.59798994974874 6.13314487259918e-10 -3.55778894472362 1.63903373400203e-09 -3.51758793969849 4.24510373586127e-09 -3.47738693467337 1.06560439413426e-08 -3.43718592964824 2.59253781948835e-08 -3.39698492462312 6.11354219937889e-08 -3.35678391959799 1.39739985815684e-07 -3.31658291457286 3.09623956121821e-07 -3.27638190954774 6.65068867913113e-07 -3.23618090452261 1.38502125496307e-06 -3.19597989949749 2.79674425382677e-06 -3.15577889447236 5.47665854611659e-06 -3.11557788944724 1.04020584619653e-05 -3.07537688442211 1.91670395485887e-05 -3.03517587939699 3.42716938054837e-05 -2.99497487437186 5.94839164135845e-05 -2.95477386934673 0.000100257607499984 -2.91457286432161 0.000164171396605642 -2.87437185929648 0.000261333010628422 -2.83417085427136 0.000404683663272754 -2.79396984924623 0.000610143105632156 -2.75376884422111 0.000896565513993575 -2.71356783919598 0.00128552827456543 -2.67336683417085 0.00180103784957288 -2.63316582914573 0.00246928543561384 -2.5929648241206 0.00331858969861833 -2.55276381909548 0.00437959904029633 -2.51256281407035 0.00568568591077421 -2.47236180904523 0.00727327690913853 -2.4321608040201 0.00918168538197377 -2.39195979899498 0.0114519299969807 -2.35175879396985 0.0141241094800548 -2.31155778894472 0.0172331964965713 -2.2713567839196 0.0208035811715748 -2.23115577889447 0.0248432307541127 -2.19095477386935 0.0293387754372441 -2.15075376884422 0.0342530100697657 -2.1105527638191 0.0395260917244556 -2.07035175879397 0.0450810827316072 -2.03015075376884 0.0508335274394801 -1.98994974874372 0.0567036629256624 -1.94974874371859 0.0626289297625219 -1.90954773869347 0.0685739613158042 -1.86934673366834 0.0745354143937048 -1.82914572864322 0.0805399403901776 -1.78894472361809 0.0866351620840317 -1.74874371859296 0.0928753811978016 -1.70854271356784 0.0993054014502396 -1.66834170854271 0.105946783257683 -1.62814070351759 0.112790657683177 -1.58793969849246 0.119799823433682 -1.54773869346734 0.126920515938693 -1.50753768844221 0.134101589701852 -1.46733668341709 0.141316665895454 -1.42713567839196 0.148583733118203 -1.38693467336683 0.155977072514599 -1.34673366834171 0.16362806883174 -1.30653266331658 0.171713922974694 -1.26633165829146 0.180435768057575 -1.22613065326633 0.189989570942689 -1.18592964824121 0.200534149700804 -1.14572864321608 0.212160710610254 -1.10552763819095 0.224867835683116 -1.06532663316583 0.238545213736053 -1.0251256281407 0.25296881563635 -0.984924623115578 0.267809601574175 -0.944723618090452 0.282656931294842 -0.904522613065327 0.297056320783457 -0.864321608040201 0.310558954809784 -0.824120603015075 0.322777691295256 -0.78391959798995 0.333441803869963 -0.743718592964824 0.342441206746031 -0.703517587939698 0.349851097744423 -0.663316582914573 0.355930180428259 -0.623115577889447 0.361089696390063 -0.582914572864321 0.365835702654857 -0.542713567839196 0.370692297847475 -0.50251256281407 0.376117673527958 -0.462311557788945 0.382426976697928 -0.422110552763819 0.389735469938236 -0.381909547738693 0.397932363301495 -0.341708542713568 0.406690504085702 -0.301507537688442 0.415510812807026 -0.261306532663316 0.423794148012576 -0.221105527638191 0.430928372326332 -0.180904522613065 0.436375746169601 -0.14070351758794 0.439745931963438 -0.100502512562814 0.440842837184124 -0.0603015075376883 0.439678679078961 -0.0201005025125629 0.436454970383783 0.0201005025125625 0.431516298494789 0.0603015075376883 0.42528751470656 0.100502512562814 0.418207290687428 0.14070351758794 0.410670505102186 0.180904522613066 0.402988816740727 0.221105527638191 0.395373888911103 0.261306532663316 0.387942281186147 0.301507537688442 0.380736337515912 0.341708542713568 0.37375254889445 0.381909547738694 0.366968416233808 0.42211055276382 0.360360704727174 0.462311557788945 0.353911486367859 0.50251256281407 0.347602439730997 0.542713567839196 0.341401356420898 0.582914572864322 0.335246773187322 0.623115577889448 0.329036684559465 0.663316582914573 0.322625572225285 0.703517587939698 0.315831217331979 0.743718592964824 0.308449920304954 0.78391959798995 0.30027675628437 0.824120603015076 0.291126878539395 0.864321608040201 0.280854625753355 0.904522613065327 0.269368752337908 0.944723618090452 0.256643672308001 0.984924623115578 0.242727459016699 1.0251256281407 0.227747147281862 1.06532663316583 0.211910849980243 1.10552763819095 0.195504969324883 1.14572864321608 0.178884128032707 1.18592964824121 0.162451915685424 1.22613065326633 0.146632206646082 1.26633165829146 0.131833199910626 1.30653266331658 0.118408661445506 1.34673366834171 0.106622301583345 1.38693467336683 0.0966212748066618 1.42713567839196 0.0884233975035198 1.46733668341709 0.0819202411625858 1.50753768844221 0.0768954405030037 1.54773869346734 0.0730550420877339 1.58793969849246 0.0700650035123103 1.62814070351759 0.0675902469168671 1.66834170854271 0.0653299256890986 1.70854271356784 0.0630445736054773 1.74874371859296 0.0605723138585904 1.78894472361809 0.0578330673426016 1.82914572864322 0.054821494176769 1.86934673366834 0.0515910110348764 1.90954773869347 0.0482324216587005 1.94974874371859 0.0448512681748917 1.98994974874372 0.0415478248527964 2.03015075376884 0.0384027295688927 2.07035175879397 0.0354697780853643 2.1105527638191 0.0327757393220827 2.15075376884422 0.0303255908240692 2.19095477386935 0.0281106624497726 2.23115577889447 0.0261169841136805 2.2713567839196 0.0243316192774426 2.31155778894472 0.022745708651243 2.35175879396985 0.0213540366376776 2.39195979899498 0.020151871820787 2.4321608040201 0.0191304269948915 2.47236180904523 0.0182724690343611 2.51256281407035 0.0175494301490747 2.55276381909548 0.0169209374210275 2.5929648241206 0.0163371081365446 2.63316582914573 0.0157433616486675 2.67336683417085 0.0150869644326721 2.71356783919598 0.014324134378744 2.75376884422111 0.0134263563554501 2.79396984924623 0.0123846553098907 2.83417085427136 0.011210940717003 2.87437185929648 0.00993611525240247 2.91457286432161 0.00860530375672479 2.95477386934673 0.00727114264383943 2.99497487437186 0.00598642557081062 3.03517587939699 0.00479744289285933 3.07537688442211 0.00373908680632137 3.11557788944724 0.00283231483770087 3.15577889447236 0.00208401655927396 3.19597989949749 0.00148885814009367 3.23618090452261 0.001032388791412 3.27638190954774 0.000694617265897862 3.31658291457286 0.000453375684135892 3.35678391959799 0.000287010761163064 3.39698492462312 0.000176196660864867 3.43718592964824 0.000104882081498953 3.47738693467337 6.05290245015164e-05 3.51758793969849 3.38647270074428e-05 3.55778894472362 1.83663318071175e-05 3.59798994974874 9.65523954373133e-06 3.63819095477387 4.91981453077253e-06 3.678391959799 2.42975432363013e-06 3.71859296482412 1.16302710500557e-06 3.75879396984925 5.39534827808398e-07 3.79899497487437 2.42572553126623e-07 3.8391959798995 1.05693523090836e-07 3.87939698492462 4.46306296656489e-08 3.91959798994975 1.82637558938499e-08 3.95979899497487 7.24294297025007e-09 4 2.78358286828747e-09 ]{}; table [-4 0.00227748532348484 -3.95979899497487 0.00262673535737645 -3.91959798994975 0.00296477894814671 -3.87939698492462 0.0032754379156473 -3.8391959798995 0.00354306266004936 -3.79899497487437 0.00375423698829633 -3.75879396984925 0.00389946333807623 -3.71859296482412 0.00397461471913059 -3.67839195979899 0.00398195770030463 -3.63819095477387 0.00393060076189864 -3.59798994974874 0.00383629552875958 -3.55778894472362 0.00372060123462983 -3.51758793969849 0.00360950016002676 -3.47738693467337 0.0035316107619936 -3.43718592964824 0.00351617786382007 -3.39698492462312 0.00359102421008116 -3.35678391959799 0.00378062968757521 -3.31658291457286 0.00410447251164006 -3.27638190954774 0.00457573087726327 -3.23618090452261 0.00520041244425702 -3.19597989949749 0.00597695708599924 -3.15577889447236 0.00689634522201042 -3.11557788944724 0.00794273503375231 -3.07537688442211 0.00909463951981882 -3.03517587939699 0.0103266310732604 -2.99497487437186 0.0116115219086253 -2.95477386934673 0.0129229127784108 -2.91457286432161 0.014237935541428 -2.87437185929648 0.0155399487336995 -2.83417085427136 0.0168208950269916 -2.79396984924623 0.0180830120565846 -2.75376884422111 0.0193396171172355 -2.71356783919598 0.0206147677959899 -2.67336683417085 0.0219417302608866 -2.63316582914573 0.0233603486093308 -2.5929648241206 0.0249135766680785 -2.55276381909548 0.0266435771573281 -2.51256281407035 0.0285878828183989 -2.47236180904523 0.0307761286619329 -2.4321608040201 0.033227795842961 -2.39195979899498 0.0359512632396126 -2.35175879396985 0.0389442644495707 -2.31155778894472 0.0421956278223212 -2.2713567839196 0.0456879719552723 -2.23115577889447 0.0494008734993595 -2.19095477386935 0.0533139452639159 -2.15075376884422 0.0574092758406858 -2.1105527638191 0.0616727884462104 -2.07035175879397 0.066094262715289 -2.03015075376884 0.070666001368927 -1.98994974874372 0.0753803760644415 -1.94974874371859 0.080226710022753 -1.90954773869347 0.0851881077121365 -1.86934673366834 0.0902388923017597 -1.82914572864322 0.0953432453874766 -1.78894472361809 0.10045546814477 -1.74874371859296 0.105522028083549 -1.70854271356784 0.110485267203344 -1.66834170854271 0.115288378684573 -1.62814070351759 0.119881058175068 -1.58793969849246 0.124225133870611 -1.54773869346734 0.128299485723671 -1.50753768844221 0.132103664056812 -1.46733668341709 0.135659780863234 -1.42713567839196 0.139012436649751 -1.38693467336683 0.142226631054688 -1.34673366834171 0.145383769795342 -1.30653266331658 0.148576022777159 -1.26633165829146 0.151899418409566 -1.22613065326633 0.155446188405408 -1.18592964824121 0.159297006850557 -1.14572864321608 0.163513881132188 -1.10552763819095 0.168134516882593 -1.06532663316583 0.173168951436854 -1.0251256281407 0.178599092635442 -0.984924623115578 0.184381496432287 -0.944723618090452 0.190453287390619 -0.904522613065327 0.196740630294343 -0.864321608040201 0.203168690723715 -0.824120603015075 0.209671683095529 -0.78391959798995 0.216201489377245 -0.743718592964824 0.222733494277526 -0.703517587939698 0.229268718248015 -0.663316582914573 0.235831968270829 -0.623115577889447 0.242466443896919 -0.582914572864321 0.249225879483721 -0.542713567839196 0.256165727228447 -0.50251256281407 0.263334987380237 -0.462311557788945 0.270770041975279 -0.422110552763819 0.278491300318564 -0.381909547738693 0.286502746502151 -0.341708542713568 0.294793765333802 -0.301507537688442 0.303342090261738 -0.261306532663316 0.312116500457549 -0.221105527638191 0.321078051371895 -0.180904522613065 0.330179115940912 -0.14070351758794 0.339360216705448 -0.100502512562814 0.348545360187276 -0.0603015075376883 0.357637151741993 -0.0201005025125629 0.366513219960887 0.0201005025125625 0.375025343459254 0.0603015075376883 0.383002178453413 0.100502512562814 0.390255754299394 0.14070351758794 0.3965911179012 0.180904522613066 0.401817860582422 0.221105527638191 0.405761907984058 0.261306532663316 0.408275971677633 0.301507537688442 0.409247430745322 0.341708542713568 0.408603024200488 0.381909547738694 0.406310424951541 0.42211055276382 0.402377355070497 0.462311557788945 0.396849247223014 0.50251256281407 0.389806485793828 0.542713567839196 0.381361987707958 0.582914572864322 0.371659400676061 0.623115577889448 0.360871650652792 0.663316582914573 0.349199117679506 0.703517587939698 0.336866488146665 0.743718592964824 0.324117389917181 0.78391959798995 0.311206258233851 0.824120603015076 0.298387428757653 0.864321608040201 0.285902085056871 0.904522613065327 0.273964259992316 0.944723618090452 0.262747477919863 0.984924623115578 0.252373743390333 1.0251256281407 0.242906404252399 1.06532663316583 0.234347972524889 1.10552763819095 0.226643352376127 1.14572864321608 0.219688208267113 1.18592964824121 0.21334152453562 1.22613065326633 0.207440867236415 1.26633165829146 0.201818540893593 1.30653266331658 0.196316781088034 1.34673366834171 0.190800340155514 1.38693467336683 0.185165267075245 1.42713567839196 0.179343277193362 1.46733668341709 0.173301752213214 1.50753768844221 0.167039998633677 1.54773869346734 0.160582829091809 1.58793969849246 0.153972752412905 1.62814070351759 0.147262044565012 1.66834170854271 0.140505750792291 1.70854271356784 0.133756304906499 1.74874371859296 0.127060033882258 1.78894472361809 0.120455434936996 1.82914572864322 0.113972839576849 1.86934673366834 0.107634952528909 1.90954773869347 0.101457772373238 1.94974874371859 0.0954515307582758 1.98994974874372 0.0896214731310336 2.03015075376884 0.0839684860434402 2.07035175879397 0.0784897049383437 2.1105527638191 0.0731792836148731 2.15075376884422 0.0680294692566922 2.19095477386935 0.06303202470217 2.23115577889447 0.0581799076830036 2.2713567839196 0.0534689955751987 2.31155778894472 0.0488995694395404 2.35175879396985 0.0444772652295866 2.39195979899498 0.0402132674339983 2.4321608040201 0.0361236469666427 2.47236180904523 0.0322279019502852 2.51256281407035 0.0285469108054846 2.55276381909548 0.0251006169561881 2.5929648241206 0.0219058088519235 2.63316582914573 0.0189743293475657 2.67336683417085 0.0163119540651677 2.71356783919598 0.0139180433250936 2.75376884422111 0.0117859287778296 2.79396984924623 0.0099038756770212 2.83417085427136 0.00825638807706282 2.87437185929648 0.00682560694062346 2.91457286432161 0.00559258561996244 2.95477386934673 0.00453829742050247 2.99497487437186 0.00364431417198544 3.03517587939699 0.00289317171708671 3.07537688442211 0.00226849256785678 3.11557788944724 0.00175496081830027 3.15577889447236 0.00133824140474416 3.19597989949749 0.0010049128924117 3.23618090452261 0.000742450872707313 3.27638190954774 0.000539267951216389 3.31658291457286 0.000384793383879937 3.35678391959799 0.00026956387875892 3.39698492462312 0.000185296432222044 3.43718592964824 0.000124921307055007 3.47738693467337 8.25643578851655e-05 3.51758793969849 5.34791223732058e-05 3.55778894472362 3.39377959369646e-05 3.59798994974874 2.1095163463932e-05 3.63819095477387 1.28407824145698e-05 3.678391959799 7.65303186614925e-06 3.71859296482412 4.46524756650872e-06 3.75879396984925 2.55020193768814e-06 3.79899497487437 1.42553022904027e-06 3.8391959798995 7.79855814920954e-07 3.87939698492462 4.17501052184482e-07 3.91959798994975 2.18716073336115e-07 3.95979899497487 1.121146756337e-07 4 5.62322167602235e-08 ]{}; table [-4 2.4623762285721e-13 -3.95979899497487 7.42355258158198e-13 -3.91959798994975 2.18192051214544e-12 -3.87939698492462 6.25245867977838e-12 -3.8391959798995 1.74688209456155e-11 -3.79899497487437 4.7587671430885e-11 -3.75879396984925 1.26404310678084e-10 -3.71859296482412 3.27405274732635e-10 -3.67839195979899 8.26964774738579e-10 -3.63819095477387 2.03698860605009e-09 -3.59798994974874 4.89344537879686e-09 -3.55778894472362 1.14654597030875e-08 -3.51758793969849 2.62027363668277e-08 -3.47738693467337 5.84130801198982e-08 -3.43718592964824 1.27032195342531e-07 -3.39698492462312 2.69520597367274e-07 -3.35678391959799 5.57931973462905e-07 -3.31658291457286 1.12699240493127e-06 -3.27638190954774 2.2215360270201e-06 -3.23618090452261 4.2738932275587e-06 -3.19597989949749 8.02565761632626e-06 -3.15577889447236 1.47121691529027e-05 -3.11557788944724 2.63310713720186e-05 -3.07537688442211 4.60168966316143e-05 -3.03517587939699 7.8539748700613e-05 -2.99497487437186 0.000130935470628237 -2.95477386934673 0.000213255188034813 -2.91457286432161 0.000339392938231136 -2.87437185929648 0.000527912568125766 -2.83417085427136 0.000802753709099196 -2.79396984924623 0.00119365956033881 -2.75376884422111 0.00173614775018772 -2.71356783919598 0.00247085239848439 -2.67336683417085 0.00344211160571441 -2.63316582914573 0.00469576504299607 -2.5929648241206 0.00627625637123429 -2.55276381909548 0.00822328778712753 -2.51256281407035 0.0105684200415241 -2.47236180904523 0.0133321140920941 -2.4321608040201 0.0165217338034459 -2.39195979899498 0.0201309472344593 -2.35175879396985 0.024140772368986 -2.31155778894472 0.0285222343704307 -2.2713567839196 0.0332402857507485 -2.23115577889447 0.0382583579742426 -2.19095477386935 0.0435427371062066 -2.15075376884422 0.0490659463793261 -2.1105527638191 0.0548085006050133 -2.07035175879397 0.0607587506478393 -2.03015075376884 0.0669109920100189 -1.98994974874372 0.0732624639563006 -1.94974874371859 0.0798101940158411 -1.90954773869347 0.0865487423571985 -1.86934673366834 0.093469713321785 -1.82914572864322 0.100563438989441 -1.78894472361809 0.107822591259086 -1.74874371859296 0.115246798907047 -1.70854271356784 0.122846821296464 -1.66834170854271 0.130646633222166 -1.62814070351759 0.138682013394435 -1.58793969849246 0.146994905715759 -1.54773869346734 0.155623821683565 -1.50753768844221 0.164591654992504 -1.46733668341709 0.173893211695737 -1.42713567839196 0.183485260365748 -1.38693467336683 0.193281799786312 -1.34673366834171 0.203156486746366 -1.30653266331658 0.212952879019836 -1.26633165829146 0.222501578543484 -1.22613065326633 0.23164183603664 -1.18592964824121 0.24024403436005 -1.14572864321608 0.248228968297725 -1.10552763819095 0.255580122810223 -1.06532663316583 0.26234620681221 -1.0251256281407 0.268632860314315 -0.984924623115578 0.274584430125168 -0.944723618090452 0.280358636683968 -0.904522613065327 0.286098449582921 -0.864321608040201 0.291906224150367 -0.824120603015075 0.297824924020069 -0.78391959798995 0.303830046707572 -0.743718592964824 0.309833874004288 -0.703517587939698 0.315701271565275 -0.663316582914573 0.321273966863566 -0.623115577889447 0.326398550565393 -0.582914572864321 0.330952757546075 -0.542713567839196 0.334865045125622 -0.50251256281407 0.338123978018095 -0.462311557788945 0.340776089216012 -0.422110552763819 0.342913207550365 -0.381909547738693 0.344652213153753 -0.341708542713568 0.346111411623652 -0.301507537688442 0.347388023676519 -0.261306532663316 0.348540712508266 -0.221105527638191 0.349579840627051 -0.180904522613065 0.350466584620122 -0.14070351758794 0.351120470276309 -0.100502512562814 0.351433587357854 -0.0603015075376883 0.351288867229194 -0.0201005025125629 0.35057941768734 0.0201005025125625 0.349225985256242 0.0603015075376883 0.34719008093932 0.100502512562814 0.344481059722747 0.14070351758794 0.341156375372086 0.180904522613066 0.337315224127033 0.221105527638191 0.333086723988385 0.261306532663316 0.328614529760435 0.301507537688442 0.32404024647822 0.341708542713568 0.319488092159071 0.381909547738694 0.315052944128294 0.42211055276382 0.310793223748525 0.462311557788945 0.306729154660325 0.50251256281407 0.302845957157163 0.542713567839196 0.299100729803299 0.582914572864322 0.29543130348212 0.623115577889448 0.291765332464382 0.663316582914573 0.288028289927087 0.703517587939698 0.284149716385322 0.743718592964824 0.280067798581022 0.78391959798995 0.275732888254825 0.824120603015076 0.271110724353319 0.864321608040201 0.266185845785802 0.904522613065327 0.260965073380127 0.944723618090452 0.255480223079298 0.984924623115578 0.24978866789753 1.0251256281407 0.243970239781706 1.06532663316583 0.238119383328177 1.10552763819095 0.232332404890773 1.14572864321608 0.226690902847106 1.18592964824121 0.221243704938803 1.22613065326633 0.215990536032731 1.26633165829146 0.210870918637275 1.30653266331658 0.205761332829058 1.34673366834171 0.200482472261003 1.38693467336683 0.194816737653108 1.42713567839196 0.188534238271849 1.46733668341709 0.181423901683716 1.50753768844221 0.173325163901153 1.54773869346734 0.164155361100744 1.58793969849246 0.153928452235888 1.62814070351759 0.142761982786223 1.66834170854271 0.130871018392672 1.70854271356784 0.118549798085615 1.74874371859296 0.10614371371397 1.78894472361809 0.094015591076124 1.82914572864322 0.0825109111695182 1.86934673366834 0.0719264938553787 1.90954773869347 0.0624863490174362 1.94974874371859 0.0543270839140359 1.98994974874372 0.0474937138442007 2.03015075376884 0.0419452396508039 2.07035175879397 0.0375681646523153 2.1105527638191 0.0341953720101233 2.15075376884422 0.0316275155602079 2.19095477386935 0.0296542447258705 2.23115577889447 0.0280730748531219 2.2713567839196 0.0267043869701719 2.31155778894472 0.0254017589035126 2.35175879396985 0.0240574845646414 2.39195979899498 0.0226036613425462 2.4321608040201 0.0210095875002234 2.47236180904523 0.0192764140106333 2.51256281407035 0.0174300597633575 2.55276381909548 0.0155133557329149 2.5929648241206 0.0135782637131391 2.63316582914573 0.0116788465428371 2.67336683417085 0.00986547281409521 2.71356783919598 0.00818053919144553 2.75376884422111 0.00665580376279961 2.79396984924623 0.00531125768404453 2.83417085427136 0.00415533040135641 2.87437185929648 0.00318613324063764 2.91457286432161 0.00239340037004917 2.95477386934673 0.00176078370084667 2.99497487437186 0.00126819325482377 3.03517587939699 0.000893937136801339 3.07537688442211 0.000616493383010977 3.11557788944724 0.000415827025551913 3.15577889447236 0.00027423864084428 3.19597989949749 0.000176787451638751 3.23618090452261 0.000111368698336901 3.27638190954774 6.85414051770448e-05 3.31658291457286 4.1201930846943e-05 3.35678391959799 2.41858158371427e-05 3.39698492462312 1.38609719828499e-05 3.43718592964824 7.75415792256137e-06 3.47738693467337 4.23358872652365e-06 3.51758793969849 2.25552327080819e-06 3.55778894472362 1.17243364031719e-06 3.59798994974874 5.94531659292844e-07 3.63819095477387 2.94073747344929e-07 3.678391959799 1.41868453043227e-07 3.71859296482412 6.67455063468872e-08 3.75879396984925 3.06215623239903e-08 3.79899497487437 1.36983442654765e-08 3.8391959798995 5.97467106548956e-09 3.87939698492462 2.54061016579984e-09 3.91959798994975 1.05321231379935e-09 3.95979899497487 4.25623904090689e-10 4 1.67667507668683e-10 ]{};
[.3]{}
table [-4 9.86749176599897e-07 -3.95979899497487 1.98154653358482e-06 -3.91959798994975 3.8613275160854e-06 -3.87939698492462 7.30136173829387e-06 -3.8391959798995 1.33969505059056e-05 -3.79899497487437 2.38529941509008e-05 -3.75879396984925 4.12111479434722e-05 -3.71859296482412 6.90909849744017e-05 -3.67839195979899 0.00011239912185016 -3.63819095477387 0.000177435009827488 -3.59798994974874 0.00027180070289091 -3.55778894472362 0.000404014267948436 -3.51758793969849 0.000582743854278432 -3.47738693467337 0.000815630740082487 -3.43718592964824 0.00110775667958178 -3.39698492462312 0.0014599236026922 -3.35678391959799 0.00186702851724348 -3.31658291457286 0.00231689882988397 -3.27638190954774 0.00278996634834084 -3.23618090452261 0.00326007537595039 -3.19597989949749 0.00369653832131146 -3.15577889447236 0.00406729919416706 -3.11557788944724 0.00434279875782625 -3.07537688442211 0.0044999284896335 -3.03517587939699 0.00452538132483536 -2.99497487437186 0.00441779321633455 -2.95477386934673 0.00418831275302994 -2.91457286432161 0.00385958065296432 -2.87437185929648 0.00346345769410718 -2.83417085427136 0.00303811194895489 -2.79396984924623 0.00262518863205732 -2.75376884422111 0.00226770577333671 -2.71356783919598 0.00200906437348637 -2.67336683417085 0.00189319513852986 -2.63316582914573 0.0019654755277912 -2.5929648241206 0.00227373805922108 -2.55276381909548 0.00286853882915504 -2.51256281407035 0.00380192112251485 -2.47236180904523 0.00512420877267614 -2.4321608040201 0.00687886208865986 -2.39195979899498 0.00909603369988153 -2.35175879396985 0.0117860300894944 -2.31155778894472 0.0149342474755309 -2.2713567839196 0.0184991546025648 -2.23115577889447 0.0224144571321359 -2.19095477386935 0.0265957351163054 -2.15075376884422 0.0309507715624996 -2.1105527638191 0.035391772064773 -2.07035175879397 0.0398470319493242 -2.03015075376884 0.0442695839419836 -1.98994974874372 0.0486410295255349 -1.94974874371859 0.0529699737313017 -1.90954773869347 0.0572859066009119 -1.86934673366834 0.0616305763560447 -1.82914572864322 0.0660495057936583 -1.78894472361809 0.070586127089601 -1.74874371859296 0.075280116443563 -1.70854271356784 0.0801701924061101 -1.66834170854271 0.0853003152965837 -1.62814070351759 0.0907272796340708 -1.58793969849246 0.0965273619611006 -1.54773869346734 0.10279998869485 -1.50753768844221 0.109667140394271 -1.46733668341709 0.117268121375266 -1.42713567839196 0.125750122708428 -1.38693467336683 0.135255532141059 -1.34673366834171 0.145907190138524 -1.30653266331658 0.157792873101298 -1.26633165829146 0.170950357106271 -1.22613065326633 0.185354574230328 -1.18592964824121 0.200908592207497 -1.14572864321608 0.217440275808236 -1.10552763819095 0.234706311772509 -1.06532663316583 0.25240462501173 -1.0251256281407 0.27019504712234 -0.984924623115578 0.287726575424312 -0.944723618090452 0.304668012004115 -0.904522613065327 0.320737615375041 -0.864321608040201 0.335727009858042 -0.824120603015075 0.349515190138578 -0.78391959798995 0.362069991594569 -0.743718592964824 0.373436573312588 -0.703517587939698 0.383714795588143 -0.663316582914573 0.393029328812955 -0.623115577889447 0.401497469247735 -0.582914572864321 0.409199751251099 -0.542713567839196 0.416157610264502 -0.50251256281407 0.422320884323998 -0.462311557788945 0.427566281897319 -0.422110552763819 0.431706487332471 -0.381909547738693 0.434508543803396 -0.341708542713568 0.435719541774587 -0.301507537688442 0.435097268475172 -0.261306532663316 0.43244311822497 -0.221105527638191 0.427634108823635 -0.180904522613065 0.420650377833408 -0.14070351758794 0.411594310238694 -0.100502512562814 0.400697805627583 -0.0603015075376883 0.388315351365727 -0.0201005025125629 0.374902499908888 0.0201005025125625 0.360981727991803 0.0603015075376883 0.347099938052569 0.100502512562814 0.333783456320728 0.14070351758794 0.321496847580434 0.180904522613066 0.310611061502336 0.221105527638191 0.301384546499851 0.261306532663316 0.293958479504059 0.301507537688442 0.288364749706132 0.341708542713568 0.284543341094156 0.381909547738694 0.282364645681418 0.42211055276382 0.281652129976572 0.462311557788945 0.282201562777618 0.50251256281407 0.283794412795972 0.542713567839196 0.286204675393683 0.582914572864322 0.289199928062745 0.623115577889448 0.292538559887813 0.663316582914573 0.295965709975999 0.703517587939698 0.299210460654217 0.743718592964824 0.301986360228956 0.78391959798995 0.303996569492703 0.824120603015076 0.304944025036288 0.864321608040201 0.304546144907539 0.904522613065327 0.30255286007034 0.944723618090452 0.298766173269461 0.984924623115578 0.293059034082901 1.0251256281407 0.28539109528427 1.06532663316583 0.275818933728647 1.10552763819095 0.26449865419653 1.14572864321608 0.251679506087373 1.18592964824121 0.237688221984184 1.22613065326633 0.222905119275878 1.26633165829146 0.207734367344935 1.30653266331658 0.192571921513458 1.34673366834171 0.177775178690523 1.38693467336683 0.163638235158333 1.42713567839196 0.150375709901599 1.46733668341709 0.138116614980898 1.50753768844221 0.1269080397732 1.54773869346734 0.116726864894247 1.58793969849246 0.107496680077139 1.62814070351759 0.0991067421088608 1.66834170854271 0.0914301639523212 1.70854271356784 0.0843393753023385 1.74874371859296 0.0777179260603103 1.78894472361809 0.071468601138333 1.82914572864322 0.0655183582252615 1.86934673366834 0.0598207270484601 1.90954773869347 0.0543561138744751 1.94974874371859 0.0491301363630503 1.98994974874372 0.0441698874786548 2.03015075376884 0.0395180434392928 2.07035175879397 0.0352250211044506 2.1105527638191 0.0313398607597212 2.15075376884422 0.027900981428628 2.19095477386935 0.0249282326361359 2.23115577889447 0.0224176124556749 2.2713567839196 0.0203396098914374 2.31155778894472 0.0186414536106644 2.35175879396985 0.0172527894729661 2.39195979899498 0.0160936712172765 2.4321608040201 0.0150833925808847 2.47236180904523 0.0141486820870571 2.51256281407035 0.0132300847803717 2.55276381909548 0.0122858486072739 2.5929648241206 0.0112931661093789 2.63316582914573 0.0102470650242987 2.67336683417085 0.00915752105949528 2.71356783919598 0.00804547356170891 2.75376884422111 0.00693839863752825 2.79396984924623 0.00586599160876708 2.83417085427136 0.0048563806524062 2.87437185929648 0.00393316354715457 2.91457286432161 0.00311343659438514 2.95477386934673 0.00240686621930574 2.99497487437186 0.00181573884222497 3.03517587939699 0.00133582106485175 3.07537688442211 0.000957784573239381 3.11557788944724 0.000668912836607359 3.15577889447236 0.000454816485679359 3.19597989949749 0.000300936443961385 3.23618090452261 0.00019369341538783 3.27638190954774 0.000121229107381829 3.31658291457286 7.37599347678805e-05 3.35678391959799 4.36156662922023e-05 3.39698492462312 2.50596518057629e-05 3.43718592964824 1.39872979417668e-05 3.47738693467337 7.58309573306712e-06 3.51758793969849 3.9925576472212e-06 3.55778894472362 2.04124349860562e-06 3.59798994974874 1.01328630982704e-06 3.63819095477387 4.88342731517695e-07 3.678391959799 2.28475503285451e-07 3.71859296482412 1.03764542950568e-07 3.75879396984925 4.5743455023252e-08 3.79899497487437 1.95730898348124e-08 3.8391959798995 8.12873691315256e-09 3.87939698492462 3.27646390176101e-09 3.91959798994975 1.28172225354297e-09 3.95979899497487 4.86606734002413e-10 4 1.79287070909058e-10 ]{}; table [-4 3.0341318603494e-12 -3.95979899497487 9.1139455023462e-12 -3.91959798994975 2.66177080993303e-11 -3.87939698492462 7.55867461728363e-11 -3.8391959798995 2.0871373728715e-10 -3.79899497487437 5.60412274369844e-10 -3.75879396984925 1.46331414990309e-09 -3.71859296482412 3.71590261755354e-09 -3.67839195979899 9.17725665065673e-09 -3.63819095477387 2.20449868593972e-08 -3.59798994974874 5.15090601936051e-08 -3.55778894472362 1.17075118213952e-07 -3.51758793969849 2.5887217634884e-07 -3.47738693467337 5.56904873001683e-07 -3.43718592964824 1.16570709284533e-06 -3.39698492462312 2.37438841827728e-06 -3.35678391959799 4.70666001943961e-06 -3.31658291457286 9.08075044935803e-06 -3.27638190954774 1.70542481608166e-05 -3.23618090452261 3.11820879901238e-05 -3.19597989949749 5.55144659031125e-05 -3.15577889447236 9.62520354191993e-05 -3.11557788944724 0.000162554881823611 -3.07537688442211 0.000267467247689819 -3.03517587939699 0.000428872428976189 -2.99497487437186 0.000670336900318007 -2.95477386934673 0.00102165040699947 -2.91457286432161 0.00151883539614847 -2.87437185929648 0.00220340290436331 -2.83417085427136 0.00312068809019237 -2.79396984924623 0.00431721276097018 -2.75376884422111 0.00583718505097858 -2.71356783919598 0.00771843094668614 -2.67336683417085 0.00998821774032246 -2.63316582914573 0.0126595306679218 -2.5929648241206 0.0157283656680542 -2.55276381909548 0.01917249127735 -2.51256281407035 0.0229519293739815 -2.47236180904523 0.0270111529806121 -2.4321608040201 0.0312827577247452 -2.39195979899498 0.0356921827262097 -2.35175879396985 0.0401629626627601 -2.31155778894472 0.0446219797571325 -2.2713567839196 0.0490042226509223 -2.23115577889447 0.0532566143732169 -2.19095477386935 0.0573405269423883 -2.15075376884422 0.0612326679311789 -2.1105527638191 0.0649241406271003 -2.07035175879397 0.0684176813583001 -2.03015075376884 0.0717233738997178 -1.98994974874372 0.074853491120287 -1.94974874371859 0.0778174290549304 -1.90954773869347 0.080617866545714 -1.86934673366834 0.0832492124284366 -1.82914572864322 0.0856990608452987 -1.78894472361809 0.0879528143636283 -1.74874371859296 0.0900009762590365 -1.70854271356784 0.0918480121998629 -1.66834170854271 0.0935212737770128 -1.62814070351759 0.0950783383212845 -1.58793969849246 0.0966112540483616 -1.54773869346734 0.0982465330123638 -1.50753768844221 0.100140232700743 -1.46733668341709 0.102468050467772 -1.42713567839196 0.105410989797664 -1.38693467336683 0.109137819978813 -1.34673366834171 0.113786193572719 -1.30653266331658 0.119444810096988 -1.26633165829146 0.126139272225661 -1.22613065326633 0.133824119611746 -1.18592964824121 0.142382856389325 -1.14572864321608 0.151636651717086 -1.10552763819095 0.16136098176977 -1.06532663316583 0.171308105742738 -1.0251256281407 0.181232261392293 -0.984924623115578 0.190914073511643 -0.944723618090452 0.200180964948635 -0.904522613065327 0.208921223988967 -0.864321608040201 0.217090552590296 -0.824120603015075 0.224711096289406 -0.78391959798995 0.231863904256746 -0.743718592964824 0.238676382284772 -0.703517587939698 0.245306604888416 -0.663316582914573 0.251926435625489 -0.623115577889447 0.258705347035167 -0.582914572864321 0.265796648663972 -0.542713567839196 0.273327474842281 -0.50251256281407 0.281393293741893 -0.462311557788945 0.29005688101845 -0.422110552763819 0.299350777976122 -0.381909547738693 0.309281461447819 -0.341708542713568 0.319833068258683 -0.301507537688442 0.330968749322293 -0.261306532663316 0.342628609976959 -0.221105527638191 0.354724531116337 -0.180904522613065 0.367133574033484 -0.14070351758794 0.379692684069727 -0.100502512562814 0.392197632907537 -0.0603015075376883 0.404408406151629 -0.0201005025125629 0.416061683267568 0.0201005025125625 0.426889088588405 0.0603015075376883 0.436638103479986 0.100502512562814 0.445091498230857 0.14070351758794 0.452081242105859 0.180904522613066 0.457494115886623 0.221105527638191 0.461268347922822 0.261306532663316 0.463382911500032 0.301507537688442 0.463842964956818 0.341708542713568 0.462665738641799 0.381909547738694 0.459870753898484 0.42211055276382 0.455476773605466 0.462311557788945 0.449505830104706 0.50251256281407 0.441992694032597 0.542713567839196 0.432996793517521 0.582914572864322 0.422613164807861 0.623115577889448 0.410979484216143 0.663316582914573 0.398277303592479 0.703517587939698 0.384726878867478 0.743718592964824 0.370576089640133 0.78391959798995 0.356084714193583 0.824120603015076 0.341505757442132 0.864321608040201 0.327065760309132 0.904522613065327 0.312946185964355 0.944723618090452 0.299268125568393 0.984924623115578 0.28608260721817 1.0251256281407 0.273368550951024 1.06532663316583 0.26103972289603 1.10552763819095 0.248960851584413 1.14572864321608 0.236971509650825 1.18592964824121 0.224914741869632 1.22613065326633 0.212666141704889 1.26633165829146 0.200158525802894 1.30653266331658 0.187397764507004 1.34673366834171 0.174466701958459 1.38693467336683 0.161516201126319 1.42713567839196 0.148744744835964 1.46733668341709 0.13637019587711 1.50753768844221 0.124598792174079 1.54773869346734 0.113596907984566 1.58793969849246 0.103470459921763 1.62814070351759 0.0942552336273989 1.66834170854271 0.085919213255823 1.70854271356784 0.0783756881472952 1.74874371859296 0.0715039716434873 1.78894472361809 0.06517337654777 1.82914572864322 0.0592658487623718 1.86934673366834 0.0536933464696065 1.90954773869347 0.0484074479745344 1.94974874371859 0.0434004210762018 1.98994974874372 0.038698689748013 2.03015075376884 0.0343509406856265 2.07035175879397 0.0304138008733847 2.1105527638191 0.0269380296113976 2.15075376884422 0.0239576019125406 2.19095477386935 0.0214831221976622 2.23115577889447 0.0194999498360491 2.2713567839196 0.017970474193996 2.31155778894472 0.0168393142610186 2.35175879396985 0.0160399183943639 2.39195979899498 0.0155011007773645 2.4321608040201 0.015152402518223 2.47236180904523 0.0149276915360811 2.51256281407035 0.0147669801846255 2.55276381909548 0.0146169101539583 2.5929648241206 0.0144306259561827 2.63316582914573 0.0141677775135214 2.67336683417085 0.0137951712190457 2.71356783919598 0.0132882055677519 2.75376884422111 0.0126328071938638 2.79396984924623 0.0118272619448449 2.83417085427136 0.0108832179024353 2.87437185929648 0.00982526163441375 2.91457286432161 0.0086887955873909 2.95477386934673 0.00751636956095643 2.99497487437186 0.00635301114539903 3.03517587939699 0.00524134420947655 3.07537688442211 0.00421731918878542 3.11557788944724 0.00330721021022546 3.15577889447236 0.002526226893157 3.19597989949749 0.00187873912520094 3.23618090452261 0.00135981487657549 3.27638190954774 0.000957588007153025 3.31658291457286 0.000655926105716765 3.35678391959799 0.000436938978218147 3.39698492462312 0.000283012387611298 3.43718592964824 0.000178218021208218 3.47738693467337 0.000109097058134974 3.51758793969849 6.49160872686244e-05 3.55778894472362 3.754389273378e-05 3.59798994974874 2.11032584460984e-05 3.63819095477387 1.15282460812331e-05 3.678391959799 6.12018400648944e-06 3.71859296482412 3.15747774630379e-06 3.75879396984925 1.58299741485499e-06 3.79899497487437 7.71215404094657e-07 3.8391959798995 3.65106752491964e-07 3.87939698492462 1.67960480603408e-07 3.91959798994975 7.50814878699494e-08 3.95979899497487 3.26132023500418e-08 4 1.37653043345474e-08 ]{}; table [-4 0.00410306764874432 -3.95979899497487 0.00483024337731122 -3.91959798994975 0.00562825675944755 -3.87939698492462 0.00650068266050507 -3.8391959798995 0.00745366619491119 -3.79899497487437 0.0084962825200727 -3.75879396984925 0.00964038508064876 -3.71859296482412 0.0108998198976244 -3.67839195979899 0.0122889633101772 -3.63819095477387 0.0138206439196848 -3.59798994974874 0.0155036226126475 -3.55778894472362 0.0173399096872048 -3.51758793969849 0.0193222760074227 -3.47738693467337 0.0214323481937059 -3.43718592964824 0.0236396537226413 -3.39698492462312 0.0259018963427154 -3.35678391959799 0.0281666016930811 -3.31658291457286 0.0303740945109793 -3.27638190954774 0.0324615784260446 -3.23618090452261 0.0343679182236262 -3.19597989949749 0.0360386031905834 -3.15577889447236 0.037430322494309 -3.11557788944724 0.0385146210298405 -3.07537688442211 0.0392802229758274 -3.03517587939699 0.0397337913121485 -2.99497487437186 0.0398991038517095 -2.95477386934673 0.0398148333947353 -2.91457286432161 0.0395312867240005 -2.87437185929648 0.0391065583669683 -2.83417085427136 0.0386025779222605 -2.79396984924623 0.0380814770232815 -2.75376884422111 0.0376025899784338 -2.71356783919598 0.0372202563726903 -2.67336683417085 0.0369824436476211 -2.63316582914573 0.0369300799550339 -2.5929648241206 0.0370969025953648 -2.55276381909548 0.0375095954972647 -2.51256281407035 0.0381880101674531 -2.47236180904523 0.0391453283549602 -2.4321608040201 0.0403881141700552 -2.39195979899498 0.0419162976897622 -2.35175879396985 0.0437232103533283 -2.31155778894472 0.0457958375060244 -2.2713567839196 0.0481154545056343 -2.23115577889447 0.0506587671720317 -2.19095477386935 0.0533995908428933 -2.15075376884422 0.0563109883970535 -2.1105527638191 0.0593676657247057 -2.07035175879397 0.0625483160776456 -2.03015075376884 0.0658375357877651 -1.98994974874372 0.0692269233955527 -1.94974874371859 0.0727150362418053 -1.90954773869347 0.0763060169591725 -1.86934673366834 0.080006907799931 -1.82914572864322 0.0838239191647184 -1.78894472361809 0.0877581716255851 -1.74874371859296 0.0918016395777489 -1.70854271356784 0.0959341384144726 -1.66834170854271 0.100122173039209 -1.62814070351759 0.104320280613614 -1.58793969849246 0.10847516097679 -1.54773869346734 0.112532434149615 -1.50753768844221 0.116445366468901 -1.46733668341709 0.120184455622366 -1.42713567839196 0.12374645293974 -1.38693467336683 0.12716130362639 -1.34673366834171 0.13049564112047 -1.30653266331658 0.13385187216095 -1.26633165829146 0.137362478073714 -1.22613065326633 0.141179840671809 -1.18592964824121 0.145462564159566 -1.14572864321608 0.150359797445807 -1.10552763819095 0.155995379701197 -1.06532663316583 0.162453691801367 -1.0251256281407 0.169768899291439 -0.984924623115578 0.177918861413971 -0.944723618090452 0.186824426429244 -0.904522613065327 0.196354218553519 -0.864321608040201 0.206334425366889 -0.824120603015075 0.216562581091296 -0.78391959798995 0.226823956098348 -0.743718592964824 0.236908933048536 -0.703517587939698 0.246629686539631 -0.663316582914573 0.255834585555081 -0.623115577889447 0.264418995500904 -0.582914572864321 0.27233154702074 -0.542713567839196 0.279575426327354 -0.50251256281407 0.286204775934273 -0.462311557788945 0.292316812247099 -0.422110552763819 0.298040698643726 -0.381909547738693 0.303524496271149 -0.341708542713568 0.30892160582243 -0.301507537688442 0.31437799930143 -0.261306532663316 0.320021246550639 -0.221105527638191 0.325951928970615 -0.180904522613065 0.332237590024691 -0.14070351758794 0.338908993683047 -0.100502512562814 0.345958227813158 -0.0603015075376883 0.353338144164852 -0.0201005025125629 0.360962766237684 0.0201005025125625 0.368708567719011 0.0603015075376883 0.376416836519176 0.100502512562814 0.383897586913275 0.14070351758794 0.390935572073814 0.180904522613066 0.397298827295157 0.221105527638191 0.402749841883703 0.261306532663316 0.407058974442974 0.301507537688442 0.410019196846845 0.341708542713568 0.411460801669617 0.381909547738694 0.411264450987732 0.42211055276382 0.409370957177885 0.462311557788945 0.405786486635379 0.50251256281407 0.400582420583537 0.542713567839196 0.393889796304907 0.582914572864322 0.385888960129387 0.623115577889448 0.376795661842795 0.663316582914573 0.366845206592394 0.703517587939698 0.356276399346375 0.743718592964824 0.345316868573545 0.78391959798995 0.33417099168053 0.824120603015076 0.323011153020839 0.864321608040201 0.311972548756977 0.904522613065327 0.301151305772603 0.944723618090452 0.290605370890261 0.984924623115578 0.280357480114156 1.0251256281407 0.270399524428803 1.06532663316583 0.260697746800731 1.10552763819095 0.251198376027244 1.14572864321608 0.241833468732618 1.18592964824121 0.232526847287598 1.22613065326633 0.223200067701047 1.26633165829146 0.213778330667718 1.30653266331658 0.204196182887286 1.34673366834171 0.194402776003647 1.38693467336683 0.184366387976482 1.42713567839196 0.174077888708299 1.46733668341709 0.163552857981338 1.50753768844221 0.152832136501895 1.54773869346734 0.14198069851492 1.58793969849246 0.131084861408057 1.62814070351759 0.120247978578978 1.66834170854271 0.109584883910969 1.70854271356784 0.0992154599393579 1.74874371859296 0.0892577798065565 1.78894472361809 0.0798213189414689 1.82914572864322 0.0710007400978202 1.86934673366834 0.0628707203052927 1.90954773869347 0.0554822089570674 1.94974874371859 0.0488603864051455 1.98994974874372 0.0430044421606601 2.03015075376884 0.0378891271243863 2.07035175879397 0.0334678749087763 2.1105527638191 0.0296771531141505 2.15075376884422 0.026441612567297 2.19095477386935 0.0236795604981699 2.23115577889447 0.0213082937974128 2.2713567839196 0.0192488846396376 2.31155778894472 0.0174301011130464 2.35175879396985 0.0157912556439457 2.39195979899498 0.0142838896760303 2.4321608040201 0.0128723121947658 2.47236180904523 0.0115331034004641 2.51256281407035 0.0102537674600825 2.55276381909548 0.00903076678977155 2.5929648241206 0.00786719371226554 2.63316582914573 0.00677033413880831 2.67336683417085 0.00574935417275646 2.71356783919598 0.00481329785605612 2.75376884422111 0.00396952798357332 2.79396984924623 0.00322267871692636 2.83417085427136 0.00257412611089566 2.87437185929648 0.00202192782604832 2.91457286432161 0.00156114205410206 2.95477386934673 0.001184411521963 2.99497487437186 0.000882692065906218 3.03517587939699 0.000646014682703316 3.07537688442211 0.00046419110524666 3.11557788944724 0.000327400655494426 3.15577889447236 0.000226625198355213 3.19597989949749 0.000153925118048666 3.23618090452261 0.000102569455208975 3.27638190954774 6.70463799776972e-05 3.31658291457286 4.29861780903827e-05 3.35678391959799 2.70290825989075e-05 3.39698492462312 1.66663369614711e-05 3.43718592964824 1.00766671755278e-05 3.47738693467337 5.97347082197179e-06 3.51758793969849 3.47166711134829e-06 3.55778894472362 1.977981461675e-06 3.59798994974874 1.10472219395428e-06 3.63819095477387 6.04793187181283e-07 3.678391959799 3.24535316177073e-07 3.71859296482412 1.7068623139079e-07 3.75879396984925 8.79829154276386e-08 3.79899497487437 4.44472556608479e-08 3.8391959798995 2.20050869911594e-08 3.87939698492462 1.06762518832383e-08 3.91959798994975 5.07597298292545e-09 3.95979899497487 2.36490000437054e-09 4 1.07966349239639e-09 ]{};
[.3]{}
table [-4 4.32345647979611e-08 -3.95979899497487 9.64916371827258e-08 -3.91959798994975 2.0940292107101e-07 -3.87939698492462 4.41908136111799e-07 -3.8391959798995 9.06904224444064e-07 -3.79899497487437 1.81007881957193e-06 -3.75879396984925 3.51373877468101e-06 -3.71859296482412 6.63452542293111e-06 -3.67839195979899 1.21858210038383e-05 -3.63819095477387 2.17743202760499e-05 -3.59798994974874 3.78551116782812e-05 -3.55778894472362 6.40391490443276e-05 -3.51758793969849 0.000105430307747787 -3.47738693467337 0.000168946920079416 -3.43718592964824 0.000263557774116739 -3.39698492462312 0.000400340965272718 -3.35678391959799 0.000592264267254666 -3.31658291457286 0.000853597473975955 -3.27638190954774 0.00119890825078169 -3.23618090452261 0.00164166554731194 -3.19597989949749 0.00219257139779149 -3.15577889447236 0.0028578447044588 -3.11557788944724 0.00363776163055956 -3.07537688442211 0.00452578521433265 -3.03517587939699 0.00550856644706787 -2.99497487437186 0.00656696187039498 -2.95477386934673 0.0076780054374153 -2.91457286432161 0.00881753857712222 -2.87437185929648 0.00996300524687053 -2.83417085427136 0.0110958246104064 -2.79396984924623 0.0122028110728206 -2.75376884422111 0.0132763301895708 -2.71356783919598 0.0143132215757222 -2.67336683417085 0.0153129041234936 -2.63316582914573 0.016275397167054 -2.5929648241206 0.0172001408866944 -2.55276381909548 0.0180864133200614 -2.51256281407035 0.0189358115447312 -2.47236180904523 0.0197567476124617 -2.4321608040201 0.0205703153871827 -2.39195979899498 0.0214163491396367 -2.35175879396985 0.0223581500045477 -2.31155778894472 0.0234842998809512 -2.2713567839196 0.0249062590605503 -2.23115577889447 0.0267510385780158 -2.19095477386935 0.0291490770928174 -2.15075376884422 0.0322184099140272 -2.1105527638191 0.0360471303405783 -2.07035175879397 0.0406768262200331 -2.03015075376884 0.0460899513170456 -1.98994974874372 0.0522038332981861 -1.94974874371859 0.0588731912062517 -1.90954773869347 0.0659017249267357 -1.86934673366834 0.0730617708826279 -1.82914572864322 0.0801195159677888 -1.78894472361809 0.0868621750189993 -1.74874371859296 0.0931231420738711 -1.70854271356784 0.0988015343864454 -1.66834170854271 0.103873661788548 -1.62814070351759 0.108395482620805 -1.58793969849246 0.112496656069206 -1.54773869346734 0.116367992687645 -1.50753768844221 0.120244698431875 -1.46733668341709 0.124387762261398 -1.42713567839196 0.129065307670385 -1.38693467336683 0.13453499093521 -1.34673366834171 0.141027875545743 -1.30653266331658 0.14873385258307 -1.26633165829146 0.157788680791284 -1.22613065326633 0.168263016386732 -1.18592964824121 0.180154220904969 -1.14572864321608 0.193382070446233 -1.10552763819095 0.207789564023383 -1.06532663316583 0.223149738530438 -1.0251256281407 0.239178738357107 -0.984924623115578 0.255554458727511 -0.944723618090452 0.271939074179457 -0.904522613065327 0.288002923593886 -0.864321608040201 0.303446795284877 -0.824120603015075 0.318019810001059 -0.78391959798995 0.331530864301227 -0.743718592964824 0.343852822077765 -0.703517587939698 0.354920021684602 -0.663316582914573 0.364720820416094 -0.623115577889447 0.373287498822894 -0.582914572864321 0.38068574045212 -0.542713567839196 0.387005176276968 -0.50251256281407 0.392351446082318 -0.462311557788945 0.396839298241991 -0.422110552763819 0.400585786046486 -0.381909547738693 0.40370278051985 -0.341708542713568 0.40628869210714 -0.301507537688442 0.408420137172572 -0.261306532663316 0.41014488197945 -0.221105527638191 0.411477436647768 -0.180904522613065 0.412398096595688 -0.14070351758794 0.41285526938171 -0.100502512562814 0.412770006195626 -0.0603015075376883 0.412041215358797 -0.0201005025125629 0.410550318136699 0.0201005025125625 0.408165050778102 0.0603015075376883 0.404743350421322 0.100502512562814 0.400139246459194 0.14070351758794 0.394212917575355 0.180904522613066 0.38684632074773 0.221105527638191 0.377964166365564 0.261306532663316 0.367557957947346 0.301507537688442 0.355708985032369 0.341708542713568 0.342605181898925 0.381909547738694 0.328547041756322 0.42211055276382 0.313939343817989 0.462311557788945 0.299267970109974 0.50251256281407 0.285063943850736 0.542713567839196 0.271859298881144 0.582914572864322 0.260140884651914 0.623115577889448 0.250308393928479 0.663316582914573 0.242641800187906 0.703517587939698 0.237281374407305 0.743718592964824 0.234221097045797 0.78391959798995 0.2333142038182 0.824120603015076 0.23428826467287 0.864321608040201 0.236766775251782 0.904522613065327 0.240294609754833 0.944723618090452 0.244365480632037 0.984924623115578 0.248450331032772 1.0251256281407 0.252026000343404 1.06532663316583 0.25460342051489 1.10552763819095 0.255754142608701 1.14572864321608 0.255133462733693 1.18592964824121 0.252498158580737 1.22613065326633 0.247717093900193 1.26633165829146 0.240773717236347 1.30653266331658 0.23176057120915 1.34673366834171 0.220867003589468 1.38693467336683 0.208362002115801 1.42713567839196 0.19457427316949 1.46733668341709 0.179871373201598 1.50753768844221 0.164639094728286 1.54773869346734 0.149261709696465 1.58793969849246 0.134103343231262 1.62814070351759 0.119490800486604 1.66834170854271 0.105698519284553 1.70854271356784 0.0929367460104876 1.74874371859296 0.0813442625091619 1.78894472361809 0.0709868295166031 1.82914572864322 0.0618619112004072 1.86934673366834 0.0539093274503054 1.90954773869347 0.0470264872119704 1.94974874371859 0.0410860606733034 1.98994974874372 0.0359535644929546 2.03015075376884 0.0315024555376218 2.07035175879397 0.0276249107018781 2.1105527638191 0.0242373588709251 2.15075376884422 0.0212808143520214 2.19095477386935 0.0187169294544822 2.23115577889447 0.0165212775573217 2.2713567839196 0.0146756149710846 2.31155778894472 0.0131607522051879 2.35175879396985 0.0119512668425303 2.39195979899498 0.0110127319523804 2.4321608040201 0.0103015518872422 2.47236180904523 0.00976701093931017 2.51256281407035 0.0093548278397068 2.55276381909548 0.00901139506687369 2.5929648241206 0.00868794064464499 2.63316582914573 0.00834402226195544 2.67336683417085 0.0079499802529348 2.71356783919598 0.00748818110646298 2.75376884422111 0.00695304639776592 2.79396984924623 0.00634997923619463 2.83417085427136 0.00569338357135979 2.87437185929648 0.00500403513066004 2.91457286432161 0.00430611165166418 2.95477386934673 0.00362421782888927 2.99497487437186 0.00298073371312874 3.03517587939699 0.00239376371021293 3.07537688442211 0.00187586759525658 3.11557788944724 0.00143363004873856 3.15577889447236 0.00106799654165504 3.19597989949749 0.000775198442369271 3.23618090452261 0.000548029527052202 3.27638190954774 0.000377227284904054 3.31658291457286 0.000252749341076808 3.35678391959799 0.000164801722548585 3.39698492462312 0.00010455150842235 3.43718592964824 6.45239370515719e-05 3.47738693467337 3.87319973044349e-05 3.51758793969849 2.26112006442145e-05 3.55778894472362 1.28362040915623e-05 3.59798994974874 7.08550070780261e-06 3.63819095477387 3.80270959671084e-06 3.678391959799 1.9841629526133e-06 3.71859296482412 1.00646875532071e-06 3.75879396984925 4.96298470601763e-07 3.79899497487437 2.37897150948192e-07 3.8391959798995 1.10847472943611e-07 3.87939698492462 5.02043532890888e-08 3.91959798994975 2.21017463083539e-08 3.95979899497487 9.45743968395132e-09 4 3.93346946741877e-09 ]{}; table [-4 3.31846864034511e-05 -3.95979899497487 5.48389898062661e-05 -3.91959798994975 8.83786009936249e-05 -3.87939698492462 0.000138918789758141 -3.8391959798995 0.000213003247527515 -3.79899497487437 0.000318627569130887 -3.75879396984925 0.000465070444086776 -3.71859296482412 0.000662468469734394 -3.67839195979899 0.00092109152115447 -3.63819095477387 0.00125031562722309 -3.59798994974874 0.00165734741971971 -3.55778894472362 0.00214582120375432 -3.51758793969849 0.0027144540878878 -3.47738693467337 0.0033559905430243 -3.43718592964824 0.00405667934110511 -3.39698492462312 0.00479649147720926 -3.35678391959799 0.00555020427085289 -3.31658291457286 0.00628935234190479 -3.27638190954774 0.00698489972279496 -3.23618090452261 0.00761034644198671 -3.19597989949749 0.00814487768518373 -3.15577889447236 0.00857612007353226 -3.11557788944724 0.00890210268940047 -3.07537688442211 0.0091321295543032 -3.03517587939699 0.00928643772952152 -2.99497487437186 0.00939470946985371 -2.95477386934673 0.0094936890277845 -2.91457286432161 0.00962428770146214 -2.87437185929648 0.00982861843455698 -2.83417085427136 0.0101473751146376 -2.79396984924623 0.0106178723474804 -2.75376884422111 0.011272914955842 -2.71356783919598 0.0121405057923389 -2.67336683417085 0.0132442557144471 -2.63316582914573 0.0146042501035487 -2.5929648241206 0.0162380584654117 -2.55276381909548 0.018161544699291 -2.51256281407035 0.0203891418595066 -2.47236180904523 0.0229332997272808 -2.4321608040201 0.0258029085772464 -2.39195979899498 0.0290006639591269 -2.35175879396985 0.032519571395228 -2.31155778894472 0.0363390783443986 -2.2713567839196 0.0404216114486022 -2.23115577889447 0.0447105072755865 -2.19095477386935 0.0491303601316145 -2.15075376884422 0.0535905958409591 -2.1105527638191 0.0579925930499705 -2.07035175879397 0.0622399670317915 -2.03015075376884 0.066250837150576 -1.98994974874372 0.0699702053617609 -1.94974874371859 0.0733801764092262 -1.90954773869347 0.0765058017650264 -1.86934673366834 0.0794148845166146 -1.82914572864322 0.0822110746859906 -1.78894472361809 0.0850208302733665 -1.74874371859296 0.0879760563561904 -1.70854271356784 0.0911951835811655 -1.66834170854271 0.0947658810895501 -1.62814070351759 0.098732399815298 -1.58793969849246 0.103089733928071 -1.54773869346734 0.107785533141368 -1.50753768844221 0.112729261237029 -1.46733668341709 0.117806783174858 -1.42713567839196 0.122897653442095 -1.38693467336683 0.127892059457639 -1.34673366834171 0.132704699572505 -1.30653266331658 0.137283752947411 -1.26633165829146 0.141614310365725 -1.22613065326633 0.145716887131505 -1.18592964824121 0.149642630032984 -1.14572864321608 0.153467321755436 -1.10552763819095 0.157286161920702 -1.06532663316583 0.161210601952497 -1.0251256281407 0.165367420000583 -0.984924623115578 0.169899042439649 -0.944723618090452 0.174963192410387 -0.904522613065327 0.180729572816449 -0.864321608040201 0.187371644891531 -0.824120603015075 0.195052633064182 -0.78391959798995 0.203906459482816 -0.743718592964824 0.214016007116312 -0.703517587939698 0.225392467153311 -0.663316582914573 0.237960121383734 -0.623115577889447 0.251550483497293 -0.582914572864321 0.265908270465392 -0.542713567839196 0.28070947465092 -0.50251256281407 0.295589364977231 -0.462311557788945 0.310176166637749 -0.422110552763819 0.324124990093117 -0.381909547738693 0.337146612686801 -0.341708542713568 0.349026950555995 -0.301507537688442 0.359635163000223 -0.261306532663316 0.368920747342024 -0.221105527638191 0.376902085555388 -0.180904522613065 0.383650183395436 -0.14070351758794 0.38927154007365 -0.100502512562814 0.393893257502641 -0.0603015075376883 0.397651981226828 -0.0201005025125629 0.400686570691067 0.0201005025125625 0.403133052080739 0.0603015075376883 0.405119804097278 0.100502512562814 0.406761211315208 0.14070351758794 0.408149053959883 0.180904522613066 0.409342312629283 0.221105527638191 0.410357356146499 0.261306532663316 0.411161188222316 0.301507537688442 0.411670273011267 0.341708542713568 0.411756436416043 0.381909547738694 0.411259730329119 0.42211055276382 0.410006433939392 0.462311557788945 0.407829080998167 0.50251256281407 0.404584949562644 0.542713567839196 0.400169973928234 0.582914572864322 0.394526367658349 0.623115577889448 0.387643954996236 0.663316582914573 0.379556753367116 0.703517587939698 0.370337254800507 0.743718592964824 0.360090862654387 0.78391959798995 0.348952096654509 0.824120603015076 0.337082807867792 0.864321608040201 0.324671236111987 0.904522613065327 0.311929788766731 0.944723618090452 0.299089259720744 0.984924623115578 0.286387919479618 1.0251256281407 0.274055295376225 1.06532663316583 0.262292119659457 1.10552763819095 0.251249368150701 1.14572864321608 0.241010122557149 1.18592964824121 0.231577925962068 1.22613065326633 0.222874362758759 1.26633165829146 0.214747006480924 1.30653266331658 0.206987019551339 1.34673366834171 0.199353981795284 1.38693467336683 0.191604331132968 1.42713567839196 0.18351933814526 1.46733668341709 0.174928844063412 1.50753768844221 0.165727938077946 1.54773869346734 0.155885084072333 1.58793969849246 0.145441629048163 1.62814070351759 0.134503857929128 1.66834170854271 0.123229602960644 1.70854271356784 0.111811780870568 1.74874371859296 0.100461139702887 1.78894472361809 0.0893900620395235 1.82914572864322 0.0787986554478177 1.86934673366834 0.0688637336246193 1.90954773869347 0.0597307874457534 1.94974874371859 0.0515087369597982 1.98994974874372 0.0442671466158063 2.03015075376884 0.0380356218380637 2.07035175879397 0.0328051988731918 2.1105527638191 0.0285316060237308 2.15075376884422 0.0251402569610953 2.19095477386935 0.0225327253063237 2.23115577889447 0.020594278045553 2.2713567839196 0.0192018756863041 2.31155778894472 0.0182319448119191 2.35175879396985 0.0175672388278614 2.39195979899498 0.0171022349589701 2.4321608040201 0.0167467430243561 2.47236180904523 0.016427671476168 2.51256281407035 0.0160891481281045 2.55276381909548 0.0156913766763968 2.5929648241206 0.0152086977899284 2.63316582914573 0.0146273135426541 2.67336683417085 0.0139430462740134 2.71356783919598 0.0131593701186085 2.75376884422111 0.012285810555074 2.79396984924623 0.0113366842780371 2.83417085427136 0.0103300687304492 2.87437185929648 0.00928685690463522 2.91457286432161 0.00822976717303405 2.95477386934673 0.00718222972792 2.99497487437186 0.006167144039962 3.03517587939699 0.00520557574354997 3.07537688442211 0.00431551749903624 3.11557788944724 0.00351086267568331 3.15577889447236 0.00280072751541318 3.19597989949749 0.00218921082306826 3.23618090452261 0.00167561256845462 3.27638190954774 0.00125506110422768 3.31658291457286 0.000919439781542998 3.35678391959799 0.000658469640717535 3.39698492462312 0.000460800222033201 3.43718592964824 0.000314982398195064 3.47738693467337 0.000210236810000549 3.51758793969849 0.000136977852509365 3.55778894472362 8.70958651388953e-05 3.59798994974874 5.40320217010092e-05 3.63819095477387 3.26982931855313e-05 3.678391959799 1.92994122894473e-05 3.71859296482412 1.11081834885663e-05 3.75879396984925 6.23398033390342e-06 3.79899497487437 3.41084687867867e-06 3.8391959798995 1.81924408694943e-06 3.87939698492462 9.4583396112965e-07 3.91959798994975 4.79294209399953e-07 3.95979899497487 2.36714709220588e-07 4 1.13935807010378e-07 ]{}; table [-4 8.9246528830775e-06 -3.95979899497487 1.53298690043965e-05 -3.91959798994975 2.57479454450333e-05 -3.87939698492462 4.22903619326224e-05 -3.8391959798995 6.79322602167201e-05 -3.79899497487437 0.000106731238446489 -3.75879396984925 0.000164035188513161 -3.71859296482412 0.000246641548584374 -3.67839195979899 0.000362859073478375 -3.63819095477387 0.00052241616035992 -3.59798994974874 0.000736160579777999 -3.55778894472362 0.00101550758156718 -3.51758793969849 0.00137161892359217 -3.47738693467337 0.00181433419612451 -3.43718592964824 0.00235092448763469 -3.39698492462312 0.00298479016653763 -3.35678391959799 0.00371426980912806 -3.31658291457286 0.00453175538998114 -3.27638190954774 0.00542331014590067 -3.23618090452261 0.00636895390114692 -3.19597989949749 0.00734371542903853 -3.15577889447236 0.0083194583332071 -3.11557788944724 0.00926737762187925 -3.07537688442211 0.0101609545033111 -3.03517587939699 0.0109790644409947 -2.99497487437186 0.0117088743921379 -2.95477386934673 0.0123481517986674 -2.91457286432161 0.0129066469874858 -2.87437185929648 0.013406302031619 -2.83417085427136 0.0138801754195983 -2.79396984924623 0.0143701384970283 -2.75376884422111 0.0149235755833154 -2.71356783919598 0.0155894792444151 -2.67336683417085 0.0164144481224935 -2.63316582914573 0.0174391425496468 -2.5929648241206 0.0186957166659385 -2.55276381909548 0.0202066218576211 -2.51256281407035 0.0219849781394832 -2.47236180904523 0.0240364664883603 -2.4321608040201 0.0263624462658251 -2.39195979899498 0.028963791441933 -2.35175879396985 0.0318448053300106 -2.31155778894472 0.0350165400912436 -2.2713567839196 0.0384989198743472 -2.23115577889447 0.0423212317984404 -2.19095477386935 0.046520778933886 -2.15075376884422 0.0511397476776287 -2.1105527638191 0.0562205910784486 -2.07035175879397 0.061800437085346 -2.03015075376884 0.0679051720743865 -1.98994974874372 0.0745439110988266 -1.94974874371859 0.0817045432858937 -1.90954773869347 0.0893509399641765 -1.86934673366834 0.0974222497679037 -1.82914572864322 0.105834501144687 -1.78894472361809 0.11448451317498 -1.74874371859296 0.123255902883279 -1.70854271356784 0.132026786834085 -1.66834170854271 0.140678613308739 -1.62814070351759 0.149105428465251 -1.58793969849246 0.157222774794959 -1.54773869346734 0.16497534970268 -1.50753768844221 0.172342536272292 -1.46733668341709 0.179340989825556 -1.42713567839196 0.186023658205045 -1.38693467336683 0.192474952437288 -1.34673366834171 0.198802257008928 -1.30653266331658 0.20512452055616 -1.26633165829146 0.211559200347547 -1.22613065326633 0.218209224186585 -1.18592964824121 0.225151764150433 -1.14572864321608 0.232430413890554 -1.10552763819095 0.240051824350371 -1.06532663316583 0.24798706663699 -1.0251256281407 0.256177113935638 -0.984924623115578 0.264541063579488 -0.944723618090452 0.27298524104535 -0.904522613065327 0.281411263498955 -0.864321608040201 0.289721517922973 -0.824120603015075 0.297821246179912 -0.78391959798995 0.305617354988577 -0.743718592964824 0.313014962980775 -0.703517587939698 0.319913345890818 -0.663316582914573 0.326203188280544 -0.623115577889447 0.331766833776486 -0.582914572864321 0.336482590122306 -0.542713567839196 0.340233229296497 -0.50251256281407 0.342917826642716 -0.462311557788945 0.344465222829892 -0.422110552763819 0.344846854674357 -0.381909547738693 0.34408660276042 -0.341708542713568 0.342265670460977 -0.301507537688442 0.339521268930261 -0.261306532663316 0.336038883525037 -0.221105527638191 0.332038938201125 -0.180904522613065 0.327759550151541 -0.14070351758794 0.323437612089587 -0.100502512562814 0.319290565862171 -0.0603015075376883 0.315500945585265 -0.0201005025125629 0.312205168251362 0.0201005025125625 0.309487293081569 0.0603015075376883 0.307377732996983 0.100502512562814 0.305856327327148 0.14070351758794 0.304858852982791 0.180904522613066 0.304285961031738 0.221105527638191 0.304013609279504 0.261306532663316 0.303904217649856 0.301507537688442 0.303817907730225 0.341708542713568 0.303623247710397 0.381909547738694 0.303206911711321 0.42211055276382 0.302481627643643 0.462311557788945 0.301391799245901 0.50251256281407 0.299916300521437 0.542713567839196 0.298068168621043 0.582914572864322 0.295891229987024 0.623115577889448 0.293454014358387 0.663316582914573 0.290841564463199 0.703517587939698 0.288145881753062 0.743718592964824 0.285455750914306 0.78391959798995 0.282846596104974 0.824120603015076 0.280370908562963 0.864321608040201 0.278049718276124 0.904522613065327 0.275865602536456 0.944723618090452 0.273757823686652 0.984924623115578 0.271620310175041 1.0251256281407 0.269303250951981 1.06532663316583 0.266618974563791 1.10552763819095 0.263352474552483 1.14572864321608 0.259276421669688 1.18592964824121 0.254169834655069 1.22613065326633 0.247838882071159 1.26633165829146 0.24013770301891 1.30653266331658 0.230986803996757 1.34673366834171 0.220386613617628 1.38693467336683 0.20842419372773 1.42713567839196 0.195271876922705 1.46733668341709 0.181177617626045 1.50753768844221 0.166447945365759 1.54773869346734 0.151425410459064 1.58793969849246 0.136463142187028 1.62814070351759 0.121899472069182 1.66834170854271 0.108035455951473 1.70854271356784 0.0951175871348451 1.74874371859296 0.0833271347535626 1.78894472361809 0.0727765283123768 1.82914572864322 0.0635122234219196 1.86934673366834 0.0555226917661401 1.90954773869347 0.0487496974651663 1.94974874371859 0.0431008999884742 1.98994974874372 0.0384620351946444 2.03015075376884 0.034707385198421 2.07035175879397 0.0317078333293281 2.1105527638191 0.0293363850266721 2.15075376884422 0.0274715119376075 2.19095477386935 0.0259989755821122 2.23115577889447 0.0248128842924668 2.2713567839196 0.0238166496517094 2.31155778894472 0.0229242843111055 2.35175879396985 0.0220621874502979 2.39195979899498 0.0211712670866758 2.4321608040201 0.0202090124733831 2.47236180904523 0.0191510011513836 2.51256281407035 0.0179913274169774 2.55276381909548 0.0167415697785065 2.5929648241206 0.0154281468791582 2.63316582914573 0.0140881964659302 2.67336683417085 0.0127643911432442 2.71356783919598 0.0114993194427145 2.75376884422111 0.010330165840982 2.79396984924623 0.00928439631547791 2.83417085427136 0.00837700194876176 2.87437185929648 0.00760960300253007 2.91457286432161 0.00697141929411962 2.95477386934673 0.00644182639634898 2.99497487437186 0.00599399303043149 3.03517587939699 0.00559896977142237 3.07537688442211 0.0052295881681081 3.11557788944724 0.00486362519989238 3.15577889447236 0.00448586393714688 3.19597989949749 0.00408889826482984 3.23618090452261 0.0036727449052191 3.27638190954774 0.00324350211217651 3.31658291457286 0.00281140549865657 3.35678391959799 0.00238866718458524 3.39698492462312 0.00198745008352621 3.43718592964824 0.00161824238033668 3.47738693467337 0.00128878283489169 3.51758793969849 0.00100357114516144 3.55778894472362 0.000763900414031126 3.59798994974874 0.000568284008033428 3.63819095477387 0.000413120899844605 3.678391959799 0.00029344809803361 3.71859296482412 0.000203656796376347 3.75879396984925 0.000138089105235112 3.79899497487437 9.1474108542792e-05 3.8391959798995 5.91976965753314e-05 3.87939698492462 3.74258677695221e-05 3.91959798994975 2.31150123735833e-05 3.95979899497487 1.39465829908356e-05 4 8.22034923073873e-06 ]{};
[.3]{}
table [-4 0.00433015715307737 -3.95979899497487 0.00444330832577001 -3.91959798994975 0.00442877535325492 -3.87939698492462 0.00428782764628298 -3.8391959798995 0.00403247983172696 -3.79899497487437 0.00368382727103109 -3.75879396984925 0.00326921719226832 -3.71859296482412 0.00281879925226279 -3.67839195979899 0.00236208331187723 -3.63819095477387 0.00192507632228758 -3.59798994974874 0.0015284007474079 -3.55778894472362 0.0011865660216456 -3.51758793969849 0.000908331956659498 -3.47738693467337 0.000697918336101132 -3.43718592964824 0.000556705974163222 -3.39698492462312 0.000485044901951595 -3.35678391959799 0.000483820348876033 -3.31658291457286 0.000555503857295221 -3.27638190954774 0.00070451389670132 -3.23618090452261 0.000936813915025058 -3.19597989949749 0.00125878001745726 -3.15577889447236 0.00167547354702882 -3.11557788944724 0.00218855228141574 -3.07537688442211 0.00279413846124521 -3.03517587939699 0.00348101683014748 -2.99497487437186 0.00422954318714272 -2.95477386934673 0.00501158970050356 -2.91457286432161 0.00579173455034375 -2.87437185929648 0.00652973268164096 -2.83417085427136 0.00718410842067865 -2.79396984924623 0.00771652520402131 -2.75376884422111 0.0080964484417767 -2.71356783919598 0.00830555098195486 -2.67336683417085 0.00834132702206606 -2.63316582914573 0.00821947157353407 -2.5929648241206 0.00797472531410335 -2.55276381909548 0.00766004729270363 -2.51256281407035 0.00734413022595988 -2.47236180904523 0.00710739533760626 -2.4321608040201 0.00703669295198167 -2.39195979899498 0.00721900614467187 -2.35175879396985 0.0077345340489091 -2.31155778894472 0.00864964420286218 -2.2713567839196 0.0100103375790727 -2.23115577889447 0.0118370422431716 -2.19095477386935 0.014121682123446 -2.15075376884422 0.0168279695504603 -2.1105527638191 0.0198956560969204 -2.07035175879397 0.0232489923986481 -2.03015075376884 0.0268089103655725 -1.98994974874372 0.0305075569486797 -1.94974874371859 0.0343029680174362 -1.90954773869347 0.0381911118709482 -1.86934673366834 0.042212478070178 -1.82914572864322 0.0464509769737775 -1.78894472361809 0.0510241425658146 -1.74874371859296 0.0560653185887742 -1.70854271356784 0.0617003253031555 -1.66834170854271 0.0680226324490861 -1.62814070351759 0.0750718941219961 -1.58793969849246 0.0828205433178108 -1.54773869346734 0.0911719178518238 -1.50753768844221 0.0999712703083625 -1.46733668341709 0.10902841438097 -1.42713567839196 0.11814824302503 -1.38693467336683 0.127163505628689 -1.34673366834171 0.135963510504935 -1.30653266331658 0.144513034683686 -1.26633165829146 0.152857573396872 -1.22613065326633 0.161113752401375 -1.18592964824121 0.169446665655453 -1.14572864321608 0.178038445594643 -1.10552763819095 0.187053984450492 -1.06532663316583 0.196610092366492 -1.0251256281407 0.2067534814098 -0.984924623115578 0.21745106191661 -0.944723618090452 0.228593587645439 -0.904522613065327 0.240011230363193 -0.864321608040201 0.251497699504373 -0.824120603015075 0.262838393621002 -0.78391959798995 0.273837906851191 -0.743718592964824 0.284342918761141 -0.703517587939698 0.294257789946304 -0.663316582914573 0.303551691794414 -0.623115577889447 0.312257449852418 -0.582914572864321 0.320463220073715 -0.542713567839196 0.328298565377915 -0.50251256281407 0.335916558325321 -0.462311557788945 0.343473430305845 -0.422110552763819 0.351107261720196 -0.381909547738693 0.358917403972262 -0.341708542713568 0.366946704665377 -0.301507537688442 0.375168949979616 -0.261306532663316 0.383483921509654 -0.221105527638191 0.391721815446481 -0.180904522613065 0.399657414530592 -0.14070351758794 0.407032545914349 -0.100502512562814 0.413583466676753 -0.0603015075376883 0.419068476521017 -0.0201005025125629 0.423290758609196 0.0201005025125625 0.426112406750858 0.0603015075376883 0.427457637991685 0.100502512562814 0.427305789948005 0.14070351758794 0.425677144462405 0.180904522613066 0.422616219170609 0.221105527638191 0.418177489992225 0.261306532663316 0.412417491129677 0.301507537688442 0.405395208721191 0.341708542713568 0.397180235203601 0.381909547738694 0.38786596446922 0.42211055276382 0.37758375048917 0.462311557788945 0.366513726453778 0.50251256281407 0.354888859740755 0.542713567839196 0.342990475889272 0.582914572864322 0.331135417138163 0.623115577889448 0.319656680692536 0.663316582914573 0.308880412329686 0.703517587939698 0.299102349710878 0.743718592964824 0.290566312996039 0.78391959798995 0.283446426251862 0.824120603015076 0.277833805491838 0.864321608040201 0.273727801049257 0.904522613065327 0.27103170442757 0.944723618090452 0.269553081331739 0.984924623115578 0.269009344384171 1.0251256281407 0.269039505329047 1.06532663316583 0.2692229490858 1.10552763819095 0.269105395980564 1.14572864321608 0.26823102079777 1.18592964824121 0.26617824425404 1.22613065326633 0.262595406318427 1.26633165829146 0.257231787775621 1.30653266331658 0.249959564979203 1.34673366834171 0.240783343321069 1.38693467336683 0.229835744128984 1.42713567839196 0.217359731043524 1.46733668341709 0.203680461753196 1.50753768844221 0.189170976403246 1.54773869346734 0.174216679593225 1.58793969849246 0.159183266148922 1.62814070351759 0.144391644440119 1.66834170854271 0.130101854806791 1.70854271356784 0.116506351120804 1.74874371859296 0.103731640819544 1.78894472361809 0.0918463596372789 1.82914572864322 0.080873434498176 1.86934673366834 0.0708039835787485 1.90954773869347 0.0616108813103367 1.94974874371859 0.0532603490583872 1.98994974874372 0.0457204337649468 2.03015075376884 0.0389657672714453 2.07035175879397 0.0329785408988813 2.1105527638191 0.0277461575555329 2.15075376884422 0.0232564856911287 2.19095477386935 0.0194919633153092 2.23115577889447 0.0164239168007188 2.2713567839196 0.0140083328916919 2.31155778894472 0.0121839728432713 2.35175879396985 0.0108732207143645 2.39195979899498 0.00998552562456145 2.4321608040201 0.00942284573324655 2.47236180904523 0.00908621559880218 2.51256281407035 0.00888247323485961 2.55276381909548 0.00873027936490413 2.5929648241206 0.0085647800410733 2.63316582914573 0.00834053058280401 2.67336683417085 0.00803254900362724 2.71356783919598 0.00763556248190352 2.75376884422111 0.00716164341025473 2.79396984924623 0.0066365176493911 2.83417085427136 0.00609489110941135 2.87437185929648 0.00557520029157244 2.91457286432161 0.005114251733947 2.95477386934673 0.00474226202276441 2.99497487437186 0.0044788211316881 3.03517587939699 0.0043302531129574 3.07537688442211 0.00428872399314553 3.11557788944724 0.00433324762032969 3.15577889447236 0.00443248626719177 3.19597989949749 0.00454897251228212 3.23618090452261 0.00464414305772554 3.27638190954774 0.00468342610924813 3.31658291457286 0.00464060242917206 3.35678391959799 0.00450078224461998 3.39698492462312 0.00426158922303231 3.43718592964824 0.00393246992509823 3.47738693467337 0.00353238209809195 3.51758793969849 0.00308638410309091 3.55778894472362 0.00262179391689278 3.59798994974874 0.00216458536198867 3.63819095477387 0.00173655535171875 3.678391959799 0.00135357442936394 3.71859296482412 0.00102498525629589 3.75879396984925 0.000753998892165771 3.79899497487437 0.000538797589598071 3.8391959798995 0.000374000530853648 3.87939698492462 0.000252176038464783 3.91959798994975 0.000165164290682987 3.95979899497487 0.000105076707622256 4 6.49341136073166e-05 ]{}; table [-4 2.47565489840458e-05 -3.95979899497487 4.17983524150997e-05 -3.91959798994975 6.8938657499347e-05 -3.87939698492462 0.00011108687331321 -3.8391959798995 0.000174916109532192 -3.79899497487437 0.000269181650789577 -3.75879396984925 0.000404951609069263 -3.71859296482412 0.000595675769881287 -3.67839195979899 0.000857014836453194 -3.63819095477387 0.00120636305035237 -3.59798994974874 0.00166202584013508 -3.55778894472362 0.0022420604664948 -3.51758793969849 0.00296284648296838 -3.47738693467337 0.00383751410420563 -3.43718592964824 0.0048744086131918 -3.39698492462312 0.0060757936046082 -3.35678391959799 0.00743698457301249 -3.31658291457286 0.00894605394297254 -3.27638190954774 0.0105841656146934 -3.23618090452261 0.0123264972390097 -3.19597989949749 0.0141436133894311 -3.15577889447236 0.0160030844914442 -3.11557788944724 0.0178711208777657 -3.07537688442211 0.0197140142687583 -3.03517587939699 0.021499243938351 -2.99497487437186 0.0231961955106549 -2.95477386934673 0.02477653540557 -2.91457286432161 0.0262143629443597 -2.87437185929648 0.0274863102961724 -2.83417085427136 0.0285717711438677 -2.79396984924623 0.0294534131626757 -2.75376884422111 0.0301180733338496 -2.71356783919598 0.030558057252915 -2.67336683417085 0.0307727728077138 -2.63316582914573 0.030770533926654 -2.5929648241206 0.0305702819505962 -2.55276381909548 0.0302029038992655 -2.51256281407035 0.029711795108932 -2.47236180904523 0.0291523363685671 -2.4321608040201 0.0285900474857658 -2.39195979899498 0.0280973452682257 -2.35175879396985 0.0277490634346056 -2.31155778894472 0.0276171546371142 -2.2713567839196 0.0277652418983316 -2.23115577889447 0.028243858636311 -2.19095477386935 0.0290872553504101 -2.15075376884422 0.0303125173066907 -2.1105527638191 0.0319214245947705 -2.07035175879397 0.0339050292578533 -2.03015075376884 0.0362504006731824 -1.98994974874372 0.0389485057819264 -1.94974874371859 0.0420018575276349 -1.90954773869347 0.0454304743967402 -1.86934673366834 0.0492748910472492 -1.82914572864322 0.0535954263938483 -1.78894472361809 0.0584675684313186 -1.74874371859296 0.0639740428158034 -1.70854271356784 0.0701947439788094 -1.66834170854271 0.0771960905154041 -1.62814070351759 0.0850214404621114 -1.58793969849246 0.0936839609973495 -1.54773869346734 0.103162861897059 -1.50753768844221 0.113403301084433 -1.46733668341709 0.124319703463152 -1.42713567839196 0.135801828760346 -1.38693467336683 0.147722749149444 -1.34673366834171 0.159947943246618 -1.30653266331658 0.172344896566735 -1.26633165829146 0.184792792646289 -1.22613065326633 0.197191958375589 -1.18592964824121 0.209472615562916 -1.14572864321608 0.221602195939153 -1.10552763819095 0.233590098247102 -1.06532663316583 0.245488472558327 -1.0251256281407 0.257387597137982 -0.984924623115578 0.269404812400008 -0.944723618090452 0.28166683880219 -0.904522613065327 0.294286539230278 -0.864321608040201 0.307336566463261 -0.824120603015075 0.320823546668924 -0.78391959798995 0.334667157584197 -0.743718592964824 0.34868840270387 -0.703517587939698 0.362610446268851 -0.663316582914573 0.376073637836783 -0.623115577889447 0.388664092580362 -0.582914572864321 0.399952820480237 -0.542713567839196 0.409540386007565 -0.50251256281407 0.417100851707406 -0.462311557788945 0.422418589937299 -0.422110552763819 0.425412502015905 -0.381909547738693 0.426144101419631 -0.341708542713568 0.424808443312223 -0.301507537688442 0.421709546373916 -0.261306532663316 0.417224267442209 -0.221105527638191 0.411760149923742 -0.180904522613065 0.405713328245443 -0.14070351758794 0.399432088779421 -0.100502512562814 0.393190318002817 -0.0603015075376883 0.387173124181452 -0.0201005025125629 0.381474799667252 0.0201005025125625 0.376107399875434 0.0603015075376883 0.371016877540942 0.100502512562814 0.366103114202795 0.14070351758794 0.361240354929399 0.180904522613066 0.356295336985883 0.221105527638191 0.351141550012269 0.261306532663316 0.345669263703811 0.301507537688442 0.339791921454758 0.341708542713568 0.33345002715881 0.381909547738694 0.326613681190321 0.42211055276382 0.319284523173636 0.462311557788945 0.311497196377928 0.50251256281407 0.30331979869295 0.542713567839196 0.294852352318711 0.582914572864322 0.286222259323943 0.623115577889448 0.277576053273366 0.663316582914573 0.269067432353417 0.703517587939698 0.260842400570526 0.743718592964824 0.253023141102385 0.78391959798995 0.245692801157324 0.824120603015076 0.238883539792875 0.864321608040201 0.23256992433117 0.904522613065327 0.226669095037631 0.944723618090452 0.221048167823255 0.984924623115578 0.215538277531273 1.0251256281407 0.209953662633425 1.06532663316583 0.204113421381936 1.10552763819095 0.197863150841188 1.14572864321608 0.191093673446517 1.18592964824121 0.183754453181229 1.22613065326633 0.175860035669888 1.26633165829146 0.167488797041478 1.30653266331658 0.158774312793134 1.34673366834171 0.149890614009213 1.38693467336683 0.141033354884308 1.42713567839196 0.132399375651462 1.46733668341709 0.124167254229144 1.50753768844221 0.116481191156648 1.54773869346734 0.109440006957722 1.58793969849246 0.103092234901221 1.62814070351759 0.097437386678626 1.66834170854271 0.0924325949249508 1.70854271356784 0.0880031334359675 1.74874371859296 0.0840548942459125 1.78894472361809 0.0804868206532232 1.82914572864322 0.0772015526549483 1.86934673366834 0.0741130678114668 1.90954773869347 0.071150779334291 1.94974874371859 0.0682602452697554 1.98994974874372 0.0654012180914925 2.03015075376884 0.062544128386853 2.07035175879397 0.0596662064567346 2.1105527638191 0.0567483119123918 2.15075376884422 0.0537732181028315 2.19095477386935 0.0507256670064919 2.23115577889447 0.0475940612456618 2.2713567839196 0.0443732757551984 2.31155778894472 0.0410678158094769 2.35175879396985 0.0376944579397482 2.39195979899498 0.0342835940133566 2.4321608040201 0.0308787357893353 2.47236180904523 0.0275339815850641 2.51256281407035 0.0243096338223213 2.55276381909548 0.0212665137636335 2.5929648241206 0.0184597802850572 2.63316582914573 0.0159331736908591 2.67336683417085 0.013714552221527 2.71356783919598 0.0118133797166606 2.75376884422111 0.0102204999036238 2.79396984924623 0.00891015928835866 2.83417085427136 0.00784388761284984 2.87437185929648 0.00697557619626406 2.91457286432161 0.00625695436196078 2.95477386934673 0.00564266927554054 2.99497487437186 0.00509431260427868 3.03517587939699 0.00458297180453352 3.07537688442211 0.00409016283350316 3.11557788944724 0.00360726957660768 3.15577889447236 0.00313382623126723 3.19597989949749 0.00267510195628366 3.23618090452261 0.00223947291807901 3.27638190954774 0.00183600631042086 3.31658291457286 0.00147256002304849 3.35678391959799 0.00115455381770912 3.39698492462312 0.00088442569167059 3.43718592964824 0.000661675507425159 3.47738693467337 0.000483330459488735 3.51758793969849 0.000344645175989116 3.55778894472362 0.000239865349370951 3.59798994974874 0.000162924402830035 3.63819095477387 0.000107993279359452 3.678391959799 6.98516925245587e-05 3.71859296482412 4.40870254491874e-05 3.75879396984925 2.71510688915738e-05 3.79899497487437 1.63153801229568e-05 3.8391959798995 9.56611889891397e-06 3.87939698492462 5.47266044515013e-06 3.91959798994975 3.0547973285071e-06 3.95979899497487 1.6637395391308e-06 4 8.84108936145802e-07 ]{}; table [-4 0.000351239055854373 -3.95979899497487 0.00053307044661114 -3.91959798994975 0.000790218454647339 -3.87939698492462 0.00114423348683501 -3.8391959798995 0.00161851154708624 -3.79899497487437 0.00223658367251939 -3.75879396984925 0.00301970526592963 -3.71859296482412 0.00398386941176035 -3.67839195979899 0.00513652477043946 -3.63819095477387 0.00647343024094434 -3.59798994974874 0.00797618636485464 -3.55778894472362 0.00961100727470859 -3.51758793969849 0.0113292069802757 -3.47738693467337 0.0130696621614715 -3.43718592964824 0.0147632029546545 -3.39698492462312 0.0163385271568277 -3.35678391959799 0.0177289078182153 -3.31658291457286 0.0188787500425696 -3.27638190954774 0.0197490130766031 -3.23618090452261 0.0203206735708812 -3.19597989949749 0.0205957409006729 -3.15577889447236 0.0205957742533215 -3.11557788944724 0.0203582923846649 -3.07537688442211 0.0199318064455227 -3.03517587939699 0.019370366967067 -2.99497487437186 0.0187284701507983 -2.95477386934673 0.018056945104875 -2.91457286432161 0.0174001187206766 -2.87437185929648 0.0167942274913563 -2.83417085427136 0.0162668070366966 -2.79396984924623 0.0158366969193532 -2.75376884422111 0.0155143570932119 -2.71356783919598 0.0153023607315093 -2.67336683417085 0.0151961311787602 -2.63316582914573 0.0151851457729425 -2.5929648241206 0.0152548723705533 -2.55276381909548 0.0153896095678271 -2.51256281407035 0.0155761879329261 -2.47236180904523 0.0158082150971468 -2.4321608040201 0.0160902923814195 -2.39195979899498 0.0164414742714942 -2.35175879396985 0.0168972413294661 -2.31155778894472 0.0175094301822355 -2.2713567839196 0.0183438845378075 -2.23115577889447 0.0194759930691958 -2.19095477386935 0.0209846743588268 -2.15075376884422 0.0229456655285514 -2.1105527638191 0.0254251010884672 -2.07035175879397 0.0284743029512398 -2.03015075376884 0.0321264597475411 -1.98994974874372 0.0363955139752591 -1.94974874371859 0.0412771850890992 -1.90954773869347 0.0467517233877969 -1.86934673366834 0.052787780082304 -1.82914572864322 0.0593467221367784 -1.78894472361809 0.0663868032259749 -1.74874371859296 0.0738667776653525 -1.70854271356784 0.0817487497003554 -1.66834170854271 0.0900002278589458 -1.62814070351759 0.0985954656757269 -1.58793969849246 0.107516206206387 -1.54773869346734 0.116751922968435 -1.50753768844221 0.126299592486989 -1.46733668341709 0.136162972549027 -1.42713567839196 0.146351316092931 -1.38693467336683 0.156877432486738 -1.34673366834171 0.167755016750125 -1.30653266331658 0.178995202050026 -1.26633165829146 0.190602353297268 -1.22613065326633 0.202569214581946 -1.18592964824121 0.214871653445713 -1.14572864321608 0.227463404701063 -1.10552763819095 0.240271385474 -1.06532663316583 0.253192296517523 -1.0251256281407 0.266091299127965 -0.984924623115578 0.278803520875893 -0.944723618090452 0.291138969702455 -0.904522613065327 0.30289112098116 -0.864321608040201 0.313849009235766 -0.824120603015075 0.32381215346224 -0.78391959798995 0.332607138617847 -0.743718592964824 0.340104241328391 -0.703517587939698 0.346232201205675 -0.663316582914573 0.350989168288592 -0.623115577889447 0.354448052810824 -0.582914572864321 0.356754988569797 -0.542713567839196 0.358120378015544 -0.50251256281407 0.358802946401729 -0.462311557788945 0.359088267851106 -0.422110552763819 0.359264163182009 -0.381909547738693 0.359596009878472 -0.341708542713568 0.360305170304844 -0.301507537688442 0.36155332857248 -0.261306532663316 0.363434541576444 -0.221105527638191 0.36597541068838 -0.180904522613065 0.36914225143026 -0.14070351758794 0.372852835296498 -0.100502512562814 0.376989538622115 -0.0603015075376883 0.381410777414855 -0.0201005025125629 0.38595845705962 0.0201005025125625 0.390460620906556 0.0603015075376883 0.394730157729145 0.100502512562814 0.398561858308933 0.14070351758794 0.401730881005706 0.180904522613066 0.403995556908222 0.221105527638191 0.405106450715562 0.261306532663316 0.404821958679314 0.301507537688442 0.402928908381572 0.341708542713568 0.399265110601571 0.381909547738694 0.393739991703936 0.42211055276382 0.386349499274366 0.462311557788945 0.377182380305086 0.50251256281407 0.366416430334858 0.542713567839196 0.35430503402078 0.582914572864322 0.341155882088061 0.623115577889448 0.327304861027195 0.663316582914573 0.313088617272196 0.703517587939698 0.298819194948249 0.743718592964824 0.284763551896584 0.78391959798995 0.271129851602761 0.824120603015076 0.25806139464706 0.864321608040201 0.245638045556771 0.904522613065327 0.233884134916392 0.944723618090452 0.222781135936323 0.984924623115578 0.212282967920155 1.0251256281407 0.202331594518102 1.06532663316583 0.192870684437675 1.10552763819095 0.183855493241556 1.14572864321608 0.175257781469894 1.18592964824121 0.167065433660636 1.22613065326633 0.159277361931006 1.26633165829146 0.151895109140627 1.30653266331658 0.144913150462369 1.34673366834171 0.138310106155651 1.38693467336683 0.132042872212303 1.42713567839196 0.126045088043361 1.46733668341709 0.120230512106987 1.50753768844221 0.114500940515925 1.54773869346734 0.108757463646038 1.58793969849246 0.102913263192867 1.62814070351759 0.0969058969051027 1.66834170854271 0.0907071178073001 1.70854271356784 0.084328682085677 1.74874371859296 0.0778232240398931 1.78894472361809 0.0712800071244424 1.82914572864322 0.0648160874958589 1.86934673366834 0.0585640546783411 1.90954773869347 0.0526579665408214 1.94974874371859 0.0472193184749405 1.98994974874372 0.0423448504444698 2.03015075376884 0.0380977017317031 2.07035175879397 0.034502908714688 2.1105527638191 0.0315475801346669 2.15075376884422 0.0291853822563033 2.19095477386935 0.0273443431500719 2.23115577889447 0.0259365522929042 2.2713567839196 0.0248681657832049 2.31155778894472 0.0240482518329852 2.35175879396985 0.0233953879895556 2.39195979899498 0.022841460328682 2.4321608040201 0.0223326947201337 2.47236180904523 0.0218284493226043 2.51256281407035 0.0212986215344986 2.55276381909548 0.0207206250818324 2.5929648241206 0.0200767810341956 2.63316582914573 0.0193526938515505 2.67336683417085 0.0185368318855055 2.71356783919598 0.0176211887270394 2.75376884422111 0.0166026403209188 2.79396984924623 0.0154844770818925 2.83417085427136 0.014277590692938 2.87437185929648 0.0130009114565759 2.91457286432161 0.0116808821340582 2.95477386934673 0.0103499670138221 2.99497487437186 0.00904438230277645 3.03517587939699 0.00780136032823411 3.07537688442211 0.00665630847119896 3.11557788944724 0.0056401969372043 3.15577889447236 0.00477742667249109 3.19597989949749 0.00408431918498215 3.23618090452261 0.0035682645665899 3.27638190954774 0.00322748693456364 3.31658291457286 0.00305134968826962 3.35678391959799 0.00302112373884444 3.39698492462312 0.00311116518640615 3.43718592964824 0.00329047328581275 3.47738693467337 0.00352460475441209 3.51758793969849 0.00377789492794341 3.55778894472362 0.00401588141228523 3.59798994974874 0.00420775631368991 3.63819095477387 0.00432861221161222 3.678391959799 0.0043612192856464 3.71859296482412 0.00429709378902394 3.75879396984925 0.00413669529079566 3.79899497487437 0.00388871009892612 3.8391959798995 0.00356851649580219 3.87939698492462 0.00319605328203269 3.91959798994975 0.00279339860285694 3.95979899497487 0.00238239330980938 4 0.00198260897563468 ]{};
[.3]{}
table [-4 1.05429404883199e-13 -3.95979899497487 3.85754786351794e-13 -3.91959798994975 1.3626967713193e-12 -3.87939698492462 4.64759604353001e-12 -3.8391959798995 1.53039035036902e-11 -3.79899497487437 4.86547079663316e-11 -3.75879396984925 1.4934861792175e-10 -3.71859296482412 4.42626109830976e-10 -3.67839195979899 1.26659921858004e-09 -3.63819095477387 3.49958011274266e-09 -3.59798994974874 9.33634508929329e-09 -3.55778894472362 2.40510244546458e-08 -3.51758793969849 5.98273294988881e-08 -3.47738693467337 1.43711375213553e-07 -3.43718592964824 3.33370568203054e-07 -3.39698492462312 7.46845064969281e-07 -3.35678391959799 1.61594869858739e-06 -3.31658291457286 3.37714590378679e-06 -3.27638190954774 6.81764278649436e-06 -3.23618090452261 1.32960988640031e-05 -3.19597989949749 2.50536305340881e-05 -3.15577889447236 4.56176569506456e-05 -3.11557788944724 8.02750117719723e-05 -3.07537688442211 0.00013655047136978 -3.03517587939699 0.00022457647821994 -2.99497487437186 0.000357190830410099 -2.95477386934673 0.000549570485167446 -2.91457286432161 0.000818224442043565 -2.87437185929648 0.00117924635026539 -2.83417085427136 0.00164587361567523 -2.79396984924623 0.00222559739036298 -2.75376884422111 0.00291727523525316 -2.71356783919598 0.00370885726322393 -2.67336683417085 0.00457639044856442 -2.63316582914573 0.00548488078758368 -2.5929648241206 0.00639137366870713 -2.55276381909548 0.00725030219572433 -2.51256281407035 0.0080208157687378 -2.47236180904523 0.00867549581618712 -2.4321608040201 0.00920962250418203 -2.39195979899498 0.00964997203211793 -2.35175879396985 0.0100619785497545 -2.31155778894472 0.0105539822328508 -2.2713567839196 0.0112772425274885 -2.23115577889447 0.0124205082654642 -2.19095477386935 0.0141983127073364 -2.15075376884422 0.0168328826161589 -2.1105527638191 0.0205306124121284 -2.07035175879397 0.025455328800792 -2.03015075376884 0.0317018030656411 -1.98994974874372 0.0392738218214177 -1.94974874371859 0.0480712729872192 -1.90954773869347 0.0578899251367986 -1.86934673366834 0.0684358638102206 -1.82914572864322 0.079354136757057 -1.78894472361809 0.0902685125916659 -1.74874371859296 0.10082695333021 -1.70854271356784 0.110745983084261 -1.66834170854271 0.11984695018959 -1.62814070351759 0.128078276748456 -1.58793969849246 0.135519910264561 -1.54773869346734 0.142368869748491 -1.50753768844221 0.148907501489632 -1.46733668341709 0.155458432152078 -1.42713567839196 0.162332032756427 -1.38693467336683 0.169773452875529 -1.34673366834171 0.177916944735856 -1.30653266331658 0.186755147501169 -1.26633165829146 0.196129948179869 -1.22613065326633 0.20574912935227 -1.18592964824121 0.215229117973225 -1.14572864321608 0.224159123445769 -1.10552763819095 0.232176783023254 -1.06532663316583 0.239041567041976 -1.0251256281407 0.244691085778132 -0.984924623115578 0.249267938018238 -0.944723618090452 0.253110638497545 -0.904522613065327 0.256710088114032 -0.864321608040201 0.260640850091896 -0.824120603015075 0.265481935509989 -0.78391959798995 0.271743346968785 -0.743718592964824 0.279811951409471 -0.703517587939698 0.289924293481653 -0.663316582914573 0.302166554106261 -0.623115577889447 0.316495108131844 -0.582914572864321 0.332766791417872 -0.542713567839196 0.350767028933899 -0.50251256281407 0.370226451292466 -0.462311557788945 0.390821733012277 -0.422110552763819 0.412162686713066 -0.381909547738693 0.433773395851634 -0.341708542713568 0.455078691091094 -0.301507537688442 0.475407394207609 -0.261306532663316 0.494020160637025 -0.221105527638191 0.510163206701751 -0.180904522613065 0.523141437599767 -0.14070351758794 0.532397761767167 -0.100502512562814 0.537581820817878 -0.0603015075376883 0.538592292367451 -0.0201005025125629 0.535582344658165 0.0201005025125625 0.528926367801191 0.0603015075376883 0.519155402073542 0.100502512562814 0.506876064287666 0.14070351758794 0.492691112120551 0.180904522613066 0.477138162716625 0.221105527638191 0.460657064877023 0.261306532663316 0.443587878692273 0.301507537688442 0.426192903512178 0.341708542713568 0.408690174183564 0.381909547738694 0.3912839449538 0.42211055276382 0.374180258265416 0.462311557788945 0.357581797433774 0.50251256281407 0.341663911768398 0.542713567839196 0.326540641309393 0.582914572864322 0.312233674197873 0.623115577889448 0.298657192118908 0.663316582914573 0.28562743020851 0.703517587939698 0.272898648820373 0.743718592964824 0.260219153034817 0.78391959798995 0.247394402384389 0.824120603015076 0.234341153057468 0.864321608040201 0.221117994912954 0.904522613065327 0.207923282504077 0.944723618090452 0.19505975418678 0.984924623115578 0.182873738428443 1.0251256281407 0.17168333317609 1.06532663316583 0.161712527642369 1.10552763819095 0.153046289391331 1.14572864321608 0.145615848732633 1.18592964824121 0.139215533168118 1.22613065326633 0.1335448098567 1.26633165829146 0.128263782847047 1.30653266331658 0.123048574295599 1.34673366834171 0.117634964757363 1.38693467336683 0.111843423823611 1.42713567839196 0.105584525423445 1.46733668341709 0.0988488521752467 1.50753768844221 0.0916884410687554 1.54773869346734 0.0841970610277153 1.58793969849246 0.0764945402276156 1.62814070351759 0.0687170752524723 1.66834170854271 0.0610122918290547 1.70854271356784 0.0535358761743702 1.74874371859296 0.0464463600005335 1.78894472361809 0.0398959520777118 1.82914572864322 0.0340174811782375 1.86934673366834 0.028909657598739 1.90954773869347 0.0246241999942697 1.94974874371859 0.0211584886882541 1.98994974874372 0.0184563067717289 2.03015075376884 0.0164172969545022 2.07035175879397 0.014913587454488 2.1105527638191 0.013810239047117 2.15075376884422 0.0129852119770244 2.19095477386935 0.0123446749684904 2.23115577889447 0.0118306284776595 2.2713567839196 0.0114196898924778 2.31155778894472 0.0111140188603904 2.35175879396985 0.0109272178864058 2.39195979899498 0.0108691644644705 2.4321608040201 0.0109338321998788 2.47236180904523 0.011093210397083 2.51256281407035 0.0112986796168828 2.55276381909548 0.0114891141586097 2.5929648241206 0.0116031377170757 2.63316582914573 0.0115918786804022 2.67336683417085 0.0114285666408655 2.71356783919598 0.011112372369653 2.75376884422111 0.0106656819636306 2.79396984924623 0.0101259470819865 2.83417085427136 0.00953475886049811 2.87437185929648 0.00892740531319489 2.91457286432161 0.00832575142839033 2.95477386934673 0.00773603333471597 2.99497487437186 0.00715154550656739 3.03517587939699 0.00655876715586317 3.07537688442211 0.00594465332798895 3.11557788944724 0.00530279168641551 3.15577889447236 0.00463679790173262 3.19597989949749 0.00396037791993328 3.23618090452261 0.00329453452789477 3.27638190954774 0.00266311632431489 3.31658291457286 0.00208814160349581 3.35678391959799 0.00158610627748991 3.39698492462312 0.00116597101852265 3.43718592964824 0.000828938153811589 3.47738693467337 0.000569661145375715 3.51758793969849 0.000378281191626416 3.55778894472362 0.00024266393923311 3.59798994974874 0.000150351953322846 3.63819095477387 8.99643181964876e-05 3.678391959799 5.19815633464739e-05 3.71859296482412 2.90013531378779e-05 3.75879396984925 1.56227449473485e-05 3.79899497487437 8.12554807504089e-06 3.8391959798995 4.08032176353299e-06 3.87939698492462 1.97822490569584e-06 3.91959798994975 9.2595854961799e-07 3.95979899497487 4.18445223357052e-07 4 1.82563707565734e-07 ]{}; table [-4 0.000358913294941825 -3.95979899497487 0.000512568779157538 -3.91959798994975 0.00071715821582263 -3.87939698492462 0.000983254516741144 -3.8391959798995 0.00132128843302065 -3.79899497487437 0.00174063459372847 -3.75879396984925 0.00224853300462092 -3.71859296482412 0.00284893951855497 -3.67839195979899 0.0035414392731014 -3.63819095477387 0.00432038836094643 -3.59798994974874 0.00517446330885278 -3.55778894472362 0.00608678836709464 -3.51758793969849 0.00703577227496936 -3.47738693467337 0.00799671740202241 -3.43718592964824 0.00894416754229649 -3.39698492462312 0.00985484377289859 -3.35678391959799 0.0107108937189161 -3.31658291457286 0.0115030664350259 -3.27638190954774 0.012233344732682 -3.23618090452261 0.0129165417922276 -3.19597989949749 0.0135804185006854 -3.15577889447236 0.0142640126972606 -3.11557788944724 0.0150140882216012 -3.07537688442211 0.0158798900411474 -3.03517587939699 0.0169066941252678 -2.99497487437186 0.0181289161535385 -2.95477386934673 0.0195637356140397 -2.91457286432161 0.0212062517689825 -2.87437185929648 0.0230270841558409 -2.83417085427136 0.0249730596159642 -2.79396984924623 0.0269712196067155 -2.75376884422111 0.028935894905532 -2.71356783919598 0.0307781090977205 -2.67336683417085 0.032416172136975 -2.63316582914573 0.0337860840334647 -2.5929648241206 0.0348503333881601 -2.55276381909548 0.0356038574276109 -2.51256281407035 0.0360763030558052 -2.47236180904523 0.0363302336000903 -2.4321608040201 0.0364554837803405 -2.39195979899498 0.0365603898027059 -2.35175879396985 0.0367610340972517 -2.31155778894472 0.03716988667241 -2.2713567839196 0.037885266680446 -2.23115577889447 0.0389828888565168 -2.19095477386935 0.040510429922055 -2.15075376884422 0.0424856040847915 -2.1105527638191 0.0448977444573954 -2.07035175879397 0.047712423442564 -2.03015075376884 0.0508782776158847 -1.98994974874372 0.0543349806215548 -1.94974874371859 0.0580212534551494 -1.90954773869347 0.0618819074372614 -1.86934673366834 0.0658731463011676 -1.82914572864322 0.0699656574794494 -1.78894472361809 0.074145341869128 -1.74874371859296 0.0784118185173114 -1.70854271356784 0.0827750676482729 -1.66834170854271 0.0872507363230677 -1.62814070351759 0.0918547367220677 -1.58793969849246 0.0965978338111496 -1.54773869346734 0.10148095536629 -1.50753768844221 0.106491954380492 -1.46733668341709 0.111604485728382 -1.42713567839196 0.116779491896034 -1.38693467336683 0.121969502489212 -1.34673366834171 0.127125543280374 -1.30653266331658 0.13220596745828 -1.26633165829146 0.137186049277545 -1.22613065326633 0.142066827740244 -1.18592964824121 0.14688156149531 -1.14572864321608 0.151698327264642 -1.10552763819095 0.156617773680058 -1.06532663316583 0.161765769709337 -1.0251256281407 0.167281537690227 -0.984924623115578 0.173302673651905 -0.944723618090452 0.179949069403653 -0.904522613065327 0.187308035403295 -0.864321608040201 0.195422818532732 -0.824120603015075 0.204286228801419 -0.78391959798995 0.213840318657475 -0.743718592964824 0.223982133645609 -0.703517587939698 0.234574631481807 -0.663316582914573 0.2454610988917 -0.623115577889447 0.256480900851019 -0.582914572864321 0.267484246726898 -0.542713567839196 0.278343869578298 -0.50251256281407 0.288962052744396 -0.462311557788945 0.299272219625745 -0.422110552763819 0.309235210076662 -0.381909547738693 0.318831259400132 -0.341708542713568 0.328049427068259 -0.301507537688442 0.336876659952037 -0.261306532663316 0.345288724565386 -0.221105527638191 0.353244870511022 -0.180904522613065 0.36068733621464 -0.14070351758794 0.367545803081257 -0.100502512562814 0.373745837992065 -0.0603015075376883 0.379219462859704 -0.0201005025125629 0.383915464470079 0.0201005025125625 0.38780704963003 0.0603015075376883 0.390894989308937 0.100502512562814 0.393205380781569 0.14070351758794 0.39478237429772 0.180904522613066 0.395677379728979 0.221105527638191 0.395937110589971 0.261306532663316 0.395593132788778 0.301507537688442 0.394655284872965 0.341708542713568 0.393110493422897 0.381909547738694 0.390927318073767 0.42211055276382 0.388065299897549 0.462311557788945 0.384487139023688 0.50251256281407 0.380171119938738 0.542713567839196 0.375121157184163 0.582914572864322 0.369372344044943 0.623115577889448 0.362990827647406 0.663316582914573 0.356067996220838 0.703517587939698 0.348710102382883 0.743718592964824 0.341025329943012 0.78391959798995 0.333110770972081 0.824120603015076 0.32504173556489 0.864321608040201 0.316865292104933 0.904522613065327 0.308599048856407 0.944723618090452 0.30023512557444 0.984924623115578 0.29174824488496 1.0251256281407 0.283106102990461 1.06532663316583 0.274279809265 1.10552763819095 0.265252281503045 1.14572864321608 0.256023017462336 1.18592964824121 0.246608513057705 1.22613065326633 0.237038577994585 1.26633165829146 0.227349700669301 1.30653266331658 0.217577244963513 1.34673366834171 0.207748490438519 1.38693467336683 0.197878309196946 1.42713567839196 0.187968657828097 1.46733668341709 0.178012186767318 1.50753768844221 0.167999323523902 1.54773869346734 0.157927376972739 1.58793969849246 0.147809713676564 1.62814070351759 0.137682981349816 1.66834170854271 0.127610713173382 1.70854271356784 0.117682357391774 1.74874371859296 0.10800768003649 1.78894472361809 0.0987073858174007 1.82914572864322 0.0899015017497103 1.86934673366834 0.0816974303410734 1.90954773869347 0.074179547015719 1.94974874371859 0.0674018243859919 1.98994974874372 0.0613843261416319 2.03015075376884 0.0561136831068047 2.07035175879397 0.0515470047331413 2.1105527638191 0.0476182174202211 2.15075376884422 0.0442456219509465 2.19095477386935 0.0413395223155101 2.23115577889447 0.0388090351092979 2.2713567839196 0.0365675460787355 2.31155778894472 0.0345366372207293 2.35175879396985 0.0326485849546296 2.39195979899498 0.0308476864120406 2.4321608040201 0.0290907075011442 2.47236180904523 0.0273466964015013 2.51256281407035 0.0255963187939843 2.55276381909548 0.0238307932997934 2.5929648241206 0.0220504675181027 2.63316582914573 0.0202630838727911 2.67336683417085 0.0184818265096763 2.71356783919598 0.0167232899790379 2.75376884422111 0.0150055410922239 2.79396984924623 0.0133464402417123 2.83417085427136 0.0117623453191041 2.87437185929648 0.0102672518306657 2.91457286432161 0.0088723470695404 2.95477386934673 0.00758589515553147 2.99497487437186 0.00641333794492232 3.03517587939699 0.00535749840983035 3.07537688442211 0.00441880184036896 3.11557788944724 0.00359547287106668 3.15577889447236 0.00288370777314538 3.19597989949749 0.00227784968755774 3.23618090452261 0.00177060372833901 3.27638190954774 0.00135332022306279 3.31658291457286 0.00101635403311944 3.35678391959799 0.000749484444157515 3.39698492462312 0.000542361335856468 3.43718592964824 0.000384934156264704 3.47738693467337 0.000267821888178843 3.51758793969849 0.000182592738895568 3.55778894472362 0.000121937812011589 3.59798994974874 7.97392066026844e-05 3.63819095477387 5.10463189029153e-05 3.678391959799 3.19825680916629e-05 3.71859296482412 1.96078900452493e-05 3.75879396984925 1.17609435351282e-05 3.79899497487437 6.90054706750515e-06 3.8391959798995 3.96005102630595e-06 3.87939698492462 2.22253173040937e-06 3.91959798994975 1.21979286568442e-06 3.95979899497487 6.54609156561144e-07 4 3.43485103862543e-07 ]{}; table [-4 0.00181807827713261 -3.95979899497487 0.00233366471999205 -3.91959798994975 0.00293621519674188 -3.87939698492462 0.00362223896054888 -3.8391959798995 0.00438260800128011 -3.79899497487437 0.00520226168392177 -3.75879396984925 0.0060604659414896 -3.71859296482412 0.00693168321156326 -3.67839195979899 0.00778703654392081 -3.63819095477387 0.00859627567984087 -3.59798994974874 0.00933008685000236 -3.55778894472362 0.00996254174169085 -3.51758793969849 0.0104734600612591 -3.47738693467337 0.0108504642547558 -3.43718592964824 0.0110905294085163 -3.39698492462312 0.0112008690283306 -3.35678391959799 0.0111990420553672 -3.31658291457286 0.0111122153004947 -3.27638190954774 0.0109755698836783 -3.23618090452261 0.0108299044380377 -3.19597989949749 0.0107185653033756 -3.15577889447236 0.0106839233687024 -3.11557788944724 0.0107637092600265 -3.07537688442211 0.0109875952626905 -3.03517587939699 0.0113744502640201 -2.99497487437186 0.011930670535593 -2.95477386934673 0.0126498907603222 -2.91457286432161 0.0135142089496604 -2.87437185929648 0.0144968381062715 -2.83417085427136 0.0155658665433504 -2.79396984924623 0.0166886169109389 -2.75376884422111 0.0178359872372059 -2.71356783919598 0.0189861650263803 -2.67336683417085 0.0201272302385277 -2.63316582914573 0.0212583775761563 -2.5929648241206 0.0223897417063087 -2.55276381909548 0.0235410393045867 -2.51256281407035 0.0247393948971059 -2.47236180904523 0.0260167627072929 -2.4321608040201 0.0274072962772632 -2.39195979899498 0.0289448856906232 -2.35175879396985 0.030660933656864 -2.31155778894472 0.0325823339676563 -2.2713567839196 0.0347295897196394 -2.23115577889447 0.0371150745544375 -2.19095477386935 0.0397415739212207 -2.15075376884422 0.0426013937886779 -2.1105527638191 0.045676428909679 -2.07035175879397 0.0489395875624371 -2.03015075376884 0.0523578457528632 -1.98994974874372 0.0558969569289384 -1.94974874371859 0.0595275135853962 -1.90954773869347 0.0632317104811389 -1.86934673366834 0.0670098720927228 -1.82914572864322 0.0708856502452296 -1.78894472361809 0.0749088220730757 -1.74874371859296 0.0791548430184764 -1.70854271356784 0.0837207174304078 -1.66834170854271 0.0887172870738478 -1.62814070351759 0.0942586216981175 -1.58793969849246 0.100449723468842 -1.54773869346734 0.107374125096223 -1.50753768844221 0.115083086024642 -1.46733668341709 0.123587928204131 -1.42713567839196 0.132856613754283 -1.38693467336683 0.142815021346676 -1.34673366834171 0.153352645687684 -1.30653266331658 0.164331769998059 -1.26633165829146 0.175598682577476 -1.22613065326633 0.186995322035043 -1.18592964824121 0.198369871518166 -1.14572864321608 0.209585234158944 -1.10552763819095 0.22052489814371 -1.06532663316583 0.231096290914502 -1.0251256281407 0.241232179813776 -0.984924623115578 0.250890892709707 -0.944723618090452 0.260056066631409 -0.904522613065327 0.268736323029118 -0.864321608040201 0.276964819765036 -0.824120603015075 0.28479818549144 -0.78391959798995 0.292314044859356 -0.743718592964824 0.299606298505597 -0.703517587939698 0.306777570396212 -0.663316582914573 0.313928741730816 -0.623115577889447 0.321146152938622 -0.582914572864321 0.32848772816999 -0.542713567839196 0.335969805747594 -0.50251256281407 0.343556714359479 -0.462311557788945 0.351155042524232 -0.422110552763819 0.358614100304548 -0.381909547738693 0.3657333277191 -0.341708542713568 0.37227647835747 -0.301507537688442 0.377991444678261 -0.261306532663316 0.382633742353959 -0.221105527638191 0.38599106262445 -0.180904522613065 0.387906022626545 -0.14070351758794 0.388294334735683 -0.100502512562814 0.387156069223333 -0.0603015075376883 0.38457844896715 -0.0201005025125629 0.380729604308387 0.0201005025125625 0.375843817209611 0.0603015075376883 0.370199864550546 0.100502512562814 0.364094989431421 0.14070351758794 0.357817649894048 0.180904522613066 0.351622403247499 0.221105527638191 0.345710014772309 0.261306532663316 0.340215134984499 0.301507537688442 0.335202756692482 0.341708542713568 0.330673310871843 0.381909547738694 0.326574918151754 0.42211055276382 0.322820228217932 0.462311557788945 0.319304665747061 0.50251256281407 0.3159228852209 0.542713567839196 0.312580822865057 0.582914572864322 0.309201797340017 0.623115577889448 0.305726422373023 0.663316582914573 0.302107372580654 0.703517587939698 0.298301020829331 0.743718592964824 0.29425845154192 0.78391959798995 0.289918279436149 0.824120603015076 0.285203128520236 0.864321608040201 0.280020721485586 0.904522613065327 0.274269524003707 0.944723618090452 0.267848009314477 0.984924623115578 0.260666025965153 1.0251256281407 0.252656542464185 1.06532663316583 0.243786182813759 1.10552763819095 0.234063351465246 1.14572864321608 0.223543229643449 1.18592964824121 0.212329368014284 1.22613065326633 0.200571910282784 1.26633165829146 0.188462633126747 1.30653266331658 0.176227020431934 1.34673366834171 0.164113587725263 1.38693467336683 0.152380727248566 1.42713567839196 0.141281517879454 1.46733668341709 0.131047245598877 1.50753768844221 0.121870757022577 1.54773869346734 0.113891120882349 1.58793969849246 0.10718128241874 1.62814070351759 0.101740363263958 1.66834170854271 0.0974919333790315 1.70854271356784 0.0942889775980279 1.74874371859296 0.0919254794675409 1.78894472361809 0.0901536804253984 1.82914572864322 0.0887052936432138 1.86934673366834 0.0873143965599557 1.90954773869347 0.0857394903992094 1.94974874371859 0.0837823361827228 1.98994974874372 0.0813016295965776 2.03015075376884 0.0782202821218445 2.07035175879397 0.0745259174383673 2.1105527638191 0.0702650406011964 2.15075376884422 0.0655320712951043 2.19095477386935 0.0604549561897054 2.23115577889447 0.0551793317410398 2.2713567839196 0.049853183455209 2.31155778894472 0.0446136677473559 2.35175879396985 0.03957728932502 2.39195979899498 0.0348340445448818 2.4321608040201 0.0304455425779827 2.47236180904523 0.0264465893928485 2.51256281407035 0.0228493342493377 2.55276381909548 0.0196488763802793 2.5929648241206 0.0168292198386098 2.63316582914573 0.0143686243005385 2.67336683417085 0.0122436809175818 2.71356783919598 0.0104317827148152 2.75376884422111 0.00891199448950248 2.79396984924623 0.00766460368185201 2.83417085427136 0.00666981560649823 2.87437185929648 0.0059061298292878 2.91457286432161 0.00534890571223196 2.95477386934673 0.00496951579923045 2.99497487437186 0.00473532580824988 3.03517587939699 0.00461056154178106 3.07537688442211 0.00455795507684448 3.11557788944724 0.00454092824624332 3.15577889447236 0.00452598642223013 3.19597989949749 0.00448496788934421 3.23618090452261 0.00439682367660985 3.27638190954774 0.00424868195901142 3.31658291457286 0.00403606548520381 3.35678391959799 0.00376226026725803 3.39698492462312 0.00343695710894872 3.43718592964824 0.00307438417536534 3.47738693467337 0.00269120389154453 3.51758793969849 0.00230445452615977 3.55778894472362 0.00192977882614559 3.59798994974874 0.00158011030599107 3.63819095477387 0.0012648988781782 3.678391959799 0.000989869351706486 3.71859296482412 0.000757234183165495 3.75879396984925 0.000566235490435222 3.79899497487437 0.000413873808830508 3.8391959798995 0.00029568935048621 3.87939698492462 0.000206488338986043 3.91959798994975 0.000140943247555447 3.95979899497487 9.4032882925467e-05 4 6.13197684395782e-05 ]{};
HC vs. NPSLE HC vs. SLE
------------------------- -------------- ------------
[@khatami2015bundlemap] 76% 73%
Eigenvalues 78.3% 67.5%
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we provide estimates relating homomorphism densities and distribution of spectra to the cut metric without any assumptions on the graphon’s structure. This allows for a non-conclusive test of graphon equality: If homomorphism densities or spectra are sufficiently different, then also the underlying graphons are different. We study the *decorated graphon* model as a general model for random weighted graphs. We show that our graphon estimates also hold in this generalised setting and that known lemmas from graphon theory can be generalised. In a neuroscience application, we show that despite its simplicity, our spectral classifier can yield competitive results. Our work opens up a number of interesting theoretical questions, such as restrictions to the stochastic $k$-block model.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main1\]
==============================
Auxiliary Results
-----------------
The following result is a generalisation of [@borgs2008convergent Lemma 4.4] to weighted graph limits.
\[thm:homdensconc\] Let $\mathcal{W}=\mathcal{W}_{W,\mu}$ be a decorated graphon, $G \sim {\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W})$. Let $F$ be an unweighted graph with $v$ nodes. Then with probability at least $1-2\exp\left(\frac{k\varepsilon^2}{2v^2}\right)$, $$\abs{t(F,G) - t(F,W)} < \varepsilon. \label{eq:wantedconcentrationhom}$$
We proceed in three steps. First, give a different formulation of $t(F,W)$ in terms of an expectation. Secondly, we show that this expectation is not too far from the expectation of $t(F,G)$. Finally, we conclude by the method of bounded differences that concentration holds.
1. Let $t_{\operatorname{inj}}(F,G)$ be the injective homomorphism density, which restricts the homomorphisms from $F$ to $G$ to all those ones that map distinct vertices of $F$ to distinct vertices in $G$, cf. [@lovasz2012large (5.12)]. Let $G \sim {\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W})$ and $X$ be $G$’s adjacency matrix. As a consequence of exchangeability of $X$, it is sufficient in the computation of $t_\text{inj}$ to consider one injection from $V(F)$ to $V(G)$ instead of the average of all such. Without loss, we may assume that $V(F) = [v]$ and $V(G) = [k]$. Hence, for the identity injection $[k] \hookrightarrow [n]$, $$\E[t_\text{inj}(F,X_n)] = \E\left[ \prod_{\{i,j\}\in E(G)} X_{ij}\right].$$ Let $U_1, \dots, U_n$ be the rows and columns in sampling $X$ from $G$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\E\bra*{ \prod_{\{i,j\} \in E(G)} X_{ij}} &= \E\bra*{\E\left[ \prod_{\{i,j\} \in E(G)} X_{ij} \middle| U_1, \dots, U_n\right]}\\
&=\E\bra*{ \prod_{\{i,j\}\in E(G)} (W (U_i, U_j) + \mu(U_i, U_j))}\end{aligned}$$ We multiply out the last product, and use that $\mu(U_i, U_j)$ are independent and centered to see that all summands but the one involving only terms from the expectation graphon vanish, i.e. $$\E\bra*{ \prod_{\{i,j\}\in E(G)} X_{ij}} = \E\bra*{ \prod_{\{i,j\} \in E(G)} W (U_i, U_j)} = t(F, W)$$
2. Note that the bound in the theorem is trivial for $\varepsilon^2 \le \ln 2 \frac{2k^2}{n} = 4\ln 2 \frac{k^2}{2n} $. Hence, in particular, $\varepsilon \le 4\ln 2 \frac{k^2}{2n}$.
Furthermore, $\abs{t(F,X) -t(F,W )}\le \frac{1}{k} \binom{v}{2} + \abs{t(F,X) -\E[t(F,X)] } \le \frac{v^2}{2k} + \abs{t(F,X) -\E[t(F,X)] }$ by the first part and the bound on the difference of injective homomorphism density and homomorphism density [@lovasz2006limits Lemma 2.1]. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\P[\abs{t(F,X_n) -t(F,\E\mathcal{W} )} \ge \varepsilon] &\le \P\left[\abs{t(F,X_n) -\E[t(F,X_n)]} \ge \varepsilon + \frac{1}{n} \binom{k}{2}\right]\\
& \le \P\left[\abs{t(F,X_n) -\E[t(F,X_n)]} \ge \varepsilon\left(1-\frac{1}{4 \ln 2}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Set $\varepsilon' = \varepsilon\left(1-\frac{1}{4 \ln 2}\right)$. Let $X$ be the adjacency matrix of $G \sim {\mathbb{G}}(n,\mathcal{W})$ sampled with latent parameters $U_1, \dots, U_n$. Define a function depending on $n$ vectors where the $i$-th vector consists of all values relevant to the $i$-th column of the array $X_n$, that is $U_i, X_1, \dots, X_n$. In formulas, $$\begin{gathered}
f \colon \bigtimes_{i=1}^n [0,1]^{i+1} \to [0,1], \\(a_1, \dots, a_n) = ((u_1,x_{11}),(u_2,x_{12},x_{22}), \dots, (u_n,x_{1n}, \dots, x_{nn})) \\\mapsto \E[t (F,(X_{ij})_{1 \le i,j \le n})|U_1=u_1, \dots, U_n = u_n, X_{11} = x_{11}, \dots, X_{nn} = x_nn].\end{gathered}$$ We note that the random vectors $(U_i, X_{1i}, X_{2i}, \dots, X_{ni})$ are mutually independent for varying $i$. Claim: $$\abs{f((a_1, \dots, a_n) - f((b_1, \dots, b_n))} \le \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{k}{n}{1}_{a_i \neq b_i}$$ If this claim is proved, then we have by [McDiarmid]{}’s inequality [@mcdiarmid1989method (1.2) Lemma], $$\begin{gathered}
\P[\abs{t(F, X_n) - t(F, \E\mathcal{W})} \ge \varepsilon'] \\\le 2 \exp \left(-\frac{2\varepsilon'^2}{n\left(\frac{k}{n}\right)^2} \right) \le 2\exp \left(-\frac{2\varepsilon'^2n}{k^2} \right)= 2\exp\left(-\frac{2 n\varepsilon'^2}{k^2}\right),\end{gathered}$$ Which implies the theorem by basic algebra.
Let us now prove the claim: It suffices to consider $a,b$ differing in one coordinate, say $n$. By the definition of the homomorphism density of a weighted graph, $t(F,X)$ can be written as $$\int g(x_1, \dots, x_k) {\mathrm d}{\operatorname{Unif}}_{[n]}^{k}((x_i)_{i \in [k]})$$ for $g(x_1, \dots, x_k) = \prod_{\{i,k\} \in E(G)} X_{x_ix_k}$. We observe $0 \le g \le 1$ (in the case of graphons, one has $g \in \{0,1\}$). It hence suffices to bound the measure where the integrand $g$ depends on $a_i$ by $\frac{k}{n}$. This is the case only if if $x_\ell =i$ at least for one $\ell \in [k]$. But the probability that this happens is upper bounded by, $$1-\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)^k \le \frac{k}{n},$$ by the [Bernoulli]{} inequality. This proves the claim and hence the theorem.
\[lem:cut\] Let $W,W'$ be graphons and $F$ be a motif. Then $$\abs{t(F,W) - t(F,W')} \le e(F)\delta_\Box(W,W')$$
\[lem:expbound\] Let $\mu \in \Pi ([0,1])$ and let $\mu_n$ be the empirical measure of $n$ iid samples of $\mu$. Then $$\E[{\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu,\mu_n)] \le 3.6462 n^{-\frac{1}{3}}$$
The strategy of prove will be to adapt a proof in [@horowitz1994mean Theorem 1.1] to the $1$-Wasserstein distance.
Let $X \sim \mu$, $Y \sim N(0,1)$ and $\mu^\sigma = \operatorname{Law}(X+Y)$. Then for any $\nu \in \Pi ([0,1])$, by results about the standard normal distribution, $W(\nu, \nu^\sigma)\le \E[\lvert Y \rvert] = \sigma \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}$. Hence, by the triangle inequality $${\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu, \mu_n) \le 2 \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}} \sigma + {\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu^\sigma, \mu_n^\sigma).$$ As the discrete norm dominates the absolute value metric on $[0,1]$, ${\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu^\sigma, \mu_n^\sigma) \le \| \mu^\sigma - \mu_n^\sigma \|_{\operatorname{TV}}$. Note that $\mu_n^\sigma$ and $\mu^\sigma$ have densities $f^\sigma$, $f_n^\sigma$. This means, as $\| \mu^\sigma -\mu_n^\sigma \|_{\operatorname{TV}} = \int \lvert f^\sigma_n (x) - f^\sigma(x) \rvert {\mathrm d}x$, $${\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu^\sigma, \mu_n^\sigma) \le \int \lvert f^\sigma_n (x) - f^\sigma(x) \rvert {\mathrm d}x \le \sqrt{2\pi}\sqrt{\int (\abs{x}^{2} +1) \lvert f^\sigma_n (x) - f^\sigma(x) \rvert^2 {\mathrm d}x },$$ where the last inequality is an application of [@horowitz1994mean (2.2)]. Now observe that by the definitions of $f^\sigma$ and $f_n^\sigma$, $\E[\lvert f^\sigma_n (x) - f^\sigma(x) \rvert^2 \le n^{-1}\int\phi_\sigma^2(x-y) {\mathrm d}\mu (y)$, where $\phi_\sigma$ is the standard normal density. Hence $$\E[{\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu_n^\sigma,\mu^\sigma)]\le \sqrt{2\pi} n^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\int (\abs{x}^{2} +1) \int\phi_\sigma^2(x-y) {\mathrm d}\mu (y) {\mathrm d}x }$$ By basic algebra, $\phi_\sigma^2(x)=\frac{1}{2\sigma}\pi^{-\frac{1}{2}}\phi_{\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2}}}(x)$. This implies for $Z\sim N(0,1)$ by a change of variables $$\begin{gathered}
\int (\abs{x}^{2} +1) \int\phi_\sigma^2(x-y){\mathrm d}\mu(y){\mathrm d}x\\\le \frac{1}{2\sigma\sqrt{\pi}}(1+2(\sigma^2\E[Z^2]+\int\abs{y}^2 {\mathrm d}\mu (y)))\le\sigma^{-1}2^{-1}\pi^{-\frac{1}{2}}(1+2(\sigma^2x+1))\le\sigma^{-1}\pi^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{3}{2}
\end{gathered}$$ Hence $\E[{\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu_n^\sigma,\mu^\sigma)]\le\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{2}n^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}n^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $$\E[{\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu_n, \mu)]\le 2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\sigma+\frac{3}{\sqrt{2}}n^{-\frac{1}{2}}\sigma^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Choosing $\sigma$ optimally by a first-order condition, one arrives at the lemma.
\[lem:wassersteinconc\] Let $\mu \in \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{R}})$ such that for $X \sim \mu$, $\ell =\E[e^{\gamma X^\alpha}]<\infty$ for some choice of $\gamma$ and $\alpha$. Then one has with probability at least $1-e^{-cn\varepsilon^2}$ $${\mathcal{W}^1}(\mu_n, \mu) \le \varepsilon$$ for any $\varepsilon \in [0,1]$ and $c$ only depending on $\ell, \gamma$ and $\alpha$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main1\]
------------------------------
Let $G \sim {\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W})$ and $G' \sim {\mathbb{G}}(k, \mathcal{W}')$. By combining Lemmas \[lem:expbound\] and \[lem:wassersteinconc\], we get that with probability at least $1-2e^{-.09cn^{\frac{2}{3}}}$, $${\mathcal{W}^1}(\bar t, \bar t') \le {\mathcal{W}^1}(t(F,G), t(F,G')) + 8n^{-\frac{1}{3}}$$ In addition, by Lemma \[thm:homdensconc\], with probability at least $1-2\exp\left(\frac{kn^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2v^2}\right)-2e^{-.09cn^{\frac{2}{3}}}$ one also has $${\mathcal{W}^1}(t(F,G), t(F,G')) \le \abs{t(F,W) - t(F,W')} + n^{-\frac{1}{3}}$$ Upon application of Lemma \[lem:cut\] and rearranging, one arrives at the theorem.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main2\]
==============================
Auxiliary Results
-----------------
\[lem:spectralrelations\] Let $G$ be a weighted graph and $\lambda$ the spectrum interpreted as a point measure. Let $C_k$ be the cycle of length $k$em. Then $$t(C_k, G)=\sum_{w\in \lambda}w^k.$$
\[lem:jackson\] Let $f$ be a 1-[Lipschitz]{} function on $[-1,1]$. Then there is a polynomial $p$ of degree $v$ such that $\|f-p \|_\infty \le \frac{3}{\pi v}$.
\[lem:markov\] Let $\sum_{i=0}^v a_i x^{i}$ be a polynomial on $[-1,1]$ bounded by $M$. Then $$\lvert a_i\rvert \le (4e)^v M.$$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main2\]
------------------------------
Consider any coupling $(\lambda, \lambda')$ of $\bar \lambda$ and $\bar \lambda'$. One has by the definition of the Wasserstein distance $\mathcal{W}^1_{\mathcal{W}^1}$ and Kantorovich duality $$\mathcal{W}_{{\mathcal{W}^1}}^1(\bar \lambda', \bar\lambda) \le \E\left[{\mathcal{W}^1}(\lambda, \lambda')\right] = \E\left[\sup_{\operatorname{Lip} (f) \le 1}\int f(x) {\mathrm d}(\lambda - \lambda')\right]\label{eq:doublewasserstein}$$ Fix any $\omega \in \Omega$. By Lemma Lemma \[lem:jackson\] one can approximate Lipschitz functions by polynomials of bounded degree, $$\sup_{\substack{f\colon [-1,1] \to {\mathbb{R}}\\\operatorname{Lip} (f) \le 1}}\int f(x) {\mathrm d}(\lambda - \lambda')(\omega) \le \sup_{\substack{\operatorname{deg} (f) \le v\\ \lvert f \rvert \le 2 }}\int f(x) {\mathrm d}(\lambda - \lambda')(\omega) + \frac{3}{\pi v}.$$ Here, $\lvert f \rvert \le 2$ can be assumed as $f$ is defined on $[-1,1]$ and because of its $1$-Lipschitz continuity.
Hence, by Lemma \[lem:markov\] and the triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\substack{\operatorname{deg} (f) \le v\\ \lvert f \rvert \le 2 }}\int f(x) {\mathrm d}(\lambda - \lambda') (\omega) &\le \sum_{i=1}^v 2(4e)^v \left\lvert \int x^k {\mathrm d}(\lambda - \lambda')\right\rvert (\omega)\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^v 2(4e)^v \left\lvert \sum_{w \in \lambda} w^i - \sum_{w' \in \lambda'} w^i \right\rvert(\omega)
\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectations, one gets $${\mathcal{W}^1}_{{\mathcal{W}^1}} (\bar \lambda, \bar \lambda' ) \le \frac{3}{\pi v} + \sum_{i=1}^v 2(4e)^v \E \left [\left\lvert \sum_{w \in \lambda} w^i - \sum_{w' \in \lambda'} w^i \right\rvert\right]$$ for any coupling $(\lambda, \lambda')$ of $\bar \lambda$ and $\bar \lambda'$. Now consider a coupling $(\lambda, \lambda')$ of $\bar \lambda$ and $\bar \lambda'$ such that $\bar t$, $\bar t'$ (which are functions of $\lambda$, $\lambda'$ by Lemma \[lem:spectralrelations\]) are optimally coupled. Then by the definition of $\bar\lambda$, $\bar \lambda'$, $\bar t$ and $\bar t'$, $$\mathcal{W}^1 (\bar t_k, \bar t_k') = \E\left[ \left\lvert \sum_{w \in \ \lambda}w^k - \sum_{w \in \bar \lambda'}w'^k\right\rvert\right]$$ where $\bar t_i = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n\delta_{t(C_i, G_j)}$ and $\bar t_i' = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^n\delta_{t(C_i, G_j)}$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}_{{\mathcal{W}^1}}^1(\bar \lambda', \bar\lambda) &\le \sum_{i=1}^v 2(4e)^v {\mathcal{W}^1}(\bar t_i, \bar t'_i) + \frac{3}{\pi v}.\label{eq:intermediatewassersteinbound}\\
\nonumber &\le \frac{3}{\pi v} + v^2 2 (4e)^v \delta_\Box (W, W') + 18 v (4e)^v n^{-\frac{1}{3}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The first equality follows by and the second with probability at least $1-2v\exp\left(\frac{kn^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2v^2}\right)-2ve^{-.09cn^{\frac{2}{3}}}$ from Theorem \[thm:main1\].
A Similar Bound for Degree Features {#sec:degreefeatures}
===================================
Let $G$ be a graph and $(d_i)$ be its degree sequence. Consider the point measure $d = \sum_{i} \delta_{d_i}$ of degrees. Denote by $\bar d$ resp. $\bar d'$ the empirical measure of degree point measures of $G_1, \dots, G_n$ resp. $G_1', \dots, G_n'$.
Theorem \[thm:main2\] holds with the same guarantee with $\bar \lambda$, $\bar \lambda'$ replaced by $\bar d$, $\bar d'$.
\[lem:starlemma\] Let $S_v$ be the star graph on $v$ nodes and $G$ be a weighted graph. Then $$t(S_v, G)=\sum_{w \in d}w^v$$
The proof of Proposition \[lem:spectralrelations\] is along the same lines as the one of Theorem \[thm:main2\], but using Lemma \[lem:starlemma\] instead of \[lem:spectralrelations\].
Heterogenous Sample Sizes {#sec:hetsampsizes}
=========================
Our bounds from Theorems \[thm:main1\] and \[thm:main2\] can also be formulated in a more general setting of heterogenous sizes of graphs. In the following, we give an extension in two dimensions. First, we allow for heterogenous numbers of observations $n$. Secondly, we allow for random sizes of graphs $k$. Here is the more general model in details: There is a measure $\nu \in \Pi (\N)$ such that $G_1, \dots, G_{n_1}$ are sampled iid as $$\begin{aligned}
k &\sim \nu & G_i \sim {\mathbb{G}}(k,\mathcal{W}_{W, \mu});\label{eq:sampling}\end{aligned}$$ sampling of $G_1', \dots, G_{n_2}'$ is analogously. Hence the samples $G_i$ are sampled from a mixture over the measures ${\mathbb{G}}(k,\mathcal{W}_{W', \mu'})$. We can define $\bar t$, $\bar t'$, $\bar \lambda$ and $\bar \lambda'$ using the same formulas as we did in the main text. Then the following result holds.
\[cor:sampling\] There is an absolute constant $c$ such that the following holds: Let $n_1, n_2 \in \N$ and $G_i, i=1, \dots, n_1$, $G_i', i=1, \dots, n_2$ sampled as in . Then with probability at least $1-\exp\left(\frac{kn_1^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2e(F)^2}\right)-e^{-.09cn_1^{\frac{2}{3}}}-\exp\left(\frac{kn_2^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2e(F)^2}\right)-e^{-.09cn_2^{\frac{2}{3}}}$, $$\delta_\Box(W, W') \ge e(F)^{-1} ({\mathcal{W}^1}(t, \bar t)- 5n_1^{-\frac{1}{3}}+5n_2^{-\frac{1}{3}}).$$
In the setting of Corollary \[cor:sampling\] and with the same absolute constant, the following holds: Let $v \in \N$. With probability $1-v\exp\left(\frac{kn_1^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2v^2}\right)-ve^{-.09cn_1^{\frac{2}{3}}}-v\exp\left(\frac{kn_2^{-\frac{2}{3}}}{2v^2}\right)-ve^{-.09cn_2^{\frac{2}{3}}}$, $$\delta_\Box (W, W')\ge v ^{-2}2^{-1} (4e)^{-v} \left(\mathcal{W}_{{\mathcal{W}^1}}^1 (\bar \lambda, \bar \lambda')- \frac{3}{\pi v} - 18v(4e)^v(n_1^{-\frac{1}{3}}+n_2^{-\frac{1}{3}})\right)$$
The proofs are very similar to the ones in the main text. For the differences in $n_1$ and $n_2$, the concentration results Lemmas \[lem:expbound\] and \[lem:wassersteinconc\] will have to be applied separately with different values of $n$. For the random values $k$, we can choose a coupling that couples random graphs of similar sizes, leading to the expressions in the Corollaries.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider the problem of minimizing the eigenvalues of the Schrödinger operator $H=-\Delta+\alpha F({{\kappa}})$ ($\alpha>0$) on a compact $n-$manifold subject to the restriction that ${{\kappa}}$ has a given fixed average ${{\kappa}}_{0}$.
In the one–dimensional case our results imply in particular that for $F({{\kappa}})={{\kappa}}^{2}$ the constant potential fails to minimize the principal eigenvalue for $\alpha>\alpha_{c}=\mu_{1}/(4{{\kappa}}_{0}^{2})$, where $\mu_{1}$ is the first nonzero eigenvalue of $-\Delta$. This complements a result by Exner, Harrell and Loss, showing that the critical value where the circle stops being a minimizer for a class of Schrödinger operators penalized by curvature is given by $\alpha_{c}$. Furthermore, we show that the value of $\mu_{1}/4$ remains the infimum for all $\alpha>\alpha_{c}$. Using these results, we obtain a sharp lower bound for the principal eigenvalue for a general potential.
In higher dimensions we prove a (weak) local version of these results for a general class of potentials $F({{\kappa}})$, and then show that globally the infimum for the first and also for higher eigenvalues is actually given by the corresponding eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator and is never attained.
address: 'Departamento de Matemática, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av.Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal.'
author:
- 'Pedro Freitas [^1]'
title: On minimal eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators on manifolds
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
In the last years there has been a great interest in the study of optimal properties of eigenvalues of Schrödinger operators of the form $H= -\Delta + V$ defined on compact manifolds, when some restrictions are imposed on the potential $V$. Some of these problems are related to several physical phenomena such as motion by mean curvature, electrical properties of nanoscale structures, etc (see, for instance, [@a; @ahs; @ei; @ehl; @hl; @ke] and the references therein).
In [@ehl], the authors considered the case of potentials depending on the curvature ${{\kappa}}$ and studied the problem of minimizing the first eigenvalue of the operator $H = -d^{2}/ds^{2} +
\alpha{{\kappa}}^{2}$ defined on a closed planar curve with length one. They proved that for $0<\alpha<1/4$ the circle is the unique minimizer, while for $\alpha>1$ this is no longer the case, leaving open the question of the value of $\alpha$ where the transition takes place, and also what happens after this critical value.
More generally, one might consider an operator $H$ defined on a compact $n-$manifold $(M,g)$ by $H=-\Delta+\alpha F({{\kappa}})$ and with eigenvalues $\lambda_{0}<\lambda_{1}\leq\ldots$, and study the problem of determining $$\Lambda_{j}(\alpha) = \inf_{{{\kappa}}\in K}\lambda_{j}({{\kappa}}), \; j=0,1,\ldots$$ where $$K=\left\{{{\kappa}}\in\mathcal{C}(M;{\mathbb{R}}): \frac{{\displaystyle}1}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\int_{M}{{\kappa}}dv_{g}={{\kappa}}_{0}
\right\}.$$ In particular, we are interested in knowing whether or not there exists a critical value of $\alpha$, say $\alpha_{c}$, where the constant potential stops being a global minimizer for the first eigenvalue. In this paper we show that in the one–dimensional case studied in [@ehl] this critical value is in fact equal to $1/4$, and that for $\alpha$ larger than $\alpha_{c}$ the infimum is identically equal to $\pi^{2}$ and is not attained. The first part of this result is a consequence of a more general result which provides an upper bound for $\alpha_{c}$ holding in any dimension. Furthermore, we show that for potentials of the form ${{\kappa}}= {{\kappa}}_{0}+{\varepsilon}q$ where $q$ has zero average, this bound is in fact precise for sufficiently small values of ${\varepsilon}$, in the sense that for $\alpha$ smaller than the bound, the constant potential ${{\kappa}}_{0}$ gives a smaller eigenvalue than ${{\kappa}}$, while for larger values of $\alpha$ this is not always the case.
These results could lead us to expect that results similar to those in one dimension would also hold in higher dimensions, that is, that there would exist a nontrivial interval $(0,\alpha_{c})$ where the constant potential was the unique minimizer. However, it turns out that for dimensions higher than the first there exist potentials satisfying the given restrictions and which make the principal eigenvalue as close to zero as desired. Thus, we see that in this case the constant potential is never a global minimizer. It remains an open question if it is a local minimizer. A similar statement also holds for higher eigenvalues and for minimizations subject to other types of integral restrictions – see Theorem \[theo3\] and the remarks that follow it. The reason for this different behaviour in dimensions higher than the first is directly related to the fact that in this case, given a manifold $M$ and a geodesic ball $B_{\delta}$ of radius $\delta$ centred at a point $x_{0}$ in $M$, the Dirichlet eigenvalues of the Laplacian in $\Omega_{\delta} = M\setminus B_{\delta}$ converge to those of the Laplacian in $M$ as $\delta$ approaches zero – for a more precise statement of this property see Section \[highd\] and [@cf].
Finally, we point out that the results in one dimension enable us to obtain a lower bound for the principal eigenvalue in the case of a general potential (Corollary \[cor2\]) which, of course, corresponds also to the first eigenvalue of Hill’s equation. Note that one of the motivations behind the study of the minimization of eigenvalues when the potential is subject to integral restrictions was precisely to obtain lower bounds for eigenvalues – see [@ke].
Notation and general local results\[secgenloc\]
===============================================
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian $n-$manifold with metric $g$ and let $-\Delta$ denote the Laplace–Beltrami operator defined on $M$ with eigenvalues $0=\mu_{0}<\mu_{1}\leq\ldots$ repeated according to their multiplicity. Denote the corresponding orthonormal (with respect to the $L^{2}(M)$ inner product induced by the Riemannian measure $v_{g}$) system of eigenfunctions by $\left\{v_{j}\right\}_{j=0}^{\infty}$. Consider now the operator defined on $M$ by $H=-\Delta +\alpha F({{\kappa}})$, where $$\frac{{\displaystyle}1}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\int_{M} {{\kappa}}dv_{g}={{\kappa}}_{0},$$ and $F:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is assumed to be of class $\mathcal{C}^{3}$ in a neighbourhood of ${{\kappa}}_{0}$.
The main result in this section is then the following
\[th\] Assume that $F'({{\kappa}}_{0})\neq0$ and define $$\alpha^{*} =
\frac{\mu_{1}{\displaystyle}F''({{\kappa}}_{0})}{{\displaystyle}2[F'({{\kappa}}_{0})]^{2}}.$$ Then, if $q$ is a continuous real valued function with zero average and not identically zero, we have that for ${{\kappa}}={{\kappa}}_{0}+{\varepsilon}q$ with sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$ (depending on $q$ and $\alpha$), the principal eigenvalue $\lambda_{0}$ of $H$ satisfies $$\lambda_{0}({{\kappa}})>\alpha F({{\kappa}}_{0}), \mbox{ if } \; 0<\alpha<\alpha^{*},$$ while for $\alpha>\alpha^{*}$ there exist functions $q$ as above for which $$\lambda_{0}({{\kappa}})<\alpha F({{\kappa}}_{0}).$$
Consider the Schrödinger operator defined on $M$ by $$H_{{\varepsilon}} = -\Delta + \alpha F({{\kappa}}_{0}+{\varepsilon}q).$$ Since $M$ is compact, the spectrum of $H_{{\varepsilon}}$ is discrete and its first (simple) eigenvalue and the corresponding (normalized) eigenfunction are analytic functions of the (real) parameter ${\varepsilon}$ [@kat]. We thus expand $\lambda_{0}$ and the corresponding eigenfunction $u$ as a power series of ${\varepsilon}$ around zero: $$\begin{array}{l}
\lambda_{0} = \ell_{0}+\ell_{1}{\varepsilon}+\ell_{2}{\varepsilon}^{2}+\ldots\eqskip\\
u = {{\phi}}_{0}+{{\phi}}_{1}{\varepsilon}+{{\phi}}_{2}{\varepsilon}^{2}+\ldots.
\end{array}$$ On the other hand, we also have that $F({{\kappa}}_{0}+{\varepsilon}q) =
f_{0}+f_{1}q{\varepsilon}+f_{2}q^{2}{\varepsilon}^{2}+o({\varepsilon}^{2})$, where $$f_{0} = F({{\kappa}}_{0}),\ f_{1} = F'({{\kappa}}_{0}), \mbox{ and }\; f_{2} =
\frac{{\displaystyle}1}{{\displaystyle}2}F''({{\kappa}}_{0}).$$
Substituting these expressions in the equation giving the eigenvalues for $H_{{\varepsilon}}$ we obtain, equating like powers in ${\varepsilon}$, $$\begin{array}{lc}
{\varepsilon}^{0}: & -\Delta {{\phi}}_{0} + \alpha f_{0}{{\phi}}_{0} = \ell_{0}{{\phi}}_{0}\\
{\varepsilon}^{1}: & -\Delta {{\phi}}_{1} + \alpha f_{0}{{\phi}}_{1} + \alpha f_{1}q {{\phi}}_{0} =
\ell_{0}{{\phi}}_{1}+\ell_{1}{{\phi}}_{0}\\
{\varepsilon}^{2}: & -\Delta {{\phi}}_{2} + \alpha f_{0}{{\phi}}_{2} + \alpha f_{1}q{{\phi}}_{1} +
\alpha f_{2}q^{2}{{\phi}}_{0} = \ell_{0}{{\phi}}_{2}+\ell_{1}{{\phi}}_{1}+\ell_{2}{{\phi}}_{0}.
\end{array}$$ From the first equation it follows that $\ell_{0}=\alpha f_{0}$ and that ${{\phi}}_{0}$ is constant, which we take to be one. Substituting this in the equation for ${\varepsilon}^{1}$ and integrating over $M$ gives that $\ell_{1}$ vanishes and ${{\phi}}_{1}$ satisfies $$\label{eqp1}
-\Delta {{\phi}}_{1} = -\alpha f_{1}q.$$ Substituting now this in the last equation gives that ${{\phi}}_{2}$ satisfies $$-\Delta {{\phi}}_{2} = -\alpha f_{2}q^{2}-\alpha f_{1}q{{\phi}}_{1} + \ell_{2}.$$ Again integrating over $M$ gives $$\label{l2exp}
\ell_{2} = \frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha f_{2}}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\int_{M}q^{2}dv_{g}+
\frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha f_{1}}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\int_{M}q{{\phi}}_{1}dv_{g}.$$ Taking squares on both sides of (\[eqp1\]) we get $\left[\Delta({{\phi}}_{1})\right]^{2} = \alpha^{2} f_{1}^{2}q^{2}$. On the other hand, multiplying the same equation by ${{\phi}}_{1}$ and integrating over $M$ gives that $$\alpha f_{1}\int_{M}q{{\phi}}_{1}dv_{g}=-\int_{M}|\nabla
{{\phi}}_{1}|^{2}dv_{g}.$$ Substituting these two expressions into (\[l2exp\]) we finally obtain $$\ell_{2} = \frac{{\displaystyle}f_{2}}{{\displaystyle}\alpha f_{1}^{2}|M|}\int_{M}
(\Delta {{\phi}}_{1})^{2}dv_{g}- \frac{{\displaystyle}1}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\int_{M}|\nabla {{\phi}}_{1}|^{2}dv_{g},$$ and it follows from Lemma \[lemb\] below that $\ell_{2}$ is always positive for $\alpha<\alpha^{*}$.
To give an example of a function $q$ for which $\ell_{2}$ becomes negative when $\alpha>\alpha^{*}$ it is sufficient to take $q=v_{1}$. We obtain from (\[eqp1\]) that in this case $${{\phi}}_{1}=c-\frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha}{{\displaystyle}\mu_{1}} f_{1} v_{1},$$ where $c$ is an arbitrary constant. Substituting this into the expression for $\lambda_{2}$ yields $$\ell_{2} = \frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha}{{\displaystyle}|M|}\left(f_{2}-
\frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha}
{{\displaystyle}\mu_{1}} f_{1}^{2}\right),$$ which is negative for $\alpha>\alpha^{*}$.
An obvious consequence of this result is that for all $F$ of the form above there exists a value of $\alpha$, say $\alpha^{**}$ such that for $\alpha>\alpha^{**}$ the constant potential is not a minimizer of the first eigenvalue.
In the case where $F'$ is allowed to vanish, it is also clear that if ${{\kappa}}_{0}={{\kappa}}_{0}^{*}$ is a (local) minimizer (resp. maximizer) of $F$, it follows that, for positive values of $\alpha$, ${{\kappa}}(x)\equiv{{\kappa}}_{0}^{*}$ will be a (local) minimizer (resp. maximizer). This is the case, for instance, when $F({{\kappa}})={{\kappa}}^{2}$ and ${{\kappa}}_{0}=0$, where obviously ${{\kappa}}=0$ is a global minimizer for all $\alpha$.
The result needed to prove that $\ell_{2}>0$ for $\alpha<\alpha^{*}$ is neither new nor difficult, but a specific reference could not be found in the literature and so, for the sake of completeness, we provide a proof here.
\[lemb\]The functional $$I_{\alpha}(u) = \int_{M}\alpha(\Delta u)^{2}-|\nabla u|^{2}dv_{g}$$ is nonnegative for $\alpha\geq 1/\mu_{1}$.
The spectral problem corresponding to $I_{\alpha}$ is $$\label{auxeig}
\alpha\Delta^{2}u+\Delta u = \gamma u,$$ which has discrete spectrum $\gamma_{0}\leq\gamma_{1}\leq\ldots$. We will prove that if $\alpha> 1/\mu_{1}$ then $\gamma_{j}\geq0$ for all $j=0,1,\ldots$. To this end rewrite (\[auxeig\]) as $$\Delta(\alpha\Delta u+u) = \gamma u.$$ It is not difficult to see that $u$ is an eigenfunction if and only if $$\alpha\Delta u + u = \beta v_{j}$$ for some real number $\beta$ different from zero. For $\alpha>1/\mu_{1}$ the operator $\alpha \Delta + I$ is invertible and thus this last equation has one and only one solution given by $u=\beta v_{j}/(1-\alpha\mu_{j})$. Substituting this into (\[auxeig\]) gives $\gamma = (\alpha\mu_{j}-1)\mu_{j}$ from which the result follows.
The one–dimensional case {#sec1d}
========================
In this section we consider the particular case studied in [@ehl] with $F({{\kappa}}) = {{\kappa}}^{2}$, and for which $$\alpha^{*} = \frac{{\displaystyle}\mu_{1}}{{\displaystyle}4{{\kappa}}_{0}^{2}}.$$ As a consequence of Theorem \[th\] and the results in [@ehl] we have the following
\[cor1\] In the one dimensional case and for $F$ as above, $\alpha_{c}=\alpha^{*}$. Furthermore, for $\alpha>\alpha_{c}$, $\Lambda_{0}(\alpha)\equiv \mu_{1}/4$.
It only remains to show the result for $\alpha$ larger than $\alpha_{c}$. Clearly in this case $\Lambda_{0}(\alpha)\geq\mu_{1}/4$. Consider now the family of potentials given by $${{\kappa}}_{\delta}(s) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{{\kappa}}_{0}/\delta, & 0<s<\delta,\\
0, & \delta<s<\ell.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that although ${{\kappa}}_{\delta}$ is not continuous on the circle, it can be approximated by continuous functions without affecting our results. For this family of potentials we obtain the functional $$J_{\delta}(u) = \int_{0}^{\ell}\left[u'\right]^{2}ds +
\frac{{\displaystyle}\alpha{{\kappa}}_{0}^{2}}{{\displaystyle}\delta^{2}}\int_{0}^{\delta}u^{2}ds,$$ where $u$ is normalized. We now take $u(s) = \sqrt{2}\sin(\pi s/\ell)$ to obtain $$J_{\delta}(u)=\frac{{\displaystyle}\mu_{1}}{{\displaystyle}4}+\frac{{\displaystyle}2\alpha{{\kappa}}_{0}^{2}}
{{\displaystyle}\delta^{2}}\int_{0}^{\delta}\sin^{2}(\frac{{\displaystyle}\pi
s}{{\displaystyle}\ell})ds,$$ and since $$\lim_{\delta\to 0^{+}}\frac{{\displaystyle}\int_{0}^{\delta}\sin^{2}(\pi s)ds}
{{\displaystyle}\delta^{2}} = 0,$$ it follows that $J_{\delta}$ can be made to be arbitrarily close to $\mu_{1}/4$.
[Clearly for $\alpha>\alpha_{c}$ the infimum is not attained, as was conjectured in [@ehl].]{}
A simple consequence of Theorem \[cor1\] is a lower bound for the principal eigenvalue of the Schrödinger operator on the circle.
\[cor2\] Consider the operator $H=-d^{2}/dx^{2} + V(x)$ defined on $(0,L)$ with periodic boundary conditions, and define $$V_{m}=\inf_{x}V(x) \mbox{ and } I =
\frac{{\displaystyle}1}{{\displaystyle}L}\int_{0}^{L}\left[V(x)-V_{m}\right]^{1/2}dx.$$ Then $$\lambda_{0} \geq\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
V_{m}+I^{2}, & \mbox{ if } I\leq \frac{{\displaystyle}\pi}{{\displaystyle}L}\\ V_{m}+
\frac{{\displaystyle}\pi^{2}}{{\displaystyle}L}, & \mbox{ if } I>\frac{{\displaystyle}\pi}{{\displaystyle}L},
\end{array}
\right.$$ with equality for $I<\pi/L$ if and only if $V$ is constant.
The first inequality follows directly by writing the eigenvalue problem as $-u''+(V-V_{m})u = (\lambda-V_{m})u$ and applying the previous corollary with ${{\kappa}}= (V-V_{m})/\alpha$. The second part is a consequence of the fact that for $\alpha$ larger than $\alpha_{c}$ the principal eigenvalue must be larger than $\alpha_{c}{{\kappa}}_{0}^{2}$.
[It follows from Theorem \[cor1\] that the given inequalities are sharp in both cases.]{}
Higher dimensions {#highd}
=================
In [@ehl], the proof of the fact that for $\alpha$ smaller than $\alpha^{*}$ the constant potential is the unique global minimizer of $\Lambda_{0}$ relied on a result that is not available in higher dimensions. Namely, while in one dimension we have that $$\int_{S^{1}}\left[(u-u_{m})'\right]^{2}ds\geq\frac{{\displaystyle}\mu_{1}}{{\displaystyle}4}
\int_{S^{1}}(u-u_{m})^{2}ds,$$ where $u_{m}$ is the minimum of $u$ in $S^{1}$, from the results in [@cf] it is known that there is no similar result in higher dimensions. More precisely, if we impose that a function $f$ be zero at a finite number of points of a compact manifold with dimension greater than or equal to two, then there is no relation of the form above with a positive constant on the right–hand side. This suggests that an argument similar to that used in the proof of Theorem \[cor1\] can now be used for all positive values of $\alpha$, and not just for $\alpha$ larger than $\alpha^{*}$. This is indeed the case, and we have the following
\[theo3\] Assume that $F(0)$ is a global minimum of $F$. Then, for $n$ greater than one, $\Lambda_{j}(\alpha)\equiv \mu_{j}-F(0)$ for all positive $\alpha$ and $j=0,1,\ldots$.
Fix a point $x_{0}$ in $M$ and denote by $B_{\delta}$ the geodesic ball centred at $x_{0}$ with radius $\delta$. Let now $\Omega_{\delta}=M\setminus\overline{B_{\delta}}$ and define the potential $${{\kappa}}_{\delta}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{{\displaystyle}{{\kappa}}_{0}}{{\displaystyle}|B_{\delta}|}, & \mbox{ if }
x\in B_{\delta}(x_{0}),\eqskip\\ 0, & \mbox{ if } x\in
\Omega_{\delta}(x_{0})
\end{array}
\right.$$ (As before, this is discontinuous but can be approximated by continuous functions without changing the results.) By subtracting $F(0)$ on both sides of the equation for the eigenvalues, we can, without loss of generality, take $F(0)$ to be zero. We are thus lead to the functional $$J_{\delta}(u) = \int_{M}|\nabla u|^{2}dv_{g} +
\alpha F\left(\frac{{\displaystyle}{{\kappa}}_{0}}{{\displaystyle}|B_{\delta}|}\right)
\int_{B_{\delta}} u^{2}dv_{g}.$$
Consider now the auxiliary eigenvalue problem defined by $$\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
-\Delta w = \mu w, & \; x\in\Omega_{\delta}\eqskip\\
w = 0, & \; x\in \partial\Omega_{\delta},
\end{array}
\right.$$ and denote its eigenvalues by $0<\mu_{0}(\delta)<\mu_{1}(\delta)\leq\ldots$, with corresponding normalized eigenfunctions $v_{j\delta}$. From the results in [@cf] we have that $$\lim_{\delta\to0^{+}}\mu_{j}(\delta) = \mu_{j}, \;\; j=0,\ldots.$$
We now build test functions $u_{j\delta}$, $j=0,\ldots$ defined by $$u_{j\delta}(x) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
v_{j,\delta}(x), & x\in\Omega_{\delta}\eqskip\\ 0, & x\in
B_{\delta},
\end{array}
\right.$$ for which $$J_{\delta}(u_{j\delta}) = \int_{\Omega_{\delta}}|\nabla
v_{j,\delta}|^{2} dv_{g},$$ and, by the result from [@cf] mentioned above, this converges to $\mu_{j}$, $j=0,\ldots,$ as $\delta$ goes to zero. Finally, note that for each $\delta$ the set $\left\{u_{j\delta}\right\}_{j=0}^{\infty}$ satisfies the necessary orthogonality conditions, since this is the case for $\left\{v_{j\delta}\right\}_{j=0}^{\infty}$
A similar result will also hold in other cases, such as manifolds with boundary with Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, for instance.
Concluding remarks
==================
As was pointed out in [@ehl] for the one–dimensional case, it is not difficult to see that for negative $\alpha$ the constant potential still [*maximizes*]{} the principal eigenvalue. It is also possible to show that in this case there is no lower bound on this eigenvalue, in the sense that there exist potentials ${{\kappa}}$ with fixed average ${{\kappa}}_{0}$ for which this eigenvalue can be made as large (in absolute value) as desired. It is not completely clear what happens to the supremum of the first eigenvalue for positive values of $\alpha$.
Regarding higher dimensions, it was shown that integral restrictions of this and similar type actually impose no restrictions at all as far as minimization is concerned, in the sense that it is possible to approximate the eigenvalues of the Laplacian as much as desired by potentials satisfying the given restrictions. Although we have seen that in this case the constant potential is never a global minimizer for positive $\alpha$, the results in Section \[secgenloc\] raise the question of whether or not it is a local minimizer for $\alpha<\alpha^{*}$.
We end by remarking that similar results to those in Sections \[secgenloc\] and \[sec1d\] also hold in the case of manifolds with boundary and Neumann boundary conditions.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This work was carried out while I was visiting the Department of Mathematics of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. I would like to thank the people there and, in particular, Ari Laptev, for their hospitality.
[99999]{} Ashbaugh, M.S.: Optimization of the characteristic values of Hill’s equation subject to a $p-$norm constraint on the potential. J. Math. Anal. Appl. [143]{}, 438–447 (1989).
Ashbaugh, M.S. and Harrell, E.M.: Maximal and minimal eigenvalues and their associated nonlinear equations. J. Math. Phys. [**28**]{}, 1770–1786 (1987).
Chavel, I. and Feldman, E.A.: Spectra of domains in compact manifolds. J. Funct. Anal. [**30**]{}, 198–222 (1978).
El Soufi, A. and Ilias, S.: Second eigenvalue of Schrödinger operators and mean curvature. Commun. Math. Physics [**208**]{}, 761–770 (2000).
Exner, P., Harrell, E.M. and Loss, M.: Optimal eigenvalues for some Laplacians and Schrödinger operators depending on curvature. Mathematical results in quantum mechanics (Prague 1998), 47–58, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. [**108**]{}.
Harrell, E.M. and Loss, M.: On the Laplace operator penalized by mean curvature. Commun. Math. Physics [**195**]{}, 643–650 (1998).
Kato, T.: *Perturbation theory for linear operators* (Springer, 1966).
Keller, J.B.: Lower bounds and isoperimetric inequalities for eigenvalues of the Schrödinger equation. J. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 262–266 (1961).
[^1]: Partially supported by FCT, Portugal
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Cohen-Macaulay type of idealizations of maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over Cohen-Macaulay local rings is explored. There are two extremal cases, one of which is closely related to the theory of Ulrich modules [@BHU; @GOTWY1; @GOTWY2; @GTT2], and the other one is closely related to the theory of residually faithful modules and the theory of closed ideals [@BV].'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, School of Science and Technology, Meiji University, 1-1-1 Higashi-mita, Tama-ku, Kawasaki 214-8571, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Informatics, Graduate School of Science and Technology, Chiba University, Chiba-shi 263, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, School of Natural Sciences Education, Vinh University, 182 Le Duan, Vinh City, Nghe An Province, Vietnam'
author:
- Shiro Goto
- Shinya Kumashiro
- Nguyen Thi Hong Loan
title: 'Residually faithful modules and the Cohen-Macaulay type of idealizations'
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this paper is to explore the behavior of the Cohen-Macaulay type of idealizations of maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over Cohen-Macaulay local rings, mainly in connection with their residual faithfulness.
Let $R$ be a commutative ring and $M$ an $R$-module. We set $A = R \oplus M$ as an additive group and define the multiplication in $A$ by $$(a,x) {\cdot} (b, y) = (ab, ay + bx)$$ for $(a,x), (b, y) \in A$. Then, $A$ forms a commutative ring, which we denote by $A=R\ltimes M$ and call the idealization of $M$ over $R$ (or, the trivial extension of $R$ by $M$). Notice that $R \ltimes M$ is a Noetherian ring if and only if so is the ring $R$ and the $R$-module $M$ is finitely generated. If $R$ is a local ring with maximal ideal $\m$, then so is the idealization $A=R \ltimes M$, and the maximal ideal $\n$ of $A$ is given by $\n = \m \times M$.
The notion of the idealization was introduced in the book [@N] of Nagata, and we now have diverse applications in several directions (see, e.g., [@AW; @GMP; @GTT]). Let $(R,\m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension $d$. We set $${\mathrm{r}}(R) = \ell_R\left(\Ext_R^d(R/\m,R)\right)$$ and call it the Cohen-Macaulay type of $R$ (here $\ell_R(*)$ denotes the length). Then, as is well-known, $R$ is a Gorenstein ring if and only if ${\mathrm{r}}(R) = 1$, so that the invariant ${\mathrm{r}}(R)$ measures how different the ring $R$ is from being a Gorenstein ring. In the current paper, we are interested in the Cohen-Macaulay type ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)$ of $R\ltimes M$, for a maximal Cohen-Macaulay (MCM for short) $R$-module $M$, that is a finitely generated $R$-module $M$ with $\depth_RM=\dim R$. In the researches of this direction, one of the most striking results is, of course, the characterization of canonical modules obtained by I. Reiten [@R]. She showed that $R \ltimes M$ is a Gorenstein ring if and only if $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring and $M$ is the canonical module of $R$, assuming $(R,\m)$ is a Noetherian local ring and $M$ is a non-zero finitely generated $R$-module. Motivated by this result, our study aims at explicit formulae of the Cohen-Macaulay type ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)$ of idealizations for diverse MCM $R$-modules $M$.
Let us state some of our main results, explaining how this paper is organized. Throughout, let $(R, \m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring, and $M$ a MCM $R$-module. Then, we have in general $${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$$ (here ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = \ell_R\left(\Ext_R^d(R/\m,M)\right)$ denotes the Cohen-Macaulay type of $M$), which we shall confirm in Section 2 (Theorem \[pro1\]). As is shown in Example \[2.3.1\] and Proposition \[2.3.2\], the difference ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)-{\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ can be arbitrary among the interval $[0, {\mathrm{r}}(R)]$. We explore two extremal cases; one is the case of ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, and the other one is the case of ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
The former case is exactly the case where $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module and closely related to the preceding research [@BV]. To explain the relationship more precisely, for $R$-modules $M$ and $N$, let $$t=t^M_N: \Hom_R(M,N)\otimes_R M \to N$$ denote the $R$-linear map defined by $t(f\otimes x)=f(x)$ for all $f \in \Hom_R(M,N)$ and $x \in M$. With this notation, we have the following, which we will prove in Section 3. Here, $\mu_R(*)$ denotes the number of elements in a minimal system of generators.
\[1.1\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) + \mu_R(\operatorname{Coker} t^M_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}).$$
As a consequence, we get the following, where the equivalence between Conditions (2) and (3) is due to [@BV Proposition 5.2]. Remember that a MCM $R$-module $M$ is said to be [*residually faithful*]{}, if $M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$ is a faithful $R/{\mathfrak{q}}$-module for some (eventually, for every) parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$ (cf. [@BV Definition 5.1]).
\[1.2\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
2. The homomorphism $t_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}^M : \Hom_R(M, {\mathrm{K}}_R) \otimes_RM \to {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is surjective.
3. $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
In Section 3, we will also show the following, where $\operatorname{\Omega CM}(R)$ denotes the class of the (not necessarily minimal) first syzygy modules of MCM $R$-modules.
\[1.3\] Let $M \in \operatorname{\Omega CM}(R)$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = \begin{cases}
{\mathrm{r}}_R(M) &\text{if $R$ is a direct summand of $M$}, \\
{\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
In Section 4, we are concentrated in the latter case where ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, which is closely related to the theory of Ulrich modules ([@BHU; @GOTWY1; @GOTWY2; @GTT2]). In fact, the equality ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ is equivalent to saying that $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$ for some (and hence every) parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$, so that all the Ulrich modules and all the syzygy modules $\Omega_R^i(R/\m)$ ($i \ge d$) satisfy the above equality ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ (Theorems \[1.5.1\], \[1.2\]), provided $R$ is not a regular local ring (here $\Omega_R^i(R/\m)$ is considered in a minimal free resolution of $R/\m$).
In Section 5, we give the bound of $\sup {\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)$, where $M$ runs through certain MCM $R$-modules. In particular, when $d=1$, we get the following (Corollary \[5.2\]).
\[1.4\] Suppose that $(R,\m)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension one and multiplicity $e$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the set of $\m$-primary ideals of $R$. Then $$\underset{I \in {\mathcal{F}}}{\sup}~{\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $R$ is a $\operatorname{DVR}$,}\\
{\mathrm{r}}(R) + e & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
In Section 6, we focus our attention on the case where $\dim R = 1$. The main objectives are the trace ideals and closed ideals. The notion of closed ideals was introduced by [@BV], where one finds a beautiful theory of closed ideals. As for the theory of trace ideals, we refer to [@GIK; @L] for the recent progress. In Section 6, we compute the Cohen-Macaulay type ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I)$ for fractional trace or closed ideals $I$ over a one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay local ring $R$, in terms of the numbers of generators of $I$ together with the Cohen-Macaulay type ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$ of $I$ as an $R$-module.
In what follows, unless otherwise specified, $(R,\m)$ denotes a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with $d = \dim R \ge 0$. When $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$, for each $R$-module $M$ we denote $\Hom_R(M,{\mathrm{K}}_R)$ by $M^\vee$. Let ${\mathrm{Q}}(R)$ be the total ring of fractions of $R$. For $R$-submodules $X$ and $Y$ of ${\mathrm{Q}}(R)$, let $$X:Y = \{a \in {\mathrm{Q}}(R) \mid aY \subseteq X\}.$$ If we consider ideals $I,J$ of $R$, we set $I:_RJ=\{a \in R \mid aJ \subseteq I\}$; hence $$I:_RJ = (I:J) \cap R.$$ For each finitely generated $R$-module $M$, let $\mu_R(M)$ (resp. $\ell_R(M)$) denote the number of elements in a minimal system of generators (resp. the length) of $M$. For an $\m$-primary ideal ${\mathfrak{a}}$ of $R$, we denote by $${\mathrm{e}}_{\mathfrak{a}}^0(M)= \lim_{n \to \infty}d!{\cdot}\displaystyle\frac{\ell_R(M/{\mathfrak{a}}^{n}M)}{n^d}$$ the multiplicity of $M$ with respect to ${\mathfrak{a}}$.
The Cohen-Macaulay type of general idealizations
================================================
In this section, we estimate the Cohen-Macaulay type of idealizations for general maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over Cohen-Macaulay local rings. We begin with the following observation, which is the starting point of this research.
\[lemma1\] Let $(R,\m)$ be a $($not necessarily Noetherian$)$ local ring and let $M$ be an $R$-module. We set $A = R \ltimes M$ and denote by $\n = \m \times M$ the maximal ideal of $A$. Then $$(0):_A \n= \left(\left[(0):_R\m\right] \cap {\mathrm{Ann}}_RM\right) \times \left[(0):_M\m\right].$$ Therefore, when $R$ is an Artinian local ring, $(0):_A \n= (0) \times \left[(0):_M\m\right]$ if and only if ${\mathrm{Ann}}_RM = (0)$.
Let $(a,x) \in A$. Then $(a,x){\cdot}(b,y)=0$ for all $(b,y) \in \n=\m \times M$ if and only if $ab=0, ay =0$, and $bx=0$ for all $b \in \m, y \in M$. Hence, the first equality follows. Suppose that $R$ is an Artinian local ring. Then, since $I= {\mathrm{Ann}}_RM$ is an ideal of $R$, $I \ne (0)$ if and only if $[(0):_R\m] \cap I \ne (0)$, whence the second assertion follows.
We now assume, throughout this section, that $(R,\m)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with $d = \dim R \ge 0$. We say that a finitely generated $R$-module $M$ is a [*maximal Cohen-Macaulay*]{} (MCM for short) $R$-module, if $\depth_RM=d$.
\[pro1\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and $A = R \ltimes M$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(A) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M).$$ Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$ and set $\overline{R} = R/{\mathfrak{q}}$, $\overline{M} = M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$. We then have the following.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ if and only if $\overline{M}$ is a faithful $\overline{R}$-module.
2. ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ if and only if $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$.
We set $\overline A = A/{\mathfrak{q}}A.$ Therefore, $\overline A = \overline R \ltimes \overline M$. Since $A$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring and ${\mathfrak{q}}A$ is a parameter ideal of $A$, we have ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(\overline A)$, and by Proposition \[lemma1\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned}{\mathrm{r}}(A) = \ell_{\overline A} ((0):_{\overline A}\n) & =\ell_{\overline A} (\left(\left[(0):_{\overline R}\m\right] \cap {\mathrm{Ann}}_{\overline{R}}\overline{M}\right) \times \left[(0):_{\overline M}\m\right])\\
& = \ell_{\overline R}(\left[(0):_{\overline{R}}\m \right]\cap {\mathrm{Ann}}_{\overline{R}}\overline{M}) + \ell_{\overline R}\left((0):_{\overline M}\m\right) \\
& = \ell_{\overline R}(\left[(0):_{\overline{R}}\m\right]\cap {\mathrm{Ann}}_{\overline{R}}\overline{M}) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \\
& \leqslant \ell_{\overline R}((0):_{\overline{R}}\m) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \\
& = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(A) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, so that by Proposition \[lemma1\], ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ if and only if $\overline{M}$ is a faithful $\overline{R}$-module. We have ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ if and only if $(0):_{\overline{R}}\overline\m \subseteq {\mathrm{Ann}}_{\overline{R}}\overline{M}$, and the latter condition is equivalent to saying that ${\mathfrak{q}}:_R \m \subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}M: _R M$, that is $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$.
The following shows the difference ${\mathrm{r}}(A) - {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ in Theorem \[pro1\] can be arbitrary among the interval $[0, {\mathrm{r}}(R)]$. Notice that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes R) = {\mathrm{r}}(R)$.
\[2.3.1\] Let $\ell \ge 2$ be an integer and $S= k[[X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_\ell]]$ the formal power series ring over a field $k$. Let ${\mathfrak{a}}= \Bbb I_2(\Bbb M)$ denote the ideal of $S$ generated by the maximal minors of the matrix $\Bbb M = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
X_1&X_2& \ldots& X_{\ell-1}&X_\ell\\
X_2& X_3& \ldots&X_\ell&X_1^q\\
\end{smallmatrix}\right)
$ with $q \ge 2$. We set $R=S/{\mathfrak{a}}$. Then $R$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension one. For each integer $2 \le p \le \ell$, we consider the ideal $I_p= (x_1)+ (x_p, x_{p+1}, \ldots, x_\ell)$ of $R$, where $x_i$ denotes the image of $X_i$ in $R$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I_p)= (\ell-p+1) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)$, and $${\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)= \begin{cases}
\ell &\text{if $p=2$} \\
\ell-1 &\text{if $p \ge 3$}
\end{cases}$$ for each $2 \le p \le \ell$.
Let $\m$ denote the maximal ideal of $R$. We set $I = I_p$ and $x = x_1$. It is direct to check that $I^2 = xI$, where we use the fact that $q \ge 2$. In particular, $\m^2 = x \m$. We consider the exact sequence $$(E)\ \ \ 0 \to R/I \overset{\iota}{\to} I/xI \to I/(x) \to 0,$$ where $\iota(1) = x ~\mod ~xI$, and get ${\mathrm{Ann}}_RI/xI = I$, since $I^2 = xI$. Therefore, ${\mathrm{Ann}}_{R/(x)}I/xI = I/(x)$. Because $I/(x) \subseteq \m/(x) = (0):_{R/(x)}\m$, we get $$\ell_R([(0):_{R/(x)}\m] \cap {\mathrm{Ann}}_{R/(x)}I/xI) = \ell_R(I/(x)) = \ell-p+1,$$ whence $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) =(\ell-p+1)+ {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$$ by Theorem \[pro1\]. Because $(x_2, x_3, \ldots, x_{p-1}){\cdot}(x_p, x_{p+1}, \ldots, x_\ell) \subseteq xI$, the above sequence $(E)$ remains exact on the socles, so that $${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = {\mathrm{r}}(R/I) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I/(x)).$$ Therefore, ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I)=\ell$ if $p=2$, and ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I)= (p-2)+(\ell-p+1) = \ell-1$ if $p \ge 3$.
Assume that $R$ is not a regular local ring and let $0 \le n \le {\mathrm{r}}(R)$ be an integer. Then, we suspect if there exists a MCM $R$-module $M$ such that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = n + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$. When $R$ is the semigroup ring of a numerical semigroup, we however have an affirmative answer.
\[2.3.2\] Let $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_\ell$ be positive integers such that $\operatorname{GCD}(a_1, a_2,\cdots,a_\ell)=1$. Let $H =\left<a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_\ell \right>$ be the numerical semigroup generated by $\{a_i\}_{1 \le i \le \ell}$. Let $k[[t]]$ denote the formal power series ring over a field $k$ and consider, inside of $k[[t]]$, the semigroup ring $$R= k[[t^{a_1}, t^{a_2}, \ldots, t^{a_\ell}]]$$ of $H$ over $k$. We set $e = \min \{a_i \mid 1 \le i \le \ell\}$ and assume that $e > 1$, that is $R$ is not a $\operatorname{DVR}$. Let $r = {\mathrm{r}}(R)$. Then, for each integer $0 \le n \le r$, $R$ contains a non-zero ideal $I$ such that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = n + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$.
Let $\m$ be the maximal ideal of $R$ and set $B =\m : \m$. Then $B = R : \m$ since $R$ is not a DVR, and $$(t^e):_R\m = (t^e):\m = t^e(R:\m)= t^eB.$$ We denote by $\operatorname{PF}(H) = \{\alpha_1 < \alpha_2 < \cdots < \alpha_r\}$ the pseudo-Frobenius numbers of $H$. Hence, $B = R + \sum_{1\le i \le r}Rt^{\alpha_i}$, so that $(t^e):_R\m= (t^e)+(t^{\alpha_i + e} \mid 1 \le i\le r)$. Let $1 \le p \le r$ be an integer and set $I = (t^e)+(t^{\alpha_j + e} \mid p \le j \le r) \subseteq (t^e):_R\m$. Let $\alpha_0 = 0$. We then have the following.
\[claim 1\] Let $0 \le i \le r$ and $p \le j \le r$ be integers. Then $t^{\alpha_i + e}t^{\alpha_j +e} \in t^eI$. Consequently, $I^2 = t^eI$.
Assume that $t^{\alpha_i + e}t^{\alpha_j +e} \not\in t^eI$. Then $t^{\alpha_i + \alpha_j + e} \not\in I$. On the other hand, since $t^{\alpha_i}t^{\alpha_j} \in B=\m:\m$, we get $\alpha_i + \alpha_j = \alpha_k + h$ for some $0 \le k \le r$ and $h \in H$. If $h >0$, then $\alpha_i +\alpha_j \in H$, so that $t^{\alpha_i + \alpha_j + e} \in I$, which is impossible. Therefore, $h = 0$, and $\alpha_k - \alpha_j = \alpha_i \ge 0$, so that $k \ge j \ge p$. Hence, $t^{\alpha_i + \alpha_j + e} = t^{\alpha_k + e} \in I$. This is a contradiction.
We now consider the exact sequence $0 \to R/I \to I/t^eI \to I/(t^e) \to 0$, and get that $\operatorname{Ann}_RI/t^eI= I$. Hence $$\operatorname{Ann}_{R/(t^e)}I/t^eI = I/(t^e) \subseteq (0):_{R/(t^e)}\m.$$ Therefore, ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = \ell_R(I/(t^e)) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = n+{\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$, where $n=r - p+1$. For $n=0$, just take $I=R$.
With the same notation as in the proof of Proposition \[2.3.2\], let ${\mathrm{K}}_R$ denote the canonical module of $R$ and consider the ideal $I = (t^e)+(t^{\alpha_j + e} \mid p \le j \le r)$. Then, because $I^2 = t^eI$ and $\m I=\m t^e$, by [@GMP Proposition 6.1] $R \ltimes I^\vee$ is an almost Gorenstein local ring, where $I^\vee = \Hom_R(I, {\mathrm{K}}_R)$. Since $\operatorname{Ann}_RI^\vee/t^eI^\vee= \operatorname{Ann}_R I/t^eI$, we get $${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I^\vee) = (r-p+1) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I^\vee)= (r-p+1) + \mu_R(I),$$ so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I^\vee) = 2r-2p +3$.
\[2.3.3\] With the same notation as in Proposition $\ref{2.3.2}$, assume that $a_1<a_2<\cdots <a_\ell$, and that $H$ is minimally generated by $\ell$ elements with $\ell = a_1 \ge 2$, that is $R$ has maximal embedding dimension $\ell \ge 2$. Let $2 \le p \le \ell$ be an integer and set $I_p = (t^{a_1})+(t^{a_p},t^{a_{p+1}},\ldots, t^{a_\ell})$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I_p)= (\ell-p+1) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)$, and $${\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)= \begin{cases}
\ell &\text{if $p=2$} \\
\ell-1 &\text{if $p \ge 3$}
\end{cases}$$ for each $2 \le p \le \ell$.
Let $e = a_1$ and $r = {\mathrm{r}}(R)$. Hence ${\mathrm{r}}(R) = e -1$. Let $1 \le i,j \le \ell$ be integers. Then $i=j$ if $a_i \equiv a_j$ $\mod$ $e$, because $H$ is minimally generated by $\{a_i\}_{1 \le i \le \ell}$. Therefore, $\operatorname{PF}(H) = \{a_2-e < a_3-e < \cdots < a_{e}-e\}$, so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I_p) = ( e-p+1) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)$ by Proposition \[2.3.2\]. To get ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I_p)$, by the proof of Example \[2.3.1\] it suffices to show that $\m {\cdot}(t^{a_p}, t^{a_{p+1}}, \ldots, t^{a_\ell}) \subseteq t^{a_1}I$, which follows from Claim \[claim 1\] in the proof of Proposition \[2.3.2\].
In the following two sections, Sections 3 and 4, we explore the extremal cases where ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R)+\rm_R(M)$, respectively.
Residually faithful modules and the case where ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$
==============================================================================================
Let $(R,\m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring with $d = \dim R \ge 0$. In this section, we consider the case of Theorem \[pro1\] (1), that is ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$. Let us begin with the following.
\[1.5.1\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. We say that $M$ is [*residually faithful*]{}, if $M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$ is a faithful $R/{\mathfrak{q}}$-module for some parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$.
With this definition, Theorem \[pro1\] (1) assures the following.
\[1.5.2\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) ={\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
2. $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
3. $M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$ is a faithful $R/{\mathfrak{q}}$-module for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$.
For $R$-modules $M$ and $N$, let $$t= t_{N}^M: \Hom_R(M,N)\otimes_R M \to N$$ denote the $R$-linear map defined by $t(f\otimes m)=f(m)$ for all $f \in \Hom_R(M,N)$ and $m \in M$. With this notation, we have the following.
\[1.5.3\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Let $C = \Coker~t_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}^M$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) + \mu_R(C).$$
We set $K = {\mathrm{K}}_R$ and $A = R\ltimes M$. Let us make the $R$-module $M^\vee \times K$ into an $A$-module on which the $A$-action is defined by $$(a,m)\circ (f,x) = (af, f(m) +ax)$$ for each $(a,m) \in A$ and $(f,x) \in M^\vee \times K$. Then $M^\vee \times K \cong \Hom_R(A,K)$ as an $A$-module. Therefore, ${\mathrm{K}}_A = M^\vee \times K$, the canonical module of $A$ ([@GGHV Section 6, Augmented rings] or [@GK Section 2]). Let $\n = \m \times M$ denote the maximal ideal of $A$ and $L = \operatorname{Im} t_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}^M$. Then, since $\n (M^\vee \times {\mathrm{K}}_R) = \m M^\vee \times (L + \m {\mathrm{K}}_R)$, we get
$$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{r}}(A)&=\mu_A({\mathrm{K}}_A)\\
&=\ell_A([M^\vee \times K]/[\m M^\vee \times (L + \m K)]\\
&=\ell_R([M^\vee \oplus K]/[\m M^\vee \oplus (L + \m K)] \\
&= \ell_R(M^\vee/\m M^\vee) + \ell_R(K/(L + \m K))\\
&= \mu_R(M^\vee) + \mu_R(C)\\
&= {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) + \mu_R(C).\\
\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[1.5.3\] covers [@BV Proposition 5.2]. In fact, we have the following, where the equivalence of Conditions (1) and (3) follows from Proposition \[1.5.2\], and the equivalence of Conditions (1) and (2) follows from Theorem \[1.5.3\].
\[1.4\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
2. The homomorphism $t_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}^M : \Hom_R(M, {\mathrm{K}}_R) \otimes_RM \to {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is surjective.
3. $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
We note one example of residually faithful modules $M$ such that $M \not\cong R, {\mathrm{K}}_R$.
Let $k[[t]]$ be the formal power series ring over a field $k$ and consider $R= k[[t^9, t^{10}, t^{11}, t^{12}, t^{15}]]$ in $k[[t]]$. Then ${\mathrm{K}}_R=R + Rt+Rt^3+Rt^4$ and $\mu_R({\mathrm{K}}_R)=4$. Let $I = R + Rt$. Then the homomorphism $t^I_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}: \Hom_R(I,{\mathrm{K}}_R) \otimes_R I \to {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is an isomorphism of $R$-modules, so that $I$ is a residually faithful $R$-module, but $I \not\cong R, {\mathrm{K}}_R$, since $\mu_R(I) = 2$.
Here we notice that Corollary \[1.4\] recovers the theorem of Reiten [@R] on Gorenstein modules. In fact, with the same notation as in Corollary \[1.4\], suppose that $R \ltimes M$ is a Gorenstein ring and let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$. Then, since ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M)=1$, Corollary \[1.4\] implies that $\overline{M}=M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$ is a faithful module over the Artinian local ring $\overline{R}=R/{\mathfrak{q}}$ with ${\mathrm{r}}_{\overline{R}}(\overline{M})=1$. Therefore, $\overline{M}$ is the injective envelope ${\mathrm{E}}_{\overline{R}}(R/\m)$ of the residue class field $R/\m$ of $\overline{R}$, so that $M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is the canonical module (that is a Gorenstein module of rank one) of $R$.
Residually faithful modules enjoy good properties. Let us summarize some of them.
\[1.5.4\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. Then the following assertions hold true.
1. Let $a \in \m$ be a non-zerodivisor of $R$. Then $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module if and only if so is the $R/(a)$-module $M/aM$.
2. Let $(S,\n)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring and let $\varphi : R \to S$ denote a flat local homomorphism of local rings. Then $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module if and only if so is the $S$-module $S \otimes_RM$. Therefore, $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module if and only if so is the $\widehat{R}$-module $\widehat{M}$, where $\widehat{*}$ denotes the $\m$-adic completion.
3. Suppose that $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module. Then $M$ is a faithful $R$-module and $M_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a residually faithful $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$-module for every ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \Spec R$.
\(1) This directly follows from Proposition \[1.5.2\].
\(2) We set $n = \dim S/\m S$ and $L = S \otimes_RM$. Firstly, suppose that $n = 0$. Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$ and set ${\mathfrak{a}}= {\mathrm{Ann}}_RM/{\mathfrak{q}}M$. Then ${\mathfrak{a}}S = {\mathrm{Ann}}_S(L/{\mathfrak{q}}L)$. If ${\mathfrak{a}}= {\mathfrak{q}}$, then ${\mathfrak{q}}S = {\mathrm{Ann}}_SL/{\mathfrak{q}}L$, so that $L$ is a residually faithful $S$-module, since ${\mathfrak{q}}S$ is a parameter ideal of $S$. Conversely, suppose that $L$ is a residually faithful $S$-module. We then have ${\mathfrak{a}}S = {\mathfrak{q}}S$ by Proposition \[1.5.2\], so that ${\mathfrak{a}}= {\mathfrak{q}}$, and $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
We now assume that $n >0$ and that Assertion (2) holds true for $n-1$. Let $g \in \n$ and suppose that $g$ is $S/\m S$-regular. Then $g$ is $S$-regular and the composite homomorphism $$R \to S \to S/gS$$ remains flat and local, so that $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module if and only if so is the $S/gS$-module $L/gL$. Since $\dim S/(gS + \m S) = n-1$, the latter condition is, by Assertion (1), equivalent to saying that $L$ is a residually faithful $S$-module.
\(3) Let $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_d$ be a system of parameters of $R$. We then have by Proposition \[1.5.2\] $${\mathrm{Ann}}_RM \subseteq {\mathrm{Ann}}_RM/(a_1^n, a_2^n, \ldots, a_d^n)M =(a_1^n, a_2^n, \ldots, a_d^n)$$ for all $n >0$. Therefore, $M$ is a faithful $R$-module. Let ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \Spec R$ and choose $P \in \Min_{\widehat{R}}\widehat{R}/{\mathfrak{p}}\widehat{R}$. Then, ${\mathfrak{p}}= P \cap R$, and we get a flat local homomorphism $R_{\mathfrak{p}}\to \widehat{R}_P$ of local rings such that $\dim \widehat{R}_P/{\mathfrak{p}}\widehat{R}_P= 0$. Therefore, to see that $M_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a residually faithful $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$-module, by Assertion (1) it suffices to show that $\widehat{M}_P$ is a residually faithful $\widehat{R}_P$-module. Consequently, because $\widehat{M}$ is a residually faithful $\widehat{R}$-module by Assertion (1), passing to the $\m$-adic completion $\widehat{R}$ of $R$, without loss of generality we may assume that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Then, the current assertion readily follows from Corollary \[1.4\], because $${\mathrm{K}}_{R_{\mathfrak{p}}}= ({\mathrm{K}}_R)_{\mathfrak{p}}= \left(\operatorname{Im} t_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}^M\right)_{\mathfrak{p}}= \operatorname{Im} t_{{\mathrm{K}}_{R_{\mathfrak{p}}}}^{M_{\mathfrak{p}}}.$$
By Proposition \[1.5.4\], we have the following.
Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. If ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, then ${\mathrm{r}}(R_{\mathfrak{p}}\ltimes M_{\mathfrak{p}}) = {\mathrm{r}}_{R_{\mathfrak{p}}}(M_{\mathfrak{p}})$ for every ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \Spec R$.
Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module, and suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. If $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module, then so is $M^\vee$.
We may assume that $d >0$ and that our assertion holds true for $d-1$. Let $a\in \m$ be a non-zerodivisor of $R$ and let $\overline{*}$ denote the reduction mod $(a)$. We then have $\overline{M^\vee} \cong \Hom_{\overline{R}}(\overline{M}, \overline{{\mathrm{K}}_R})=\overline{M}^\vee$, where we identify $\overline{{\mathrm{K}}_R} = {\mathrm{K}}_{\overline{R}}$. Because by Proposition \[1.5.4\] (3), $\overline{M}$ is a residually faithful $\overline{R}$-module, by the hypothesis of induction we have $\overline{M}^\vee = \Hom_{\overline{R}}(\overline{M}, {\mathrm{K}}_{\overline{R}})$ is a residually faithful $\overline{R}$-module, whence Proposition \[1.5.4\] (1) shows that $M^\vee$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
Suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Then, certain residually faithful $R$-modules $M$ satisfy the condition $\Hom_R(M,{\mathrm{K}}_R)\otimes_RM \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$, as we show in the following. Recall that a finitely generated $R$-module $C$ is called [*semidualizing*]{}, if the natural homomorphism $R \to \Hom_R(C,C)$ is an isomorphism and $\Ext^i_R(C,C) = (0)$ for all $i > 0$. Hence, the canonical module is semidualizing, and all the semidualizing $R$-modules satisfy the hypothesis in Theorem \[3.9\], because semidualizing modules are Cohen-Macaulay.
\[3.9\] Suppose that $R$ possesses the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$ and let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. If $R\cong \Hom_R(M,M)$ and $\Ext_R^i(M,M) = (0)$ for all $1 \le i \le d$, then the homomorphism $$M^\vee \otimes_RM \overset{t}{\to} {\mathrm{K}}_R$$ is an isomorphism of $R$-modules, where $t = t^M_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}$.
Notice that $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module. In fact, the assertion is clear, if $d = 0$. Suppose that $d > 0$ and let $f \in \m$ be a non-zerodivisor of $R$. We set $\overline{R} = R/(f)$ and denote $\overline{*}=\overline{R} \otimes_R*$. Then, since $f$ is regular also for $M$, we have $\Ext_R^i(M,\overline{M}) = \Ext_{\overline{R}}^i(\overline{M}, \overline{M})$ for all $i \in \Bbb Z$, and it is standard to show that $\overline{R} \cong \Hom_{\overline{R}}(\overline{M},\overline{M})$ and that $\Ext_{\overline{R}}^i(\overline{M},\overline{M}) = (0)$ for all $1 \le i \le d-1$. Therefore, by induction on $d$, we may assume that $\overline{M}$ is a residually faithful $\overline{R}$-module, whence Proposition \[1.5.4\] (1) implies that so is the $R$-module $M$.
We now consider the exact sequence $$(E) \ \ \ 0 \to X \to M^\vee \otimes_RM \overset{t}{\to} {\mathrm{K}}_R \to 0$$ of $R$-modules, where $t = t^M_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}$. If $d = 0$, then because $$\Hom_R(M^\vee \otimes_RM, {\mathrm{K}}_R) = \Hom_R(M, M^{\vee \vee}) = \Hom_R(M,M),$$ taking the ${\mathrm{K}}_R$-dual of $(E)$, we get the exact sequence $$0 \to R \to \Hom_R(M,M) \to X^\vee \to 0.$$ Hence $X^\vee = (0)$ because $R \cong \Hom_R(M,M)$, so that $M^\vee \otimes_RM \overset{t}{\to} {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is an isomorphism. Suppose that $d >0$ and let $f \in \m$ be $R$-regular. We denote $\overline{*} = R/(f)\otimes_R*$. Then since $f$ is ${\mathrm{K}}_R$-regular, we get from Exact sequence $(E)$ $$(\overline{E})\ \ \ 0 \to \overline{X} \to \overline{M^\vee \otimes_RM} \overset{\overline{t}}{\to} \overline{{\mathrm{K}}_R} \to 0.$$ Because $\overline{{\mathrm{K}}_R} = {\mathrm{K}}_{\overline{R}}$, $\overline{M^\vee \otimes_RM} = \overline{M}^\vee \otimes_{\overline{R}}\overline {M}$, and $\overline{t} = t^{{\mathrm{K}}_{\overline{R}}}_{\overline{M}}$, by induction on $d$ we see in the above exact sequence $(\overline{E})$ that $\overline{X}= (0)$, whence $X = (0)$ by Nakayama’s lemma. Therefore, $M^\vee \otimes_RM \overset{t}{\to} {\mathrm{K}}_R$ is an isomorphism.
Therefore, we have the following, which guarantees that the converse of Theorem \[3.9\] also holds true, if $R_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is a Gorenstein ring for every ${\mathfrak{p}}\in \Spec R \setminus \{\m\}$. See [@GT Proposition 2.4] for details.
With the same hypothesis of Theorem $\ref{3.9}$, one has ${\mathrm{r}}(R)={\mathrm{r}}_R(M){\cdot}\mu_R(M)$. Consequently, the following assertions hold true.
1. If ${\mathrm{r}}(R)$ is a prime number, then $M\cong R$ or $M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$.
2. If $R$ is a Gorenstein ring, then $M \cong R$.
Let us note the following.
Suppose that $R$ is an integral domain, possessing the canonical module ${\mathrm{K}}_R$. Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and assume that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = 2$. If $\Ext_R^i(M,M)=(0)$ for all $1 \le i \le d$, then $$M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R^{\oplus 2}\ \ \text{or}\ \ M^\vee \otimes_RM \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R.$$ Therefore, if ${\mathrm{r}}(R)$ is a prime number and $M$ is indecomposable, then ${\mathrm{r}}(R)=2$ and $M \cong R$.
Let $C = \operatorname{Coker}t^M_{{\mathrm{K}}_R}$. Then, ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M)= \mu_R(C)=1$, or ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M)= 2$ and $C=(0)$, since ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) +\mu_R(C)$ by Theorem \[1.5.3\]. If ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M)=1$, then $M^\vee \cong R$, since the cyclic module $M^\vee$ is of dimension $d$ and $R$ is an integral domain. Therefore, $M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$, so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = 1$, which is impossible. Hence, ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = 2$, and $M$ is, by Proposition \[1.5.2\], a residually faithful $R$-module. Let us take a presentation $$0 \to X \to R^{\oplus 2} \to M^\vee \to 0$$ of $M^\vee$. If $X = (0)$, then $M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R^{\oplus 2}$. Suppose that $X \ne (0)$. Then, $X$ is a MCM $R$-module, and taking the ${\mathrm{K}}_R$-dual of the presentation, we get the exact sequence $$0 \to M \to {\mathrm{K}}_R^{\oplus 2} \to X^\vee \to 0.$$ Let $F = {\mathrm{Q}}(R)$. Then $F \otimes_RX^\vee \ne (0)$, since $X^\vee$ is a MCM $R$-module. Consequently, $F \otimes_RM \cong F$, that is $\rank_RM=1$, because $F \otimes_R{\mathrm{K}}_R \cong F$. Hence, in the canonical exact sequence $$(E)\ \ \ 0 \to L \to M^\vee \otimes_RM \overset{t}{\to} {\mathrm{K}}_R \to 0,$$ $F \otimes_RL=(0)$, because $\rank_RM=1$. Consequently, because the $R$-module $L$ is torsion, taking the ${\mathrm{K}}_R$-dual of the sequence $(E)$ we get the isomorphism $$R = {\mathrm{K}}_R^\vee \to [M^\vee \otimes M]^\vee = \Hom_R(M,M).$$ Thus, $M^\vee \otimes_RM \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$ by Theorem \[3.9\].
If $M$ is indecomposable and ${\mathrm{r}}(R)$ is a prime number, we then have $M \cong R$ or $M \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$, while ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = 2$, so that $M \cong R$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R) = 2$.
The following result is essentially due to [@T Lemma 3.1] (see also [@K Proof of Lemma 2.2]). We include a brief proof for the sake of completeness.
\[1.4.1\] Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module and assume that there is an embedding $$(E)\ \ \ 0 \to M \to F \to N \to 0$$ of $M$ into a finitely generated free $R$-module $F$ such that $N$ is a MCM $R$-module. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. $M$ is a residually faithful $R$-module.
2. $M \not\subseteq \m F$.
3. $R$ is a direct summand of $M$.
\(3) $\Rightarrow$ (1) and (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3) These are clear.
\(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2) Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$. Then, since $N$ is a MCM $R$-module, Embedding (E) gives rise to the exact sequence $$0 \to M/{\mathfrak{q}}M \to F/{\mathfrak{q}}F \to N/{\mathfrak{q}}N \to 0.$$ Notice that ${\mathrm{Ann}}_{R/{\mathfrak{q}}}\m{\cdot}(F/{\mathfrak{q}}F) \ne (0)$ because $\dim R/{\mathfrak{q}}= 0$, and we have $M/{\mathfrak{q}}M \not \subseteq \m{\cdot}(F/{\mathfrak{q}}F)$. Thus $M \not\subseteq \m F$.
Let $\operatorname{\Omega CM}(R)$ denote the class of MCM $R$-modules $M$ such that there is an embedding $0 \to M \to F \to N \to 0$ of $M$ into a finitely generated free $R$-module with $N$ a MCM $R$-module. With this notation, we have the following.
\[1.4.2\] Let $M \in \operatorname{\Omega CM}(R)$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = \begin{cases}
{\mathrm{r}}_R(M) &\text{if $R$ is a direct summand of $M$}, \\
{\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) &\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
We may assume that $R$ is not a direct summand of $M$. Let us choose an embedding $$0 \to M \to F \to N \to 0$$ of $M$ into a finitely generated free $R$-module $F$ such that $N$ is a MCM $R$-module. Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$ and set $I = {\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m$. Then, since $M \subseteq \m F$ by Lemma \[1.4.1\], we have from the exact sequence $$0 \to M/{\mathfrak{q}}M \to F/{\mathfrak{q}}F \to N/{\mathfrak{q}}N \to 0$$ that $I{\cdot}(M/{\mathfrak{q}}M )\subseteq (I\m){\cdot}(F/{\mathfrak{q}}F) = (0)$. Therefore, $IM \subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}M$, so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ by Theorem \[pro1\] (2).
If $R$ is a Gorenstein ring, every MCM $R$-module $M$ belongs to $\operatorname{\Omega CM}(R)$, so that Theorem \[1.4.2\] yields the following.
\[gor\] Let $R$ be a Gorenstein ring and $M$ a MCM $R$-module. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) ={\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
2. $R$ is a direct summand of $M$.
Ulrich modules and the case where ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$
===================================================================================================
Let $(R,\m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension $d \ge 0$. In this section, we study the other extremal case of Theorem \[pro1\] (2), that is ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M)={\mathrm{r}}(R)+{\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$. We already have a partial answer by Theorem \[1.4.2\], and the following also shows that over a non-regular Cohen-Macaulay local ring $(R,\m, k)$, there are plenty of MCM $R$-modules $M$ such that ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$.
Let $\Omega_R^i(k)$ denote, for each $i \ge 0$, the $i$-th syzygy module of the simple $R$-module $k=R/\m$ in its minimal free resolution. Notice that, thanks to Theorem \[1.4.2\], the crucial case in Theorem \[1.5.1\] is actually the case where $i = d$.
\[1.5.1\] Suppose that $R$ is not a regular local ring. Then $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m){\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k) = {\mathfrak{q}}{\cdot} \Omega_R^i(k)$ for every $i \ge d$ and for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$. Therefore $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes \Omega_R^i(k)) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(\Omega_R^i(k))$$ for all $i \ge d$.
We may assume that $d >0$ and that the assertion holds true for $d-1$. Choose $a \in \m \setminus \m^2$ so that $a$ is a non-zerodivisor of $R$. We set $\overline{R}= R/(a)$ and $\overline{\m}= \m/(a)$. We then have, for each $i >0$, the isomorphism $$\Omega^i_R(k)/a{\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k) \cong \Omega_{\overline{R}}^{i-1}(k) \oplus \Omega_{\overline{R}}^i(k).$$ We now choose elements $a_2, a_3, \ldots, a_d$ of $\m$ so that ${\mathfrak{q}}_0 = (a, a_2, a_3, \ldots, a_d)$ is a parameter ideal of $R$ and set $\overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0} = {\mathfrak{q}}_0/(a)$. Then, by the hypothesis of induction, we have $$(\overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0} :_{\overline{R}} \overline{\m}){\cdot}\Omega_{\overline{R}}^i(k) = \overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0}{\cdot}\Omega_{\overline{R}}^i(k)$$ for all $i \ge d-1$, so that $$(\overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0} :_{\overline{R}} \overline{\m}){\cdot} \left[\Omega^i_R(k)/a{\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k)\right] = \overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0}{\cdot} \left[\Omega^i_R(k)/a{\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k)\right]$$ for all $i \ge d$. Hence, because $\overline{{\mathfrak{q}}_0}:_{\overline{R}}\overline{\m}= ({\mathfrak{q}}_0:_R\m)/(a)$, $$({\mathfrak{q}}_0:_R\m){\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k) = {\mathfrak{q}}_0{\cdot} \Omega_R^i(k)$$ for all $i \ge d$. Therefore, by Theorem \[pro1\] (2), $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m){\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k) = {\mathfrak{q}}{\cdot} \Omega_R^i(k)$ for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$, because $\Omega^i_R(k)$ is a MCM $R$-module.
Let us pose one question.
\[1.5.1a\] Suppose that $R$ is not a regular local ring. Does the equality $$({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m){\cdot}\Omega^i_R(k) = {\mathfrak{q}}{\cdot} \Omega_R^i(k)$$ hold true for every $i \ge 0$ and for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$? As is shown in Theorem \[1.5.1\], this is the case, if $i \ge d=\dim R$. Hence, the answer is affirmative, if $d = 2$ ([@CP]).
Let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. Then we say that $M$ is an [*Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$*]{}, if $\mu_R(M) = {\mathrm{e}}^0_\m(M)$ (see [@BHU], where the different terminology MGMCM (maximally generated MCM module) is used). Ulrich modules play an important role in the representation theory of local and graded algebras. See [@GOTWY1; @GOTWY2] for a generalization of Ulrich modules, which later we shall be back to. Here, let us note that a MCM $R$-module $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$ if and only if $\m M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$ for some (hence, every) minimal reduction ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $\m$, provided the residue class field $R/\m$ of $R$ is infinite (see, e.g., [@GTT Proposition 2.2]). We refer to [@KT Theorem A] for the ample existence of Ulrich modules with respect to $\m$ over certain two-dimensional normal local rings $(R,\m)$.
\[1.2\] Suppose that $R$ is not a regular local ring and let $M$ be a MCM $R$-module. We set $A = R \ltimes M$. If $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$, then ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M)=\mu_R(M)$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, so that $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R \m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$ for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$. When $R$ has maximal embedding dimension in the sense of [@S], the converse is also true.
Enlarging the residue class field of $R$ if necessary, we may assume that $R/\m$ is infinite. Let us choose elements $f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_d$ of $\m$ so that ${\mathfrak{q}}= (f_1, f_2, \ldots, f_d)$ is a reduction of $\m$. Then, ${\mathfrak{q}}$ is a parameter ideal of $R$, and $\m M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$, since $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$ ([@GTT Proposition 2.2]). We then have ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = \mu_R(M)$, and ${\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m\subseteq \m$, because $R$ is not a regular local ring. Hence, $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$, because $${\mathfrak{q}}M \subseteq ({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M \subseteq \m M = {\mathfrak{q}}M.$$ Thus, ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ by Theorem \[pro1\].
Assume that $R$ has maximal embedding dimension and we will show that the converse also holds true. We have $\m^2 = {\mathfrak{q}}\m$ for some parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$, so that $\m = {\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m$, because $R$ is not a regular local ring. If ${\mathrm{r}}(A) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, we then have $$\m M = ({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m)M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$$ by Theorem \[pro1\] (2), whence $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$.
\[1.3\] Unless $R$ has maximal embedding dimension, the second assertion in Theorem \[1.2\] is not necessarily true. For example, let $(R,\m)$ be a one-dimensional Gorenstein local ring. Assume that $R$ is not a DVR. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes \m) = 3 = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(\m)$ (see Proposition \[typem\] and Corollary \[2.3a\] below), while $\m$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$ itself if and only if $\m^2 = a \m$ for some $a \in \m$. The last condition is equivalent to saying that ${\mathrm{e}}(R)=2$.
We note one more example, for which the both cases ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ are possible, choosing different MCM modules $M$.
Let $R = k[[X,Y,Z]]/(Z^2-XY)$, where $k[[X,Y,Z]]$ denotes the formal power series ring over a field $k$. Then, the indecomposable MCM $R$-modules are ${\mathfrak{p}}= (x,z)$ and $R$, up-to isomorphisms (here, by $x,y, z$ we denote the images of $X,Y, Z$ in $R$, respectively). Since ${\mathfrak{p}}$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$, by Theorem \[1.2\] we have ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes {\mathfrak{p}}) = 1 + {\mathrm{r}}_R({\mathfrak{p}}) = 3$. Let $M$ be an arbitrary MCM $R$-module. Then, $M \cong {\mathfrak{p}}^{\oplus \ell} \oplus R^{\oplus n}$ for some integers $\ell, n \ge 0$, and $M/{\mathfrak{q}}M$ is a faithful $R/{\mathfrak{q}}$-module for the parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}=(x,y)$ if and only if $n >0$. Therefore, ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = 2\ell + n$ if $n >0$, while ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = 1+{\mathrm{r}}_R(M) =1+2\ell$ if $n=0$ (see Theorem \[pro1\]).
The generalized notion of Ulrich ideals and modules was introduced by [@GOTWY1]. We briefly review the definition. Let $I$ be an $\m$-primary ideal of $R$ and $M$ a MCM $R$-module. Suppose that $I$ contains a parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ as a reduction. We say that $M$ is an [*Ulrich $R$-module*]{} with respect to $I$, if ${\mathrm{e}}_I^0(M) = \ell_R(M/IM)$ and $M/IM$ is a free $R/I$-module. Notice that the first condition is equivalent to saying that $IM = {\mathfrak{q}}M$ and that the second condition is automatically satisfied, when $I = \m$. We say that $I$ is an [*Ulrich ideal*]{} of $R$, if $I \supsetneq {\mathfrak{q}}$, $I^2 = {\mathfrak{q}}I$, and $I/I^2$ is a free $R/I$-module. Notice that when $\dim R=1$, every Ulrich ideal of $R$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect itself. Ulrich modules and ideals are closely explored by [@GIK; @GOTWY1; @GOTWY2; @GTT2], and it is known that they enjoy very specific properties. For instance, the syzygy modules $\Omega_R^i(R/I)$ ($i \ge d$) for an Ulrich ideal $I$ are Ulrich $R$-modules with respect to $I$.
Let $I$ be an Ulrich ideal of $R$ and $M$ an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $I$. We set $\ell = \mu_R(M)$ and $m= \mu_R(I)$. Then $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)={\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R/I){\cdot}(\ell + m -d).$$
Let ${\mathfrak{q}}$ be a parameter ideal of $R$ such that $I^2 ={\mathfrak{q}}I$. Then $IM = {\mathfrak{q}}M$ because ${\mathrm{e}}_I^0(M) = \ell_R(M/IM)$, while $M/IM \cong (R/I)^{\oplus \ell}$ as an $R/I$-module. Therefore, since ${\mathrm{Ann}}_{R/{\mathfrak{q}}}M/{\mathfrak{q}}M = I/{\mathfrak{q}}$ and $I/{\mathfrak{q}}\cong (R/I)^{\oplus (m - d)}$ as an $R/I$-module ([@GOTWY1 Lemma 2.3]), we have by Proposition \[lemma1\] $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(I/{\mathfrak{q}}) + \ell{\cdot}{\mathrm{r}}(R/I)= {\mathrm{r}}(R/I) {\cdot}(m-d) + \ell{\cdot}{\mathrm{r}}(R/I) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M),$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that ${\mathrm{r}}(R) = (m-d){\cdot}{\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$ (see [@GTT2 Theorem 2.5]).
\[ulrich\] Suppose that $d=1$ and let $I$ be an Ulrich ideal of $R$ with $m = \mu_R(I)$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = (2m -1){\cdot}{\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$.
We note a few examples.
Let $k[[t]]$ be the formal power series ring over a field $k$.
1. Let $R = k[[t^3,t^7]]$. Then ${\mathcal{X}}_R= \{(t^6-at^7, t^{10}) \mid 0 \ne a \in k\}$ is exactly the set of Ulrich ideals of $R$. For all $I \in {\mathcal{X}}_R$, $R/I$ is a Gorenstein ring, so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I)= 3$ by Proposition \[ulrich\].
2. Let $R=k[[t^6, t^{13}, t^{28}]]$. Then the following families consist of Ulrich ideals of $R$ ([@GIK Example 5.7 (3)]):
1. $\{(t^6+ at^{13}) + {\mathfrak{c}}\mid a \in k\}$,
2. $\{(t^{12} + at^{13} + bt^{19}) + {\mathfrak{c}}\mid a, b \in k\}$, and
3. $\{(t^{18}+ at^{25}) + {\mathfrak{c}}\mid a \in k\}$,
where ${\mathfrak{c}}= (t^{24},t^{26},t^{28})$. We have $\mu_R(I) = 3$ and $R/I$ is a Gorenstein ring for all ideals $I$ in these families, whence ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I) = 5$.
Suppose that $\dim R =1$. If $R$ possesses maximal embedding dimension $v$ but not a DVR, then for every Ulrich ideal $I$ of $R$, $R/I$ is a Gorenstein ring, and $I$ is minimally generated by $v$ elements ([@GIK Corollary 3.2]). Therefore, by Corollary \[ulrich\], we get the following.
Suppose that $\dim R = 1$ and that $R$ is not a $\operatorname{DVR}$. If $R$ has maximal embedding dimension $v$, then ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I) = 2v -1$ for every Ulrich ideal $I$ of $R$.
Bounding the supremum $\sup {\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M)$
=====================================================
Let $r >0$ be an integer and set $${\mathcal{F}}_r(R) = \{M \mid M~\text{is~ an}~ R\text{-submodule~ of}~ R^{\oplus r}~\text{and~ a~ maximal~ Cohen-Macaulay}~ R\text{-module}\}.$$ We are now interested in the supremum $\underset{M \in {\mathcal{F}}_r(R)}{\sup} {\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M)$ and get the following.
Let $(R,\m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of multiplicity $e$ and let $M \in {\mathcal{F}}_r(R)$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + re.$ When $\m$ contains a parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$ as a reduction and $R$ is not a regular local ring, the equality holds if and only if $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$, possessing rank $r$.
Enlarging the residue class filed $R/\m$ of $R$ if necessary, without loss of generality we may assume that $\m$ contains a parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$ as a reduction. We then have $$r e \ge {\mathrm{e}}_{{\mathfrak{q}}}^0(M) = \ell_R(M/{\mathfrak{q}}M) \ge \ell_R((0):_{M/{\mathfrak{q}}M}\m) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M).$$ Hence $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M) \le {\mathrm{r}}(R) + r e.$$ Consequently, if ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R)+ re$, then $re = {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$, that is $re = {\mathrm{e}}^0_{\mathfrak{q}}(M)$ and $\ell_R(M/{\mathfrak{q}}M) = \ell_R((0):_{M/{\mathfrak{q}}M}\m)$, which is equivalent to saying that $\dim_RR^{\oplus r}/M < d$ and $\m M = {\mathfrak{q}}M$, that is $M$ has rank $r$ and an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$. Therefore, when $R$ is not a regular local ring, ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes M) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(M)$ if and only if $M$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with rank $r$ (see Theorem \[1.2\]).
\[5.2\] Suppose that $(R,\m)$ is a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension one and multiplicity $e$. Let ${\mathcal{F}}$ be the set of $\m$-primary ideals of $R$. Then $$\underset{I \in {\mathcal{F}}}{\sup}~{\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if $R$ is a $\operatorname{DVR}$,}\\
{\mathrm{r}}(R) + e & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
We have only to show the existence of an ${\mathfrak{m}}$-primary ideal $I$ such that $I$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$ and $\mu_R(I) = e$. This is known by [@BHU Lemma (2.1)]. For the sake of completeness, we note a different proof. Let $$A = \bigcup_{n>0} ({\mathfrak{m}}^n:{\mathfrak{m}}^n)$$ in ${\mathrm{Q}}(R)$. Then $A$ is a birational finite extension of $R$ (see [@Lipman]). Since $A \cong I$ for some $\m$-primary ideal $I$ of $R$, it suffices to show that $A$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$ and $\mu_R(A) = e$. To do this, enlarging the residue class field $R/\m$ of $R$ if necessary, we may assume that $\m$ contains an element $a$ such that $Q=(a)$ is a reduction of $\m$. Then $\m A = aA$ because $A = R[\frac{\m}{a}]$ ([@Lipman]), whence $A$ is an Ulrich $R$-module with respect to $\m$. We have $$\mu_R(A) = \ell_R(A/aA) = {\mathrm{e}}^0_{Q}(A) = {\mathrm{e}}_Q^0(R) = e$$ as wanted.
The case where $d=1$
====================
In this section, we focus our attention on the one-dimensional case. Let $(R,\m)$ be a Cohen-Macaulay local ring of dimension one, admitting a fractional canonical ideal $K$. Hence, $K$ is an $R$-submodule of $\overline{R}$ such that $K \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$ as an $R$-module and $R \subseteq K \subseteq \overline{R}$, where $\overline{R}$ denotes the integral closure of $R$ in the total ring ${\mathrm{Q}}(R)$ of fractions of $R$. The hypothesis about the existence of fractional canonical ideals $K$ is equivalent to saying that $R$ contains an $\m$-primary ideal $I$ such that $I \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$ as an $R$-module and such that $I$ possesses a reduction $Q=(a)$ generated by a single element $a$ of $R$ ([@GMP Corollary 2.8]). The latter condition is satisfied, once ${\mathrm{Q}}(\widehat{R})$ is a Gorenstein ring and the field $R/\m$ is infinite. We have ${\mathrm{r}}_R(M) = \mu_R\left(\Hom_R(M,K)\right)$ for every MCM $R$-module $M$ ([@HK Satz 6.10]). See [@GMP; @HK] for more details.
First of all, let us begin with the following review of a result of Brennan and Vasconcelos [@BV]. We include a brief proof.
\[2.3b\] Let $I$ be a fractional ideal of $R$ and set $I_1 = K:I$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. $I:I = R$.
2. $I_1{\cdot}I = K$.
3. $J{\cdot}I = K$ for some fractional ideal $J$ of $R$.
4. $I/fI$ is a faithful $R/fR$-module for every parameter $f$ of $R$.
5. $I/fI$ is a faithful $R/fR$-module for some parameter $f$ of $R$.
\(1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2) This follows from the facts that $K:I_1I = (K:I_1):I = I:I$, and that $K:K=R$. See [@HK Definition 2.4] and [@HK Bemerkung 2.5 a)], respectively.
\(3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) Since $JI=K$, we have $J \subseteq I_1 = K:I$, so that $K= JI \subseteq I_1I \subseteq K$, whence $I_1I=K$.
\(2) $\Rightarrow$ (3) This is clear.
Since $I_1 \cong \Hom_R(I,K)$, the assertion that $I_1I = K$ is equivalent to saying that the homomorphism $t^I_K :\Hom_R(I,K) \otimes_R I \to K$ is surjective. Therefore, the equivalence between Assertions (1), (4), (5) are special cases of Corollary \[1.4\] (see [@BV Proposition 5.2] also).
We say that a fractional ideal $I$ of $R$ is [*closed*]{}, if it satisfies the conditions stated in Proposition \[2.3b\]. Thanks to Proposition \[2.3b\] (3), we readily get the following.
\[2.4a\] If $R$ is a Gorenstein ring, then every closed ideal of $R$ is principal.
Assertion (2) of the following also follows from Corollary \[gor\]. Let us note a direct proof.
\[2.1\] Suppose that $R$ is a Gorenstein ring and let $I$ be an $\m$-primary ideal of $R$. Then the following assertions hold true.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R/I) \le {\mathrm{r}}_R(I) \le 1 + {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$,
2. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = 1 + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$, if $\mu_R(I) > 1$.
Take the $R$-dual of the canonical exact sequence $$0 \to I \to R \to R/I \to 0$$ of $R$-modules and we get the exact sequence $$0 \to R \to \Hom_R(I,R) \to \Ext_R^1(R/I,R) \to 0.$$ Hence, ${\mathrm{r}}(R/I) \le {\mathrm{r}}_R(I) \le 1 + {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$, because $${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = \mu_R(\Hom_R(I,R))\ \ \text{and}\ \ {\mathrm{r}}(R/I) = \mu_R(\Ext_R^1(R/I,R))$$ ([@HK Satz 6.10]). To see the second assertion, suppose that $\mu_R(I) > 1$. Let ${\mathfrak{q}}=(a)$ be a parameter ideal of $R$ and set $J = {\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m$. Let us write $J = (a,b)$. We then have $J = {\mathfrak{q}}: \m$, and $\m J = \m {\mathfrak{q}}$ by [@CP], because $R$ is not a DVR. On the other hand, by Corollary \[2.4a\] we have $R \subsetneq I : I$, since $R$ is a Gorenstein ring and $I$ is not principal. Consequently $$R \subseteq R : \m \subseteq I : I,$$ since $\ell_R([R:\m]/R)=1$. Therefore, $\frac{b}{a} \in I:I$, because $$R:\m = \frac{1}{a}{\cdot}[{\mathfrak{q}}: \m] = \frac{1}{a}{\cdot}(a,b) =R + R\frac{b}{a}.$$ Thus $bI \subseteq aI$, which shows $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m) I =(a,b)I \subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}I$, so that $${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = 1 + {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$$ by Theorem \[pro1\] (2).
\[2.2\] In Theorem \[2.1\] (1), the equality ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) =1+ {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$ does not necessarily hold true. For instance, consider the ideal $I = (t^8,t^9)$ in the Gorenstein local ring $R=k[[t^4,t^5,t^6]]$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R/I) = 2$. Because $t^{-4} \in R : I$, we have $1 \in \m{\cdot}[R : I]$, which shows, identifying $R:I = \Hom_R(I,R)$ in the proof of Assertion (2) of Theorem \[2.1\], that $\mu_R(\Hom_R(I, R)) = \mu_R(\Ext_R^1(R/I,R))$. Hence ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = {\mathrm{r}}(R/I) = 2$, while ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = 3$ by Theorem \[2.1\] (2).
We however have ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) =1+ {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$ for trace ideals $I$, as we show in the following. Let $I$ be an ideal of $R$. Then $I$ is said to be a [*trace ideal*]{} of $R$, if $$I = \Im \left(\Hom_R(M,R)\otimes_RM \overset{t^M_R}{\to} R\right)$$ for some $R$-module $M$. When $I$ contains a non-zerodivisor of $R$, $I$ is a trace ideal of $R$ if and only if $R:I=I:I$ (see [@L Lemma 2.3]). Therefore, $\m$-primary trace ideals are not principal.
\[2.3\] Suppose that $R$ is a Gorenstein ring. Let $I$ be an $\m$-primary trace ideal of $R$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = 1+ {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I)= 2 + {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$.
We have $1 \not\in \m {\cdot} [R:I]$, since $R:I = I : I \subseteq \overline{R}$. Therefore, thanks to the proof of Assertion (2) in Theorem \[2.1\], ${\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = 1 + {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$, so that ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I) = 2 + {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$ by Theorem \[2.1\] (2).
\[2.11\] Let $R=k[[t^4, t^5, t^6]]$. Then $R$ is a Gorenstein ring and $$R, \ (t^{8}, t^{9}, t^{10}, t^{11}),\ (t^{6}, t^{8}, t^{9}),\ (t^{5}, t^{6}, t^{8}),\ (t^{4}, t^{5}, t^{6}), \ \left\{ I_a=(t^{4}-at^5, t^{6})\right\}_{a \in k}$$ are all the non-zero trace ideals of $R$. We have $I_a=I_b$, only if $a= b$.
\[typem\] Suppose that $R$ is a not a $\mathrm{DVR}$. Then $\m$ is a trace ideal of $R$ with ${\mathrm{r}}_R(\m) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) +1$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes \m) = 2{\cdot}{\mathrm{r}}(R) + 1$.
We have $\m :\m = R : \m$, because $R$ is not a DVR, whence $\m$ is a trace ideal of $R$. We take the $K$-dual of the sequence $0 \to \m \to R \to R/\m \to0$ and consider the resulting exact sequence $$0 \to K \to K : \m \to \Ext_R^1(R/\m,K) \to 0.$$ Then, since $\Ext_R^1(R/\m,K)\cong R/\m$, we get $${\mathrm{r}}_R(\m) = \mu_R(K:\m) \le \mu_R(K)+1 = {\mathrm{r}}(R)+1.$$ We actually have the equality in the estimation $$\mu_R(K:\m) \le \mu_R(K)+1.$$ To see this, it is enough to show that $\m (K:\m) = \m K$. We have $$K : \m(K:\m) = [K:(K:\m)]:\m =\m :\m$$ and $$K:\m K = (K:K):\m = R :\m.$$ Therefore, since $\m :\m = R : \m$, we get $K : \m(K:\m) = K : \m K$, so that $\m (K:\m) = \m K$. Hence ${\mathrm{r}}_R(\m) = \mu_R(K:\m) = \mu_R(K)+1 = {\mathrm{r}}(R)+1$ as wanted. We have ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes \m) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + {\mathrm{r}}_R(\m)$ by Theorem \[pro1\] (2), because $({\mathfrak{q}}:_R\m){\cdot} \m = {\mathfrak{q}}{\cdot} \m$ for every parameter ideal ${\mathfrak{q}}$ of $R$ ([@CP]; see Theorem \[1.5.1\] also), whence the second assertion follows.
\[2.3a\] Let $R$ be a Gorenstein ring which is not a $\mathrm{DVR}$. Then $R \ltimes \m$ is an almost Gorenstein ring in the sense of [@GMP], possessing ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes \m) = 3$.
See [@GMP Theorem 6.5] for the assertion that $R \ltimes \m$ is an almost Gorenstein ring.
Let us give one more result on closed ideals.
\[2.5\] Let $I \subsetneq R$ be a closed ideal of $R$ and set $I_1 =K : I$. Then ${\mathrm{r}}(R/I) = \mu_R(I_1) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$.
We consider the exact sequence $0 \to K \to I_1 \to \Ext_R^1(R/I,K) \to 0$. It suffices to show $K \subseteq \m I_1$. We have $K :\m I_1 = (K:I_1) : \m$, while $(K:I_1):\m = I:\m \subseteq I:I = R = K : K$. Hence $\m I_1 \supseteq K$ and the assertion follows.
Combining Corollary \[1.4\], Proposition \[2.3b\], and Proposition \[2.5\], we have the following, which is the goal of this paper.
\[2.6\] Let $I$ be a fractional ideal of $R$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
1. ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I)= {\mathrm{r}}_R(I)$.
2. $I$ is a closed ideal of $R$.
When this is the case, ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes I) = {\mathrm{r}}(R/I)$, if $I \subsetneq R$.
We close this paper with the following example.
\[2.7\] Let $k$ be a field. Let $R = k[[t^3,t^4,t^5]]$ and set $I = (t^3, t^4)$. Then $I \cong {\mathrm{K}}_R$, and $I$ is a closed ideal of $R$ with ${\mathrm{r}}(R)=2$ and ${\mathrm{r}}(R\ltimes I) = {\mathrm{r}}_R(I) = 1$. We have ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes J ) = 1 + {\mathrm{r}}_R(J) =3$ for $J = (t^3,t^5)$. The maximal ideal $\m$ of $R$ is an Ulrich $R$-module, and ${\mathrm{r}}(R \ltimes \m) = 2 + {\mathrm{r}}_R(\m) = 5$ by Theorem \[1.2\], since ${\mathrm{r}}_R(\m) = {\mathrm{r}}(R) + 1=3$ by Proposition \[typem\]. See Corollary \[2.3.3\] for more details.
[10]{}
, Idealization of a module, [*J. Commut. Algebra*]{}, [**1**]{} (2009), 3-56
, Maximally generated maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules, [*Math. Scand.*]{}, [**61**]{} (1987), no. 2, 181–203.
, On the structure of closed ideals, [*Math. Scand.*]{}, [**88**]{} (2001), 3–16.
, Links of prime ideals and their Rees algebras, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**178**]{} (1995), no. 1, 224–238.
, Invariants of Cohen-Macaulay rings associated to their canonical ideals, [*J. Algebra*]{} (to appear).
, Chains of Ulrich ideals in one-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay local rings, Preprint 2018.
, When is $R \ltimes I$ an almost Gorenstein ring?, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., [**146**]{} (2018), 1431–1437.
, Almost Gorenstein rings, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**379**]{} (2013), 355–381.
, Ulrich ideals and modules, [*Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{}, [**156**]{} (2014), 137–166.
, Ulrich ideals and modules over two-dimensional rational singularities, [*Nagoya Math. J.*]{}, [**221**]{} (2016), 69–110.
, On the Auslander-Reiten conjecture for Cohen-Macaulay local rings, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**145**]{} (2017), 3289–3296.
, Huneke-Wiegand conjecture and change of rings, [*J. Algebra,* ]{}, [**422**]{} (2015), 33–52.
, Almost Gorenstein rings - towards a theory of higher dimension, [*J. Pure and Applied Algebra*]{}, [**219**]{} (2015), 2666–2712.
, Ulrich ideals and almost Gorenstein rings, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**144**]{} (2016), 2811–2823.
, Der kanonische Modul eines-Cohen-Macaulay-Rings, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, [**238**]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1971.
, On delta invariants and indices of ideals, arXiv:1705.05042.
, Ulrich modules over Cohen-Macaulay local rings with minimal multiplicity, arXiv:1711.00652.
, Self-injective commutative rings have no nontrivial rigid ideals, arXiv:1710.01793v2.
, Stable ideals and Arf rings, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{}, [**93**]{} (1971), 649–685.
, Local Rings, [*Interscience*]{}, 1962.
, The converse of a theorem of Sharp on Gorenstein modules, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, [**32**]{} (1972), 417-420.
, Cohen-Macaulay local rings of maximal embedding dimension, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**56**]{} (1979), 168–183.
, Numbers of generators of ideals in local rings, [*Lecture notes in pure and applied mathematics*]{}, [**35**]{}, M. Dekker, 1978.
, Syzygy modules with semidualizing or G-projective summands, [*J. Algebra*]{}, [**295**]{} (2006), no. 1, 179–194.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The construction of the Cosmicflows-2 compendium of distances involves the merging of distance measures contributed by the following methods: (Cepheid) Period-Luminosity, Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB), Surface Brightness Fluctuation (SBF), Luminosity-Linewidth (TF), Fundamental Plane (FP), and Type Ia supernova (SNIa). The method involving SNIa is at the top of an interconnected ladder, providing accurate distances to well beyond the expected range of distortions to Hubble flow from peculiar motions. In this paper, the SNIa scale is anchored by 36 TF spirals with Cepheid or TRGB distances, 56 SNIa hosts with TF distances, and 61 groups or clusters hosting SNIa with Cepheid, SBF, TF, or FP distances. With the SNIa scale zero point set, a value of the Hubble Constant is evaluated over a range of redshifts $0.03 < z < 0.5$, assuming a cosmological model with $\Omega_m = 0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$. The value determined for the Hubble Constant is H$_0 = 75.9 \pm 3.8$ .'
author:
- 'Hélène M. Courtois'
- 'R. Brent Tully,'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: 'Cosmicflows-2: SNIa Calibration and H$_0$'
---
Subject headings: distance scale; galaxies: distances and redshifts
Introduction
============
The light curves of Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) can be interpreted to give remarkably accurate distances to galaxies out to redshifts of order unity [@1998AJ....116.1009R; @1999ApJ...517..565P]. The useful reach of SNIa extends well beyond the domain of suspected velocity perturbations to the cosmic expansion so provides the best means currently available for the determination of the Hubble Constant. However the zero point scale of the SNIa distance measurements must be established through comparisons with alternative methods and the number of local SNIa that have been observed in sufficient detail is still small. @2009ApJS..183..109R [@2011ApJ...730..119R] have undertaken the most substantial effort to date to provide the required calibration. The current study was motivated by the opportunity to significantly enlarge the calibration sample.
This project is coupled with a program that combines new observations and archival retrieval in the construction of a compendium of galaxy distances that we are calling Cosmicflows-2. A core element of the compendium is distances derived from the correlation between galaxy luminosities and rotation rates . A new calibration of this so-called TF method has recently been published [@2012arXiv1202.3191T]. We have been engaged in optical photometry and radio HI observations of several samples [@2011MNRAS.tmp..796C; @2011MNRAS.414.2005C], among them a sample of galaxies within 10,000 km/s that have hosted well observed SNIa.
Distances from the TF method determined within our program provide an anchor but the assembly of the Cosmicflows-2 database provides more extensive resources. A very important component from the literature derives from the same methodology but uses independent analysis procedures; the large compilation of distances identified by the project name ‘SFI++’ [@2007ApJS..172..599S]. Another important component is based on the Fundamental Plane methodology and here we draw on results from three groups identified by the team names ‘SMAC’, ‘EFAR’, and ‘ENEAR’ [@2001MNRAS.327..265H; @2001MNRAS.321..277C; @2002AJ....123.2159B].
Distance measures based on the TF and FP methods are plentiful but individually uncertain. The situation is improved by averaging estimates for all galaxies in a common group. In several groups or clusters, more than one SNIa has been usefully recorded. There are instances where we do not have an alternative distance estimate to the host galaxy of a SNIa event but we do have an alternative distance estimate to the host group.
If we are going to establish a zero-point scale for the SNIa methodology then we want to have a coherent assembly of supernovae from nearby to far away. We draw upon the UNION2 compilation [@2010ApJ...716..712A]. Four local compilations based on alternative analysis variations provide checks [@2006ApJ...647..501P; @2007ApJ...659..122J; @2009ApJ...700.1097H; @2010AJ....139..120F].
We begin with an assembly of a catalog of SNIa with a common set of relative distance measures. We then give a description of our observational program and provide a preliminary calibration of the SNIa scale with our data alone. Then there is a section that describes the integration of literature contributions and the correlation of galaxies with groups. In the following section we are able to generate our best calibration of the SNIa scale.
A SNIa Sample
=============
If there is a scale that achieves a ‘fair sample’ representation of the mean properties of the universe, distances independent of redshift on that scale are surely - and at this time uniquely - probed by SNIa. We begin this study by accumulating a large body of SNIa distance estimates on a consistent relative scale, ranging from the nearest known SNIa to those that probe cosmological curvature at $z \sim 1$. Our goal is to refine the absolute scale through overlaps with other distance measurement methodologies so we give particular attention to achieving good coverage locally.
We have no expertise with SNIa technology so we accept measurements from the literature and limit our attention to assuring that information from alternative sources are on a consistent scale and, through inter-comparisons, weed out a very small number of inconsistent measures. The SNIa compilation UNION2 [@2010ApJ...716..712A] provides a useful reference standard because it is very large and spans the full range of observed redshifts. The distance moduli from this reference are nominally consistent with a value of the Hubble Constant H$_0 = 100$ and the cosmological mass-energy density parameters $\Omega_m = 0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$. We have confirmed that these mass-energy density parameters give a good fit decoupled from modest modifications to the specification of H$_0$.
There have been a significant number of local SNIa events that are not included in the UNION2 compilation but have received attention by others. We give consideration to four other sources [@2006ApJ...647..501P; @2007ApJ...659..122J; @2009ApJ...700.1097H; @2010AJ....139..120F] for SNIa within $z = 0.1$. There are large overlaps that permit each of the alternative sources to be transformed to the UNION2 scale with excellent precision. Variations on the most popular supernova light curve fitters are represented. In the case of Hicken et al. four fitting procedures are compared and we take distance measures from this reference based on the SALT2 analysis where available (appreciating that we are concerned with SNIa at low $z$, mitigating issues that arise at high $z$) and supplement with a few additional cases from the MLCS17 analysis. The data that we have gathered on nearby SNIa from the five sources are made available on-line in a way that can be easily compared at EDD, the Extragalactic Distance Database[^1].
Table \[tbl:snscales\] records the details of correlations between UNION2 and the four additional literature sources. At worst, rms scatter is $\sim 0.2$ mag and at best it is 0.05 mag. Of course, different observers are looking at the same supernovae and most often the same light curve information but with separate analysis procedures. The good news for our purposes is that we can reliably combine the alternative sources into a single consistent catalog of distances. Figure \[hub\_union\] shows the Hubble diagram for the full sample with the UNION2 compilation extending to $z \sim 1$ and the combination of five sources contributing 318 SNIa within the domain $z < 0.1$.
[lrcccc]{} \[tbl:snscales\] Prieto et al. 2006 & 79 & 0.16 & 0.712 & 0.018 & 1\
Jha et al. 2007 & 91 & 0.17 & 0.933 & 0.018 & 4\
Hicken et al. 2009 & 160 & 0.07 & 0.895 & 0.006 &\
Folatelli et al. 2010 & 12 & 0.05 & 0.637 & 0.013 & 1\
![Hubble diagram with the UNION2 sample (black circles) shown over its full redshift-distance modulus range and the average of 5 sources (red stars) shown over the range extending to $z=0.1$. The solid line gives the UNION2 preferred cosmological fit.[]{data-label="hub_union"}](hubble_union_log.ps)
Preliminary SNIa Zero Point Calibration
=======================================
SNIa occur in all types of galaxies including normal spirals that are good targets for distance measurements based on the correlation between luminosity and rotation rate, the TF method. We initiated a program to collect $I$ band photometry [@2011MNRAS.tmp..796C] and radio HI profile information [@2009AJ....138.1938C; @2011MNRAS.414.2005C] for spiral galaxies that have hosted SNIa drawn from the lists of @2003ApJ...594....1T and @2007ApJ...659..122J. Some more recent supernovae have occurred in galaxies that by good fortune are found in our expanding compendium of photometry and HI spectroscopy (see EDD). Concurrently, we have completed a re-calibration of the TF correlation (Tully & Courtois 2012) that involves a revised procedure for handling digital HI profiles and is based on a 13 cluster slope template and a 36 galaxy zero point calibration specified by Cepheid Period-Luminosity [@2001ApJ...553...47F] and Tip of the Red Giant Branch [@2007ApJ...661..815R] distance measures.
Presently we have TF distances for 56 galaxies that have hosted well observed SNIa. These galaxies are identified and information about the distance estimates are given in Table \[tbl:sn\_tf\]. A comparison of TF and SNIa distance is shown in Figure \[sn\_tf\].
![[*Top:*]{} Correlation between SNIa and TF distance moduli with an assumed slope of unity. The TF scale is established by 36 galaxies with Cepheid or TRGB distances and the SNIa scale is based on systemic velocities and an assumed H$_0 = 100$. From the displacement of 0.50 mag, a preliminary rescaling of SNIa distances suggests H$_0 = 79$ . The 5 cases identified by red circles are among the 8 galaxies in the Cepheid calibration sample of @2011ApJ...730..119R and the two cases identified by blue circles correspond to additional galaxies with Cepheid distance measures. Error bars assume uncertainties of 0.4 mag in TF moduli and 0.2 mag in SNIa moduli. [*Bottom:*]{} Hubble parameter (velocity/distance) for the same sample of 36 galaxies, with distances from SNIa used in the upper panel and TF distances used in the lower panel. The mean values of the Hubble parameter for $V_{CMB}>4000$ of 95 and 76 respectively and the $2\sigma$ scatter range are indicated by horizontal lines. One discordant point given an open symbol is rejected from the fits.[]{data-label="sn_tf"}](dm_sn1a_av_tf.ps "fig:") ![[*Top:*]{} Correlation between SNIa and TF distance moduli with an assumed slope of unity. The TF scale is established by 36 galaxies with Cepheid or TRGB distances and the SNIa scale is based on systemic velocities and an assumed H$_0 = 100$. From the displacement of 0.50 mag, a preliminary rescaling of SNIa distances suggests H$_0 = 79$ . The 5 cases identified by red circles are among the 8 galaxies in the Cepheid calibration sample of @2011ApJ...730..119R and the two cases identified by blue circles correspond to additional galaxies with Cepheid distance measures. Error bars assume uncertainties of 0.4 mag in TF moduli and 0.2 mag in SNIa moduli. [*Bottom:*]{} Hubble parameter (velocity/distance) for the same sample of 36 galaxies, with distances from SNIa used in the upper panel and TF distances used in the lower panel. The mean values of the Hubble parameter for $V_{CMB}>4000$ of 95 and 76 respectively and the $2\sigma$ scatter range are indicated by horizontal lines. One discordant point given an open symbol is rejected from the fits.[]{data-label="sn_tf"}](v_h_SNIa_av_TF.ps "fig:")
We are surprised by two aspects of this comparison. First, the scatter, at $\pm0.54$ mag rms, is larger than anticipated by the fiducial expectation of TF scatter $\sim 0.4$ and SNIa scatter $\sim 0.2$. What is seen in the lower panel of Fig. \[sn\_tf\] does not resolve the issue. Restricting attention to velocities larger than 4000 to minimize influence of peculiar velocities, the scatter found in the Hubble parameter $-$ velocity/distance $-$ are consistent with expectations from the SNIa and TF measures respectively. A scatter of $\sim0.45$ mag would be anticipated in the upper panel. Second, taken from this SNIa sample alone and accepting the nominal UNION2 zero point as a valid fit, it would be inferred that H$_0 = 79$ which is higher than most modern estimates. However the UNION2 zero point set at H$_0=100$ is nominal and we will see that it is best fit by a slightly lower value.
Alternative Distances and Group Averaging
=========================================
The comparison against the SNIa scale in the last section involved only our own measurements but the comparison can be broadened considerably by involving distance estimates from other sources. In addition, the linkage of SNIa events with galaxy groups allows, first, for an averaging of distance and velocity parameters over multiple measures and, second, for an extension of comparisons beyond the specific galaxy that hosted the SNIa.
In a few very nearby cases there are high precision distance determinations. Our fundamental zero-point is established in concordance with the HST Key Project scale assuming a modulus of 18.5 for the Large Magellanic Cloud [@2001ApJ...553...47F]. There are direct Cepheid measurements for 12 SNIa hosts, including 8 used by @2011ApJ...730..119R in their determination of the SNIa distance scale zero point. These and other Cepheid observations provide distances to the Virgo, Fornax, and Centaurus clusters. The Surface Brightness Fluctuation (SBF) method provides alternative precision distances on the same scale to the Virgo and Fornax clusters [@2009ApJ...694..556B] and to a dozen smaller groups or clusters [@2001ApJ...546..681T; @2010ApJ...724..657B].
Next, we consider measures that are individually less precise but are numerous and effective over a wide range of redshifts. One particularly important source to consider uses the same TF methodology discussed in the previous section: the extended field spiral sample with $I$ band photometry (SFI++) discussed by @2007ApJS..172..599S, a collection and extension of results from the Cornell group [@1997AJ....113...53G; @1999AJ....118.1489D; @2006ApJ...653..861M; @2007AJ....134..334C]. Then extending to a separate methodology, we give attention to three sources that independently work with the Fundamental Plane (FP) relationship. The three contributing teams describe themselves with the acronyms EFAR [@2001MNRAS.321..277C], SMAC [@2001MNRAS.327..265H], and ENEAR [@2002AJ....123.2990B; @2002AJ....123.2159B].
![Inter-comparison of three sources of distance measurements with the Fundamental Plane technique for samples drawn from clusters. SMAC distance moduli with a zero point nominally consistent with H$_0 = 72.6$ provide a reference on the horizontal axis. On the vertical axis, ENEAR comparisons are shown by filled blue symbols and EFAR comparisons are shown by open red symbols. Best fits required shifts from published moduli to nominal values of H$_0 = 70.2$ for ENEAR and H$_0 = 75.2$ for EFAR.[]{data-label="3fp"}](fp_smac_enear_efar.ps)
Attention is first given to the integration of the three FP samples. There is essentially no overlap between EFAR and ENEAR samples but both have considerable overlap with SMAC. @2001MNRAS.327.1004B established a zero point link between SBF and SMAC measurements. For these reasons we begin by using SMAC as a basis of comparison between FP sources. The comparisons binned to clusters are shown graphically in Figure \[3fp\] and details are recorded in Table \[tbl:compare\]. The value of the Hubble parameter indicated in the case of SMAC comes from the SBF linkage and the values of the Hubble parameter indicated in the cases of EFAR and ENEAR come from shifts from the EFAR and ENEAR nominal zero points resulting from the least squares fits to the overlaps with SMAC. Each of the individual correlations is consistent with a slope of unity.
The comparisons in Figure \[3fp\] are averaged measures over multiple galaxies in clusters, mostly from the revised Abell catalog [@1989ApJS...70....1A]. Similarly with SFI++, our interest in this paper is with averaged measures within clusters. Within this latter data set, we accept the ‘In’ memberships identified by the SFI++ collaboration [@2006ApJ...653..861M; @2007ApJS..172..599S]. We then seek to minimize the zero point differences in the three-way overlap of distances to clusters in the Cosmicflows-2 calibration paper (CF2) of Tully & Courtois (2012), the SFI++ clusters, and clusters in the composite of the three Fundamental Plane sources (FP).
With each comparison of distances, it was first confirmed that an unrestricted slope is statistically compatible with a slope of unity. Then, with a slope of unity assumed, zero point offsets were determined between the pairwise combinations of the triad CF2, SFI++, and FP. Results are recorded in Table \[tbl:compare\]. The final zero point is set by CF2. Operationally, we first merged CF2 and SFI++ because these two are based on the same methodology and the rms scatter and standard deviation are the smallest of the pairwise comparisons. Then we took the average of the shifts necessary to bring FP into separate agreement with CF2 directly (shift: 0.145 mag) and to SFI++ then to CF2 (shifts: 0.077+0.045=0.122 mag). The difference of 0.023 translates to 1% in distance. We take the straight average of the two shifts to bring FP to the CF2 scale because the standard deviations of the two routes are essentially equal: the smaller dispersion in the case of direct to CF2 is offset by the larger comparison sample in the case of passage by SFI++. The three-way comparisons are shown in Figure \[3meth\] set to our final preferred zero point scale.
[lrcrc]{} \[tbl:compare\] ENEAR$-$SMAC & 19 & 0.22 & 0.026 & 0.051\
EFAR$-$SMAC & 11 & 0.31 & $-0.051$ & 0.094\
SFI$-$CF2 & 13 & 0.14 & 0.045 & 0.039\
FP$-$SFI & 32 & 0.25 & 0.077 & 0.043\
FP$-$CF2 & 11 & 0.14 & 0.145 & 0.043\
![Three way comparison between CF2, SF++, and FP sources of distances to clusters. The green open circles compare CF2 on the horizontal axis with FP on the vertical axis. The blue filled circles compare SFI++ (horizontal) and CF2 (vertical). The red filled squares compare SFI++ (horizontal) and FP (vertical). Zero points are set to the scale established by CF2.[]{data-label="3meth"}](cf2_sfi_fp.ps)
The revised SFI++ and FP scales are small departures from values advocated by the relevant authors. In the case of SFI++, the published zero point [@2006ApJ...653..861M] is based on 16 calibrators in common with our 36. There is a 1% difference in the calibration because SFI++ includes metallicity corrections to the Cepheid magnitudes [@2004ApJ...608...42S]. Excluding that minor correction to enable a direct comparison, then the value of H$_0$ that SFI++ favors is 75. The adjustment to the CF2 scale would increase this value to 76 . In the case of the FP samples, only SMAC tried to provide a zero point calibrated scale which is why we transfered all FP values to agree with that source. The calibration in that case was from an overlap with SBF targets that was tied back to the HST Key Project Cepheid scale. The value of H$_0$ preferred by that source is 72.6. The value transferred to the CF2 scale is 77 . The tentative value for H$_0$ derived in the CF2 calibration paper (Tully & Courtois 2012) is 75 .
The SFI++ and three FP samples applied to clusters provides increased reliability in the comparison we will make with SNIa distance scale but for the most part these samples, restricted as they are to clusters, make contributions only beyond $\sim 3000$ . More nearby, we can take advantage of a knowledge of the composition of groups, using an updated version of an early catalog [@1987ApJ...321..280T], to permit an averaging over multiple measures and to permit comparisons if the SNIa host has no alternative distance estimate but resides in a group with a measure. We accumulate the various distance determinations for clusters beyond 3000 in Table \[tbl:dm\_gt3k\] and for groups within 3000 in Table \[tbl:dm\_lt3k\].
A remaining and very important source of comparison is with the direct SNIa $-$ Cepheid linkage established by @2011ApJ...730..119R. We accept their zero point based on the average of the maser distance to NGC 4258 [@1999Natur.400..539H] and anchors based alternatively on Large Magellanic Cloud or Galactic Cepheids. The Riess et al. sample is small, only 8 galaxies, but the measures are high quality.
In Figure \[dm\_gp\] we show a comparison between distance moduli by alternative methods transformed to the CF2 scale and by SNIa on the UNION2 scale. There is complexity to the fit because of the heterogeneous nature of the input. We use weights $w = 1/\epsilon^2$ where $\epsilon$ are errors assigned by the following rules. Individual SNIa, Cepheid, and HST SBF measures are given errors $\epsilon = 0.2$ in distance modulus, ground based SBF measures are given errors $\epsilon = 0.3$, while TF and FP measures are given errors $\epsilon = 0.4$. No cluster or group is given a cumulative error less than $\epsilon = 0.1$ from a single method. The final fit involves 36 clusters at velocities greater than 3000 , 25 groups within 3000 , 36 individual galaxies that hosted SNIa with TF measures, and 8 individual galaxies that have hosted SNIa with Cepheid measures. The offset between the SNIa and ‘other’ distance moduli is 0.557 with a scatter ${\bar \epsilon} = 1/\sqrt{{\bar w}} = 0.41$ mag. This offset would shift the nominal SNIa scale from H$_0 = 100$ to H$_0 = 77$ . However the nominal UNION2 SNIa zero point requires attention. The scatter in the top panel conforms to expectations implicit in the scatter in the lower panels. The standard deviation with 69 ‘good’ measures is 0.05 mag.
![[*Top:*]{} Comparison between SNIa distances and other measures after group binning. Open circles: clusters beyond $\sim 3000$ with distances averaged over the sources CF2, SFI++, and FP. Open squares: groups within $\sim 3000$ with distances averaged over Cepheid, SBF, TF, and FP measures where available. Small filled circles: individual measures drawn from Fig. \[sn\_tf\] if group averaging is not possible. Red stars: the 8 Riess et al. Cepheid calibrators. [*Bottom:*]{} Hubble parameter (velocity/distance) for the group binned samples. SNIa distances are used in the upper panel and group or ‘other’ distances are used in the lower panel. The horizontal lines illustrate values of the Hubble parameter averaged over cases with $V_{CMB}>4000$ of 100 and 77 respectively.[]{data-label="dm_gp"}](dm_sn1a_av_tfq.ps "fig:") ![[*Top:*]{} Comparison between SNIa distances and other measures after group binning. Open circles: clusters beyond $\sim 3000$ with distances averaged over the sources CF2, SFI++, and FP. Open squares: groups within $\sim 3000$ with distances averaged over Cepheid, SBF, TF, and FP measures where available. Small filled circles: individual measures drawn from Fig. \[sn\_tf\] if group averaging is not possible. Red stars: the 8 Riess et al. Cepheid calibrators. [*Bottom:*]{} Hubble parameter (velocity/distance) for the group binned samples. SNIa distances are used in the upper panel and group or ‘other’ distances are used in the lower panel. The horizontal lines illustrate values of the Hubble parameter averaged over cases with $V_{CMB}>4000$ of 100 and 77 respectively.[]{data-label="dm_gp"}](v_h_SNIa_av_other.ps "fig:")
The SNIa Scale and H$_0$
========================
The zero point linkage to the SNIa distance scale provides the opportunity to obtain a measure for H$_0$ in a ‘fair sample’ domain, beyond the range of significant velocity perturbations. In the previous section we established a bridge to the sample of SNIa with $z < 0.1$ discussed in Section 2. This sample is referenced to the UNION2 scale but includes contributions from four additional sources. Figure \[hub\_5\_30k\] illustrates a variation of the Hubble diagram for this SNIa sample. The Hubble parameter is defined by the equation $${\rm H}_0 = {{cz}\over{d}} {\{1 + {{1}\over{2}} [1 - q_0]z - {{1}\over{6}} [1 - q_0 -3 q_0^2 + j_0]z^2\}}$$ where $d$ and $z$ are distance and redshift, we assume the jerk parameter $j_0 = 1$ and the acceleration parameter $q_0 = {{1}\over{2}} ( \Omega_m -2 \Omega_{\Lambda} ) = -0.595$. The zero point is revised in accordance with the fit to alternative distance measures shown in Fig. \[dm\_gp\]. The choice of cosmological model is not important for this relatively local sample. The effect of using an alternate model on the preferred value of H$_0$ is at the level of 1%. The fit to all 311 cases in Fig. \[hub\_5\_30k\] gives H$_0 = 75.2$. The best fit over the range $0.03 < z < 0.09$ illustrated by the flat line requires H$_0 = 76.6 \pm 0.5$ . The uncertainty is the standard deviation of the fit. The rms scatter in 118 cases is $\pm 6.9$ (with $3 \sigma$ culling of 1 object) corresponding to 9% in distance at a given velocity.
![Hubble parameter as a function of redshift for 311 SNIa in a merged catalog from 5 sources. Solid line: best fit to 118 cases with $0.03 < z < 0.09$ assuming a cosmological model with $\Omega_m = 0.27$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$ and H$_0 = 76.6$. []{data-label="hub_5_30k"}](hubbleparam_all5_lt30k.ps)
We turn attention now to the full UNION2 sample of SNIa and to a best fit for the Hubble Constant over the wide range of redshifts covered by that sample. Figure \[hub\_union\] shows the preferred fit of a cosmological model by the UNION2 collaboration [@2010ApJ...716..712A] in a Hubble diagram with distances on a relative scale. We show the same UNION2 data again in Figure \[hubpar100\] except we replace distance on the ordinate with the Hubble parameter calculated in accordance with Eq. 1. This display expands the view of the dispersion around the model fit and the binned data gives clearer insight into systematic deviations. It is seen that the binned data lies slightly below the nominal model value of H$_0 = 100$ at most redshifts.
![Hubble parameter as a function of redshift for the full UNION2 sample. Distances in the UNION2 catalog are fit with a cosmological model with $\Omega_m = 0.27$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.73$ and are nominally on a scale with H$_0 = 100$ . The heavy circles with error bars are averaged values of the Hubble parameter in 0.1 bins in log $z$ (excluding Hubble parameter values deviating more than a factor 2 from 100). The averaged values tend to lie slightly below the line at H$_0 = 100$.[]{data-label="hubpar100"}](hubbleparam_union_log_Om27H100_rev1.ps)
The discussion that lead to Figure \[hub\_5\_30k\] provides a robust zero point link to the UNION2 sample. The shift to this zero point (-0.111 in the logarithm of the Hubble parameter in accordance with the relationship $\mu_{UNION2} = \mu_{CF2} - 0.557$) results in the plot shown in Figure \[hubpar75\].
![Hubble parameter as a function of redshift for the full Union2 sample with zero point shifted to the CF2 scale in accordance with the fit to the 5 source sample of SNIa shown in Fig. \[hub\_5\_30k\]. Over the range $0.03 < z < 0.5$ the UNION2 sample is fit by H$_0 = 75.9$ .[]{data-label="hubpar75"}](hubbleparam_union_log_rev1.ps)
A least squares fit to log H$_0$ over the full redshift range $z > 0.01$ (629 cases after $3\sigma$ clip) gives the result H$_0 = 75.9$ . There is a hint that there is a drop in the Hubble parameter at H$_0 \sim 0.08$. The best fit over the range $0.03 < z < 0.08$ (97 cases after $3\sigma$ clip) gives H$_0 = 76.6$ while the best fit over the range $0.08 < z < 0.5$ (256 cases, $3\sigma$ clip) gives H$_0 = 75.7$. These fits exclude $z < 0.03$ where peculiar velocities might be important and $z > 0.5$ where cosmological corrections and errors are important. The difference in H$_0$ between the nearer and farther range is $0.9 \pm 0.7$, not a significant effect. We checked for a possible dip in the Hubble parameter near $0.08 < z < 0.1$ in two independent compilations. In the case of the Carnegie Supernova Project compilation [@2009ApJ...704.1036F; @2010AJ....139..120F] there is a step downward at $z \sim 0.1$ of $\Delta {\rm H}_0 = 2.4 \pm 1.4$, again not statistically significant but consistent with UNION2. However in the @2009ApJ...700.1097H SALT2 compilation there is essentially no difference in H$_0$ between low and high redshift cuts. We conclude that the best fit with the UNION2 compilation is obtained by averaging over the range $0.03 < z < 0.5$, with 347 cases ($3\sigma$ clip) giving H$_0 = 75.9 \pm 0.3$ (standard deviation of the mean) with rms scatter $\pm 6.6$ .
Discussion and Summary
======================
The value of H$_0$ derived from our calibration is somewhat higher than most recent literature values although within the range of reasonable uncertainties as we will review. For example @2011ApJ...730..119R consider three alternative zero point calibrations for the Cepheid Period-Luminosity relation which they link to the SNIa scale and arrive at the preference H$_0 = 73.8 \pm 2.4$ (random + systematic). Alternatively, @2006ApJ...653..861M used a methodology with SFI++ and a calibration based on Cepheid distances with strong parallels with the present work and found H$_0 = 74 \pm 2$ (random) $\pm 6$ (systematic). In a review, advocate H$_0 = 73 \pm 2$ (random) $\pm 4$ (systematic). A 7 year WMAP analysis [@2011ApJS..192...18K] prefers, but does not directly measure, H$_0 = 71.0 \pm 2.5$ .
It is not new that we find a slightly higher value for H$_0$. In our recent re-calibration of the TF relation (Tully & Courtois 2012) we tentatively found H$_0 = 75$ from distances to 13 clusters, slightly lower than the value found from a calibration a decade earlier [@2000ApJ...533..744T] of H$_0 = 77$ , mostly, because of a small Malmquist (selection) bias correction now being applied and, slightly, because of the availability of more zero point calibrators. , @2011ApJ...730..119R, and @2011AJ....142..192F have extensive discussions of errors. They argue that uncertainties are presently at the level of 3% and that 2% is within reach. Perhaps so, but we think that there are concerns that are not included in their error budgets. For one, the scatter in Figure \[sn\_tf\] is disconcertingly above the expectation of 0.45 if SNIa measure distances with a characteristic uncertainty of 10%. In Figure \[dm\_gp\], the scatter in the zero point between the separate group or Cepheid based components is 4%. This number provides an estimate of systematics.
Our other concern is with the possible influence of peculiar velocities. @2011ApJ...730..119R consider the uncertainty here is 0.5%. @2011AJ....142..192F do not budget this effect. It is possible the tentative dip in the Hubble parameter at $z \sim 0.08$ is a manifestation of very large scale flows. Flows on the scale of 20,000 have been reported by @2011MNRAS.414..264C and @2011arXiv1111.0631T based on analyses of two of the SNIa samples used here [@2010ApJ...716..712A; @2009ApJ...700.1097H]. We partially discount the effect of any such flow by extending to $z = 0.5$ with our fit for H$_0$ so a systematic should be 1% or less over such a great range.
If otherwise we accept the error budget given by @2011ApJ...730..119R amounting to 3% then our total estimated error including systematics amounts to 5%. We conclude with our best estimate for the Hubble Constant of H$_0 = 75.9 \pm 3.8$ .
Individuals that have helped with the collection and analysis of contributing data include Austin Barnes, Nicolas Bonhomme, Rick Fisher, Philippe Héraudeau, Dmitry Makarov, Luca Rizzi, and Max Zavodny. Material for the Fundamental Plane comparison that supplemented published information was supplied by John Blakeslee and Mike Hudson. The component of our HI profile information that is new comes from observations in the course of the Cosmic Flows Large Program with the NRAO Green Bank Telescope augmented by observations with Arecibo and Parkes telescopes. Support has been provided by the US National Science Foundation with award AST-0908846.
[rllrcccrcccc]{}
\[tbl:sn\_tf\] 250 & UGC00014 & 2006sr & 6916 & 56 & 331 & 398 & 12.01 & -22.27 & 34.33 & u h & 34.34\
415 & UGC00040 & 2003it & 7198 & 55 & 372 & 451 & 12.42 & -22.75 & 35.26 & u h & 34.44\
963 & UGC00139 & 1998dk & 3614 & 67 & 287 & 311 & 12.51 & -21.33 & 33.88 & upj & 32.75\
1288 & PGC001288 & 1999cw & 3370 & 66 & 282 & 308 & 12.54 & -21.29 & 33.86 & pj & 32.53\
3773 & UGC00646 & 1998ef & 5011 & 71 & 367 & 389 & 11.76 & -22.18 & 33.99 & upjh & 33.25\
4915 & NGC0477 & 2002jy & 5600 & 61 & 322 & 369 & 11.76 & -21.98 & 33.78 & u h & 34.31\
5341 & PGC005341 & 1998dm & 1663 & 90 & 236 & 236 & 11.54 & -20.27 & 31.81 & u j & 32.24\
6624 & NGC0673 & 1996bo & 4898 & 45 & 315 & 445 & 11.25 & -22.69 & 33.99 & upj & 33.23\
9560 & NGC0958 & 2005A & 5501 & 74 & 561 & 584 & 10.30 & -23.74 & 34.09 & f & 33.82\
9618 & UGC01993 & 1999gp & 7812 & 85 & 483 & 485 & 11.84 & -23.03 & 34.94 & upjh & 34.63\
10448 & IC1844 & 1995ak & 6588 & 72 & 294 & 309 & 11.87 & -21.30 & 33.20 & upjh & 33.87\
11606 & ESO300-009 & 1992bc & 5918 & 73 & 309 & 323 & 13.55 & -21.47 & 35.10 & upjh & 33.91\
13727 & NGC1448 & 2001el & 1092 & 90 & 386 & 386 & 8.94 & -22.15 & 31.10 & j & 30.61\
17509 & UGC03329 & 1999ek & 5277 & 67 & 484 & 525 & 10.50 & -23.33 & 33.87 & upjh & 33.53\
18089 & UGC03375 & 2001gc & 5792 & 66 & 490 & 535 & 10.63 & -23.40 & 34.07 & u & 33.48\
18373 & PGC018373 & 2003kf & 2295 & 90 & 234 & 234 & 11.55 & -20.24 & 31.79 & u & 31.85\
18747 & UGC03432 & 1996bv & 5015 & 80 & 285 & 289 & 12.92 & -21.05 & 34.01 & upjh & 33.32\
19788 & UGC03576 & 1998ec & 6013 & 65 & 356 & 393 & 12.00 & -22.22 & 34.27 & upj & 34.07\
20513 & UGC03770 & 2000fa & 6525 & 58 & 314 & 371 & 12.54 & -22.00 & 34.61 & upjh & 34.21\
21020 & UGC03845 & 1997do & 3136 & 49 & 195 & 257 & 12.32 & -20.60 & 32.94 & upjh & 32.67\
26512 & NGC2841 & 1999by & 804 & 66 & 592 & 650 & 7.52 & -24.14 & 31.67 & j & 30.23\
28357 & NGC3021 & 1995al & 1797 & 57 & 254 & 303 & 10.92 & -21.23 & 32.15 & u j & 31.73\
31428 & NGC3294 & 1992G & 1831 & 64 & 386 & 431 & 9.81 & -22.58 & 32.40 & j & 31.65\
32192 & NGC3368 & 1998bu & 1231 & 50 & 328 & 428 & 7.88 & -22.55 & 30.43 & j & 29.35\
32207 & NGC3370 & 1994ae & 1609 & 58 & 264 & 312 & 10.85 & -21.34 & 32.19 & u j & 31.58\
34695 & NGC3627 & 1989b & 1061 & 60 & 333 & 385 & 7.38 & -22.14 & 29.53 & j & 29.11\
35006 & NGC3663 & 2006ax & 5396 & 45 & 314 & 443 & 11.26 & -22.68 & 33.99 & u hf & 33.67\
35088 & NGC3672 & 2007bm & 2223 & 71 & 377 & 399 & 9.67 & -22.28 & 31.95 & u & 31.62\
36832 & NGC3891 & 2006or & 6573 & 44 & 391 & 561 & 11.39 & -23.58 & 35.05 & u h & 34.25\
41517 & NGC4501 & 1999cl & 2601 & 63 & 507 & 570 & 7.86 & -23.64 & 31.51 & u j & 30.35\
41789 & NGC4527 & 1991T & 2072 & 77 & 352 & 362 & 8.70 & -21.90 & 30.60 & j & 29.84\
41823 & NGC4536 & 1981B & 2144 & 71 & 322 & 341 & 9.03 & -21.68 & 30.71 & j & 30.18\
42741 & NGC4639 & 1990N & 1308 & 55 & 274 & 336 & 10.18 & -21.62 & 31.80 & j & 31.07\
43118 & NGC4680 & 1997bp & 2824 & 52 & 186 & 237 & 11.29 & -20.29 & 31.58 & upj & 31.97\
43170 & NGC4679 & 2001cz & 4935 & 69 & 399 & 427 & 10.87 & -22.54 & 33.43 & upjh & 33.33\
45749 & NGC5005 & 1996ai & 1178 & 63 & 535 & 601 & 8.07 & -23.85 & 31.92 & u j & 30.96\
46574 & ESO576-040 & 1997br & 2385 & 85 & 169 & 170 & 12.44 & -19.01 & 31.45 & j & 31.32\
47422 & NGC5185 & 2006br & 7656 & 76 & 587 & 605 & 11.49 & -23.87 & 35.46 & u & 34.95\
47514 & PGC047514 & 2007ca & 4517 & 86 & 284 & 285 & 12.62 & -20.99 & 33.64 & u h & 33.78\
50042 & NGC5440 & 1998D & 3890 & 64 & 610 & 677 & 10.30 & -24.30 & 34.67 & pj & 33.06\
51344 & NGC5584 & 2007af & 1890 & 44 & 186 & 267 & 10.62 & -20.74 & 31.36 & u & 31.31\
51549 & IC4423 & 2001ay & 9271 & 61 & 413 & 470 & 13.02 & -22.91 & 36.06 & u j & 35.09\
56537 & IC1151 & 1991M & 2274 & 69 & 226 & 242 & 11.76 & -20.36 & 32.13 & j & 32.58\
57205 & NGC6063 & 1999ac & 2950 & 59 & 265 & 308 & 11.84 & -21.30 & 33.16 & upj & 32.41\
59769 & UGC10738 & 2001cp & 6726 & 90 & 585 & 585 & 11.60 & -23.74 & 35.44 & u h & 34.23\
59782 & UGC10743 & 2002er & 2574 & 79 & 202 & 206 & 11.84 & -19.74 & 31.58 & j & 32.10\
64600 & NGC6916 & 2002cd & 2932 & 52 & 340 & 434 & 10.52 & -22.60 & 33.14 & u & 32.67\
65375 & NGC6962 & 2002ha & 3936 & 48 & 474 & 633 & 10.18 & -24.05 & 34.28 & u h & 33.10\
66579 & UGC11723 & 2006cm & 4585 & 90 & 426 & 426 & 11.93 & -22.53 & 34.52 & u & 33.93\
68455 & IC5179 & 1999ee & 3158 & 63 & 395 & 444 & 10.38 & -22.69 & 33.09 & pjh & 32.59\
69428 & UGC12133 & 1998eg & 7068 & 90 & 443 & 443 & 12.38 & -22.68 & 35.14 & upjh & 34.42\
69453 & NGC7329 & 2006bh & 3143 & 53 & 369 & 461 & 10.40 & -22.83 & 33.26 & f & 32.61\
70213 & NGC7448 & 1997dt & 1838 & 63 & 281 & 316 & 10.41 & -21.39 & 31.79 & u j & 32.49\
71166 & UGC12538 & 2006b & 4583 & 72 & 278 & 292 & 12.70 & -21.08 & 33.82 & u & 33.44\
71534 & NGC7678 & 2002dp & 3143 & 45 & 288 & 407 & 10.10 & -22.35 & 32.46 & u h & 32.68\
72775 & NGC7780 & 2001da & 4853 & 61 & 381 & 437 & 12.16 & -22.63 & 34.86 & u h & 33.44\
[lcccccccccccl]{} \[tbl:dm\_gt3k\] Cen45 & 2 & 33.27 & 0.13 & & 8 & & 6 & & 1 & 33.33 & 0.20 & 2001cz\
J4 & 1 & 35.14 & 0.20 & 2 & & & & & 1 & 35.65 & 0.20 & 1999ef\
A85 & 1 & 37.37 & 0.20 & 4 & & & & & 1 & 35.88 & 0.20 & 2003ic\
Pisces & 7 & 34.00 & 0.05 & 7 & 39 & 46 & 50 & 58 & 5 & 33.44 & 0.09 & 1998ef,1999ej,2000dk,2001en,2006td\
A194 & 2 & 34.16 & 0.08 & & 15 & 16 & 23 & & 1 & 33.59 & 0.20 & 1993ae\
J7 & 1 & 35.76 & 0.20 & 4 & & & & & 2 & 34.95 & 0.14 & 1999gp,2002hu\
A397 & 2 & 35.41 & 0.09 & 7 & & & 14 & & 1 & 34.90 & 0.20 & 2006os\
Perseus & 2 & 34.02 & 0.11 & & 26 & 28 & 6 & & 1 & 33.65 & 0.20 & 2008L\
J28 & 1 & 34.77 & 0.20 & 3 & & & & & 1 & 34.84 & 0.20 & 2005eq\
P597-1 & 1 & 34.19 & 0.20 & 3 & & & & & 1 & 32.95 & 0.20 & 2001ep\
A569 & 2 & 34.52 & 0.10 & & & 13 & 13 & & 2 & 33.81 & 0.14 & 2000B,2007au\
Cancer & 2 & 34.04 & 0.07 & & & & 17 & 11 & 1 & 33.49 & 0.20 & 1999aa\
A999 & 1 & 35.51 & 0.20 & & & 5 & & & 1 & 35.13 & 0.20 & 2004L\
A1367 & 3 & 34.80 & 0.07 & & 6 & 8 & 32 & 19 & 1 & 33.75 & 0.20 & 2007ci\
Coma & 3 & 34.83 & 0.06 & 19 & 80 & 56 & 34 & 23 & 2 & 34.56 & 0.14 & 2006cg,2007bz\
J11 & 1 & 35.30 & 0.20 & 4 & & & & & 1 & 34.47 & 0.20 & 2007F\
A1736 & 2 & 35.67 & 0.11 & & & 4 & 10 & & 3 & 34.72 & 0.12 & 1991U,1992ag,2007cg\
A3558 & 2 & 36.06 & 0.12 & & & 28 & 8 & & 1 & 36.13 & 0.20 & 1993O\
A1983 & 1 & 36.62 & 0.20 & 5 & & & & & 1 & 35.03 & 0.20 & 2008af\
P445-2 & 1 & 33.77 & 0.20 & 2 & & & & & 1 & 33.64 & 0.20 & 2007ap\
J20 & 1 & 35.61 & 0.20 & 2 & & & & & 1 & 34.78 & 0.20 & 2002de\
PavoII & 2 & 33.71 & 0.10 & & 12 & 9 & 8 & & 1 & 33.20 & 0.20 & 2001cn\
A2634 & 3 & 35.39 & 0.07 & 10 & 12 & 32 & 18 & 13 & 1 & 35.17 & 0.20 & 1997dg\
A2666 & 2 & 34.99 & 0.11 & 2 & & & 9 & & 1 & 34.40 & 0.20 & 2007qe\
A4038 & 2 & 35.37 & 0.10 & & 18 & 18 & 7 & & 1 & 34.65 & 0.20 & 1993ah\
[rccccccccccccccl]{} \[tbl:dm\_lt3k\] 1 & 11 -1 & 4 & 30.27 & 0.10 & 77 & 31.09 & 4 & 30.98 & & & 26 & 31.02 & 31.08 & 0.06 & 1990N, 1991bg, 1994D, 1999cl 2006X\
4 & 11 -4 & 2 & 30.01 & 0.14 & 1 & 31.08 & 2 & 30.88 & & & 4 & 30.86 & 30.90 & 0.10 & 1981B, 1991T\
51 & 11-22 & 2 & 31.37 & 0.14 & & & & & & & 2 & 31.94 & 31.94 & 0.28 & 1996X, 1997br\
65 & 11-27 & 1 & 31.97 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 5 & 32.15 & 32.15 & 0.18 & 1997bp\
93 & 11 -0 & 1 & 32.08 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 3 & 32.57 & 32.57 & 0.23 & 2002dj\
240 & 14-15 & 1 & 26.53 & 0.20 & & & & & 1 & 27.77 & & & 27.77 & 0.20 & 1986G\
240 & 14-15 & 1 & 26.90 & 0.20 & & & & & 1 & 27.66 & & & 27.66 & 0.20 & 1972E\
266 & 15 -1 & 1 & 29.35 & 0.20 & 6 & 30.24 & 2 & 30.06 & 1 & 30.26 & 1 & 30.38 & 30.21 & 0.07 & 1998bu\
267 & 15 -2 & 1 & 29.11 & 0.20 & & & 1 & 30.01 & & & 2 & 30.01 & 30.01 & 0.16 & 1989B\
293 & 15+10 & 1 & 30.23 & 0.20 & & & 1 & 30.74 & & & 1 & 31.67 & 30.93 & 0.18 & 1999by\
361 & 21 -3 & 1 & 31.58 & 0.20 & 1 & 31.58 & 1 & 32.13 & & & 1 & 32.19 & 31.98 & 0.15 & 1994ae\
368 & 21 -6 & 1 & 31.15 & 0.20 & 2 & 32.27 & & & & & 2 & 31.90 & 32.20 & 0.13 & 2002bo\
372 & 21-10 & 1 & 31.25 & 0.20 & 1 & 31.76 & & & & & 1 & 33.08 & 32.03 & 0.18 & 2003cg\
378 & 21-12 & 1 & 31.73 & 0.20 & & & 1 & 32.27 & & & 4 & 31.74 & 32.00 & 0.14 & 1995al\
404 & 21 -0 & 1 & 31.65 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 32.38 & 32.38 & 0.40 & 1992G\
409 & 22 -1 & 1 & 30.93 & 0.20 & 1 & 31.68 & 1 & 31.66 & & & 5 & 31.78 & 31.71 & 0.12 & 2007sr\
422 & 22 -7 & 1 & 31.62 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 31.96 & 31.96 & 0.40 & 2007bm\
441 & 23 -1 & 1 & 33.33 & 0.20 & 6 & 32.53 & 1 & 32.60 & & & 11 & 32.91 & 32.65 & 0.06 & 2001cz\
520 & 31-12 & 2 & 31.88 & 0.14 & & & & & & & 1 & 32.18 & 32.18 & 0.40 & 1996Z, 1999gh\
555 & 31 -0 & 1 & 31.88 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 32.58 & 32.58 & 0.40 & 1995D\
627 & 34 +6 & 1 & 31.85 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 31.78 & 31.78 & 0.40 & 2003kf\
671 & 41 +2 & 1 & 31.31 & 0.20 & & & 1 & 31.72 & & & 1 & 31.36 & 31.65 & 0.18 & 2007af\
739 & 42 -7 & 1 & 32.26 & 0.20 & 1 & 32.29 & & & & & 1 & 32.60 & 32.36 & 0.18 & 2003du\
742 & 42 -8 & 1 & 31.52 & 0.20 & 1 & 32.54 & & & & & 2 & 32.65 & 32.59 & 0.16 & 1996bk\
797 & 43 -1 & 1 & 30.59 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 5 & 31.35 & 31.35 & 0.18 & 1996ai\
843 & 51 -1 & 2 & 30.70 & 0.14 & 42 & 31.51 & 2 & 31.16 & & & 15 & 31.20 & 31.47 & 0.06 & 1980N, 1992A\
867 & 51-12 & 1 & 31.80 & 0.20 & & & 1 & 32.59 & & & 1 & 31.98 & 32.48 & 0.18 & 2002fk\
895 & 52 -7 & 1 & 32.24 & 0.20 & 3 & 31.86 & & & & & 2 & 32.07 & 31.89 & 0.11 & 1998dm\
950 & 53 -7 & 1 & 30.61 & 0.20 & 2 & 31.34 & & & & & 9 & 31.14 & 31.23 & 0.10 & 2001el\
1167 & 64 -1 & 1 & 32.14 & 0.20 & 1 & 31.89 & & & & & 3 & 32.05 & 31.96 & 0.15 & 1997dt\
1179 & 64 -9 & 1 & 31.94 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 32.58 & 32.58 & 0.40 & 1998dh\
1232 & 71 -3 & 1 & 32.58 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 32.12 & 32.12 & 0.40 & 1991M\
1249 & 71 -0 & 1 & 32.41 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 33.15 & 33.15 & 0.40 & 1999ac\
1319 & 70 -0 & 1 & 32.10 & 0.20 & & & & & & & 1 & 31.58 & 31.58 & 0.40 & 2002er\
[^1]: http://edd.ifa.hawaii.edu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We calculate local potential energy minima (inherent structures) for a simple model of orthoterphenyl (OTP), from computer simulations over a wide temperature range. We show that the results are very sensitive to the system size. We locate, from the temperature and size dependence of inherent structure energies, a well defined cross-over temperature that corresponds to the dynamical critical temperature predicted by mode coupling theory and in mean field spin glass models. Comparing the known phase space structure of mean field $p$-spin models and the present results for the OTP model, we find evidence supporting the proposed similarity between glass-forming liquids and a class of spin glass models.'
address:
- '$^{1}$ Dipartimento di Fisica and Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica della Materia, Universitá di Roma [*La Sapienza*]{}, P.le Aldo Moro 2, I-00185, Roma, Italy. '
- '$^{(2)}$ Department of Chemistry Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-1604 and Center for Theoretical and Computational Materials Science National Institute of Standards and Technology Materials Building 223/Room A313 Gaithersburg, MD 20899'
author:
- 'Francesco Sciortino$^{1}$, Srikanth Sastry$^{2}$ and Piero Tartaglia$^{1}$'
title: ' The phase space structure of supercooled liquids: Evidence of a dynamical critical temperature.'
---
[2]{}
The idea that essential features of glass formation from supercooled liquids [@yip; @angell] may be contained in the behavior of spin glass models has been actively pursued in recent years, with a focus on mean field $p$-spin models[@gros; @kirk; @parisi; @cs; @cavagna]. In particular, the dynamical ideal mode coupling theory (MCT) for supercooled liquids[@review-glass] and the disordered mean field $p$-spin models, with $p>2$ display many common features observed in structural glasses. Both approaches predict, on cooling the system, the existence of a dynamical critical temperature ($T_{MCT}$ in MCT language and $T_{D}$ in $p$-spin language) at which, from a dynamical point of view, an ergodic to non-ergodic transition takes place. Below this temperature the system is dynamically frozen in a metastable state and confined in a finite region of phase space (basin, in the following). Relaxation to the true equilibrium state below this temperature takes place via activated processes, which are not taken into account dynamically in MCT and are absent in the mean field $p$-spin case, where all basins are separated by infinite barriers. Both theories make predictions for the time dependence of correlation functions (correlators). The evolution of correlation functions in the $p$-spin case coincides [@kirk; @cs] with that obtained for the schematic MCT model[@schem]. In real structural glasses no sharp ergodic to non-ergodic transition is observed, due to the finite height of the barriers separating different basins, so that this dynamical critical temperature plays the role of crossover temperature between regions of different dynamical character. Specifically, it has been argued that below this crossover temperature, activated crossing of potential energy barriers, first suggested by Goldstein[@gold], becomes the dominant mechanism of diffusion[@CAAtx]. MCT has been the subject of several tests above $T_{MCT}$ and it has been shown to describe the space and time dependence of correlators satisfactorily [@kob; @sgtc].
On the other hand, mean field $p$-spin models have the merit of offering a clear picture of the structure of phase space, in particular the aspects associated with the transition at $T_{D}$. The analytic solutions of the $TAP$ equations[@kirk; @kurchan] show that the region of phase space visited below $T_{D}$ is composed by an exponentially large number of different basins, separated by infinitely high barriers. Different basins are unambiguously specified by the value of the energy at the minimum, $E_{min}$, which assume values only between a minimum value $ E_o$ and a maximum value $ E_{th}$. Stationary solutions with $E_{min}$ higher than $ E_{th}$ are unstable even at zero temperature. Below $T_D$, in thermodynamic equilibrium, basins with a well defined value of $E_{min}(T)$ are populated at each temperature.
The $TAP$ solutions at $T = 0~K$ coincide with the local phase space minima of the potential energy and are thus analog of the so-called inherent structures proposed by Stillinger[@stillinger] to describe the phase space structure of liquids. In Stillinger’s approach, phase space is partitioned in basins such that steepest descent trajectories starting from any point in a basin converge to the same energy minimum, which defines the inherent structure configuration. Previous numerical studies of inherent structures in supercooled liquids have been confined to rather small system sizes and have rarely aimed at identifying the presence of an underlying dynamical critical temperature. A recent study of a Lennard-Jones binary mixture at constant density for a 256 atom sample[@sds] did not reveal any particular signature of the presence of a dynamical temperature in the $T$ dependence of the inherent structure energies.
This Letter explores the possibility that the phase space structure of the liquid state is similar to that of $p$-spin models. The work is based on a detailed study of the energy relaxation in phase space toward the minimum, starting from equilibrated independent configurations at a series of temperatures. The use of the conjugate gradient technique[@numrec] guarantees an efficient monotonically decreasing path toward the minimum and of course the absence of basin change during minimization. The basic idea behind this work is that the equivalence between inherent structures of the liquid and TAP solutions facilitates the comparison of the phase space structure of structural glasses and of mean field $p$-spin models.
We perform a series of long molecular dynamics (MD) simulations for systems of different sizes ranging from 343 molecules (the smallest size compatible with the intermolecular potential range) up to 9261 molecules[@simulations]. The selected intermolecular potential models the OTP molecule as a rigid structure composed of three sites. All site-site interactions are described by the same Lennard-Jones potential, whose parameters have been optimized to reproduce the properties of the liquid. For this potential $T_{MCT} = 280~K$, a figure calculated from the $T$ dependence of the non-ergodicity parameter[@lw]. Below $T_{MCT}$, the MD trajectories have been calculated for times up to $20~ns$, to guarantee thermodynamic equilibrium and satisfactory sampling of phase space. Both static and dynamic quantities, evaluated along the MD trajectory, do not show any finite size effect. Several different equilibrium configurations, separated by more than the relaxation time have been used as starting points for the evaluation of the corresponding inherent structures by performing a standard conjugate gradient minimization. The energy minimization has been performed up to a relative precision of $10^{-12}$ to ensure a proper determination of the minimum.
Fig. \[fig:1\] shows the potential energy during the minimization procedure at different temperatures. While for $T \le 305~K $ there is one single relaxation process to the minimum, with a characteristic “time” which has no system size dependence, at $T = 346~K $ the relaxation to the minimum occurs in a two-step process. The first (size independent) relaxation process is followed by another slower relaxation which drives the system to a deeper and size dependent minimum. These data indicate that the system first relaxes quickly to a quasi-stable size independent point characterized by an energy $E_s(T)$ and then explores the possibility of finding a lower energy minimum configuration with value $E_{min}(T)$. Strikingly enough, the success of this search is strongly size dependent. Indeed, for the smallest system $E_s(T)$ coincides with $E_{min}(T)$. It is particularly important also to note that the change of behavior from size dependent to size independent relaxation to $E_{min}$ occurs very close to the previously estimated $T_{MCT}$. In $p$-spin models, the energy $E_{min}$ of the disordered solution (i.e. the stable solution for $T \ge T_D$) is equal to that of the first (highest) stable $TAP$ solution. By extrapolating $E_{min}(T)$ vs $1/N$ for $1/N$ going to zero (see inset of Fig. \[fig:1\] we find that $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} E_{min}(T=346 K) $ is close to $E_{min}(T=T_{MCT})$ which thus provides strong evidence for the identification of $T_D$ with $T_{MCT}$.
In $p$-spin models, below $T_D$ the energies of the relevant $TAP$ minima lie below the threshold value $E_{th}$, and the curvature in phase space of these $TAP$ solutions is positive in all directions. Stationary solutions with energies greater than $ E_{th}$ display unstable (or non-positive curvature) directions[@flat; @cavagna]. If this feature is preserved in the phase structure of supercooled liquids, one would predict that, in the thermodynamic limit, for $T >
T_{MCT}$ there will be always a finite number of unstable directions for higher energy stationary points and during a local energy minimization, the system will always relax to $E_{th}$. But if the fraction of unstable directions $f_u$ is sufficiently small, as it is close to $T_{MCT}$, in finite size systems there would be realizations of higher energy states which are stable. For finite size systems, only when $6N
f_{u}(T)$ is greater than one, i.e. only when statistically there will be at least one unstable solution, the system can abandon the saddle state and relax toward a lower energy minimum. To test the validity of this prediction, Fig. \[fig:2\] shows the energy during the minimization procedure at a $T$ close to $T_{MCT}$ for all studied realizations of the large size system. For comparison, we show also the relaxation curves averaged over all realizations for the 343 molecules cases. Interestingly enough, a clear bimodal effect is observed. A fraction of the realizations relaxes to $E_{min}$, while the remaining fraction is trapped at the energy $E_s$. The smaller system on average relaxes to $E_s$. As suggested by Fig. \[fig:1\], such system size dependence is seen only above the previously estimated $T_{MCT}$ for this system. The size effects displayed in both figures, as well as the dichotomous behavior observed in Fig.\[fig:2\], suggests that $T_{MCT}$ can be identified as the temperature at which the fraction of unstable directions in phase space $f_{u}(T=T_{MCT})$, evaluated at $E_s$, goes to zero from above. In Ref. [@stprl], by analysing the instantaneous normal mode spectrum [@keyes] in a deep supercooled liquid above $T_{MCT}$, it was shown that the fraction of truly unstable directions in phase space tends to vanish at $T_{MCT}$, strongly suggesting that the dynamics above and below $T_{MCT}$ is dominated by different physical transport mechanisms: Above $T_{MCT}$ the dynamics is controlled by the search of unstable directions while below it is controlled by activated processes. We believe that our present observations are relevant in establishing the nature of such a dynamical crossover.
Fig. \[fig:3\] shows the temperature dependence of $E_{s}(T)$ and $E_{min}(T)$ for different system sizes. $E_{s}(T)$ does not show any significant dependence on the system size, suggesting that in searching for the minimum the system quickly finds a local phase space environment that does not depend on the system size. For $T$ higher than a size dependent cross-over temperature, a secondary relaxation process appears – suggesting that statistically at least one direction in phase space at $E_s(T)$ is unstable, such that the system relaxes to the deeper energy minimum $E_{min}(T)$. The cross over temperature is size dependent and in the limit $1/N$ going to zero extrapolates to $T \sim 285 K$ (see inset of Fig. \[fig:3\]), supporting the identification, in the thermodynamic limit, of this cross over temperature with $T_{MCT}$. Above the cross-over temperature there is a large $T$ range where $E_{min}(T)$ is approximatively constant, suggesting that there is a well defined minimum characteristic energy of the liquid state above $T_{MCT}$. Below the crossover temperature the difference between $E_{s}(T)$ and $E_{min}(T)$ disappears. No finite size effects are present. The phase space visited in this $T$ range is partitioned in many different basins. Interestingly enough, the variance in $E_{min}(T)$ is very small below the crossover temperature, supporting the view that in the thermodynamic limit, at each temperature, basins with a well defined value of $E_{min}(T)$ are populated. It is also worth noting that $E_s(T)$ is not only system size independent, but is an increasing function of $T$ and coincides with $E_{min}$ up to the crossover temperature for each system size. The size effects shown in Fig. \[fig:3\] suggest the study of the phase space of the liquid not only in terms of minima, but also in terms of stationary points of higher order, as phase space features relevant to the system’s dynamics. Finite dimensional cuts of the thermodynamic phase space (finite $N$) transform saddle points into local minima, altering the description of phase space as a more numerous collection of different basins. In the thermodynamic limit, only the region of phase space visited for $T < T_{MCT}$ can be described as a collection of different basins, in agreement with the description of the free energy of supercooled liquids proposed by Stillinger[@stillinger] and observed in the $TAP$ solution of the $p$-spin models. Following the analogy with disordered $p$-spin models, we note that $E_{min}(T)$ correspond to the equilibrium $TAP$ solutions. Interestingly, the finite size effect effects we report allow visualization of the equivalent of the $TAP$ solutions for $E> E_{th}$, which have been shown to be unstable stationary states[@flat].
In summary, in this Letter we have presented results on the phase space structure of supercooled liquids (structural glasses) and discussed the analogies with disordered spin glasses. In particular (i) we have identified $T_{MCT}$ in terms of a static property of the system, showing that in the thermodynamic limit, $T_{MCT}$ corresponds to the temperature at which the $T$ dependence of the inherent structure energy has a clear break. This suggests a possible experiment based on ultrafast quenches to determine the $T_{MCT}$ for a liquid. (ii) we have shown evidence that above $T_{MCT}$ the inherent structure energy is $T$-independent[@highT], suggesting the possibility of a unique basin characterizing the liquid. (iii) Above $T_{MCT}$, size effects become important due to the transformation of low dimensional saddle points to minima in finite systems. The different structure of the phase space visited above and below $T_{MCT}$ demonstrated by the present work offers precise hints about the difference of dynamical behavior above and below $T_{MCT}$. While below $T_{MCT}$ the slowing down of dynamics on cooling can be connected to the time required to hop across energy barriers between basins, above $T_{MCT}$ exploration of phase space can take place [*via*]{} unstable directions connecting different quasi-stable environments (defined by their value $E_{S}(T)$). This suggests further investigation of such quasi-stable solutions for their relevance to the dynamics above $T_{MCT}$[@nature-note].(iv) Finally, based on the formal equivalence between $TAP$ solutions at $T = 0 K$ and inherent structures, we have shown that the phase space structure of the present model liquid is consistent with the phase structure of the mean field $p$-spin models and have identified $T_{MCT}$ with $T_{D}$.
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank S. Ciuchi, B. Coluzzi, A. Crisanti, F. de Pasquale, L. Fabbian, S. Franz, R.N. Mantegna, M. Nicodemi, G. Parisi, G. Ruocco for stimulating discussions. SS thanks Universitá di Roma [*La Sapienza*]{} for hospitality.
See e.g. the special issue of [*Transport Theory and Statistical Physics*]{} [**24**]{}, (1995), S. Yip guest ed.
C. A. Angell [*Science*]{} [**267**]{} 1924 (1995).
D.J. Gross and M. Mézard, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**240**]{}, 431 (1984).
T.R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**36**]{}, 5388 (1987). T.R. Kirkpatrick, P. G. Wolynes, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**36**]{}, 8552 (1987). T.R. Kirkpatrick, D. Thirumalai, and P. G. Wolynes [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**40**]{}, 1045 (1989).
G. Parisi, cond-mat 9712079 and references therein.
A. Crisanti and H.J. Sommers, [*Z.Phys. B*]{} [**87**]{}, 341 (1992); [*J. Phys. I France*]{}, [**5**]{}, 805 (1995).
A clear introduction to the physics of $p$-spin models can be found in A. Cavagna, [*Investigation of the hidden structure of states in spin glasses. An entropic approach.*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rome [*La Sapienza*]{}, 1997 (http://chimera.roma1.infn.it:80/ P\_COMPLEX/tesi\_dott\_cavagna.ps).
W. Götze, in [*Liquids, Freezing and the Glass Transition*]{}, Eds.:J. P. Hansen, D. Levesque and J. Zinn-Justin, Les Houches. Session LI, 1989, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991).
E. Leutheusser, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**29**]{} 2765 (1984); U. Bengtzelius, W. Götze and A. Sölander, [*J. Phys. C*]{} [**17**]{}, 5915 (1984).
M. Goldstein, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**51**]{}, 3728 (1969).
C. A. Angell, [*J. Phys. Chem. Sol.*]{} [**49**]{}, 863 (1988). See also the contribution of W. Götze and L. Sjögren in Ref. [@yip].
M. Nauroth, W. Kob, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**55**]{}, 675 (1997) F. Sciortino, P. Gallo, P. Tartaglia, S.-H. Chen, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**54**]{} 6331 (1996). F. Sciortino, L. Fabbian, S.H. Chen and P. Tartaglia, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**56**]{} 5397 (1997); L. Fabbian, F. Sciortino, F. Thiery and P. Tartaglia, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**57**]{} 1485 (1998).
J. Kurchan, G. Parisi and M.A. Virasoro, [*J. Phys. I France*]{}, [**3**]{}, 1819 (1993).
F.H. Stillinger and T.A. Weber, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**25**]{}, 2408 (1982). F.H. Stillinger, [*Science*]{} [**267**]{}, 1935 (1995) and references therein.
S. Sastry, P. Debenedetti and F.H. Stillinger, [*Nature*]{}, in press (1998).
W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, A. A. Teukolsky and W. T. Vetterling, [*Numerical Recipes - The Art of Scientific Computing*]{} (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1986).
We have simulated 12 different state points, from $T = 255~K$ up to $T = 450~K$, following the constant ambient pressure path previously studied in Ref. [@lw]. Simulations have been performed at constant density. See table I in Ref. [@lw] for the studied $T$ and $\rho$.
L. J. Lewis and G. Wahnstrom [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**50**]{}, 3865 (1994).
A. Cavagna, I. Giardina and G. Parisi, cond-mat 9710272.
F. Sciortino and P. Tartaglia, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{} 2385 (1997)
T. Keyes [*J. Phys. Chem A*]{} [**101**]{}, 2921 (1997) and references therein.
We plan to study in the near future the $T$ dependence of the inherent structures for $T$ higher than the ones studied in this Letter. This requires a careful study due to the vicinity of the gas-liquid instability. We plan also to study a constant density path in the phase diagram.
Indeed, it appears plausible that the onset of stretched exponential and non-Arrhenius behavior above $T_{MCT}$ studied in [@sds] is related to $E_s(T)$, which is under current investigation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper is devoted to Riemann-Hilbert problems with singularities, that is, problems in which the matrix map $G$ of the corresponding Riemann-Hilbert operator is not valued in $GL(n,\mathbb C)$. We show how some of these problems can be reformulated as Riemann-Hilbert problems with pointwise constraints, and obtain results characterizing the properties of the operator in terms of certain indices associated to $G$.'
author:
- Florian Bertrand and Giuseppe Della Sala
title: 'Riemann-Hilbert problems with singularities'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Let $\Delta$ be the unit disc in ${\mathbb C}$ and let $b\Delta$ be its boundary. The classical Riemann-Hilbert problem can be formulated as follows (see Chapter XVI in [@po]): given two continuous functions $g: b\Delta \to {\mathbb C}\setminus\{0\}$ and $\varphi:b\Delta \to {\mathbb R}$, find a holomorphic function $f:\overline{\Delta} \to {\mathbb C}$ continuous up to $b\Delta$ such that $${{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{g}f\right]=\varphi$$ on $b \Delta$. The problem was introduced by B. Riemann in 1851 and by D. Hilbert in 1905. D. Hilbert solved the problem in [@hi2] using the theory of singular integral equations. In 1908, J. Plemelj [@pl] provided an independent solution by means of the so-called Sokhotski-Plemelj’s formula. The problem has been generalized in higher dimension; see [@ve] for a detailed exposition: given two continuous maps $G:b\Delta \to GL(n,\mathbb C)$ and $\varphi: b\Delta \to {\mathbb R}^n$, find a holomorphic map $f: \overline{\Delta} \to {\mathbb C}^n$ continuous up to $b\Delta$ satisfying the boundary condition $${{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{G}f\right]=\varphi$$ on $b\Delta$. The latter was solved using Birkhoff’s factorization [@bi] which generalizes Sokhotski-Plemelj’s formula in higher dimension [@ve] (see also [@fo; @gl1; @gl2]). It turns out that the existence of a solution as well as the dimension of the solution space depend on certain integers associated to $G$, namely the *partial indices* and the *Maslov index*.
The aim of this paper is to study a class of singular Riemann-Hilbert problems where the matrix map $G$ is not necessarily valued in $GL(n,\mathbb C)$. In the cases that interest us, $G$ admits a singularity at the point $\zeta=1$ which is of finite type in the sense that the function $\det G(\zeta)$ vanishes at $1$ to finite order; see also the work of E.J. Beggs [@be] in case $G$ is nonnegative Hermitian with singularities.
In our context, the indices mentioned above are no longer well-defined and the method based on Birkhoff’s factorization does not apply. Our approach is, roughly speaking, to factorize the non-singular part $\widetilde G$ of $G$ and to study the associated Riemann-Hilbert problem which is, however, defined between different functional spaces. We then show that this sort of problem can be analyzed by a suitable modification of the approach introduced in [@gl1; @gl2]. The main results in this regard are collected in Theorem \[theorh\] and Theorem \[theorh2\] where we obtain index formulas governing the problem, in particular, in relation to existence of solutions and the dimension of the solution space.
The Riemann-Hilbert problem has, among others, important applications in the study of holomorphic discs attached to non degenerate (e.g. Levi non degenerate or totally real) submanifolds of ${\mathbb C}^n$ [@le; @fo; @gl1; @gl2]. In case the submanifold under consideration is degenerate the associated Riemann-Hilbert problem turns out to admit singularities of the form studied in this paper. In a future work, we will apply the techniques developed here to this geometric problem.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1 we define the functional spaces we will be dealing with. In Section 2 we consider one- and two-dimensional Riemann-Hilbert problems with constraints. Then, in Section 3 we use these results to deal with such problems in arbitrary dimension and we give applications to Riemann-Hilbert type problems with singularities.
Function spaces
===============
We denote by $\Delta$ the unit disc in ${\mathbb C}$ and by $b\Delta$ its boundary.
Let $k$ be an integer and let $0< \alpha<1$. We denote by $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}=\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}(b\Delta,{\mathbb R})$ the space of real-valued functions defined on $b\Delta$ of class $C^{k,\alpha}$. The space $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$ is endowed with its usual norm $$\|v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}}=\sum_{j=0}^{k}\|v^{(j)}\|_\infty+
\underset{\zeta\not=\eta\in b\Delta}{\mathrm{sup}}\frac{\|v^{(k)}(\zeta)-v^{(k)}(\eta)\|}{|\zeta-\eta|^\alpha},$$ where $\|v^{(j)}\|_\infty=\underset{b\Delta}{\mathrm{max}}\|v^{(j)}\|$.
We define $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_e$ (resp. $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_o$) to be the closed subspace of $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$ given by the even (resp. odd) functions, i.e. the functions $v\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$ such that $v(-\zeta) = v(\zeta)$ (resp. $v(-\zeta) = - v(\zeta)$ ) for all $\zeta\in b\Delta$.
We set $\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha} = \mathcal C^{k,\alpha} + i\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$. Hence $v\in \mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$ if and only if ${{\rm Re}\,}v, {{\rm Im}\,}v \in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$. The space $\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$ is equipped with the norm $$\|v\|_{\mathcal{C}_{{\mathbb C}}^{k,\alpha}}=
\|{{\rm Re}\,}v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}}+\|{{\rm Im}\,}v\|_{\mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}}.$$ We denote by $\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ the subspace of $\mathcal C_{{\mathbb C}}^{k,\alpha}$ consisting of functions $f:\overline{\Delta}
\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$, holomorphic on $\Delta$ with trace on $b\Delta$ belonging to $\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$. Let $m$ be an integer. We define $(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ to be the subspace of $\mathcal C_{{\mathbb C}}^{k,\alpha}$ consisting of the functions that can be written as $(1-\zeta)^m f$, with $f\in \mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$. Note that $(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ is not a closed subspace of $\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$, thus it is not a Banach space with the induced norm. Instead, we equip $(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ with the following norm $$\|(1-\zeta)^m f\|_{(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}}
=\|f\|_{\mathcal{C}_{{\mathbb C}}^{k,\alpha}},$$ which makes it a Banach space, isomorphic to $\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$. Notice that the inclusion of $(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ into $\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ is a bounded linear operator. Finally, we denote by $\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$ the subspace of $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$ consisting of elements that can be written as $(1-\zeta)^m v$ with $v\in \mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$. We equip $\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$ with the norm $$\|(1-\zeta)^m f\|_{\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}}=\|f\|_{\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}}.$$ Notice that $\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$ is a Banach space. Denote by $\tau_m$ the map $\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha} \to \mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$ given by $\tau_m ((1 - \zeta)^m v ) = v$.
\[subspaces\] Define the closed subspace $\mathcal R_m$ of $\mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$ by $$\mathcal R_m := \{v \in \mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha} \ | \ v(\zeta) = (-1)^m \zeta^{-m} \overline {v(\zeta)} \ \ \forall \ \zeta \in b\Delta \}.$$ Then
(i) $\tau_m$ maps $\mathcal C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$ isomorphically to $\mathcal R_m$;
(ii) if $m = 2m'$ is even, the map $v \mapsto \zeta^{m'}v$ induces an isomorphism between $\mathcal R_m$ and $\mathcal R_0 = \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$;
(iii) if $m = 2m'+1$ is odd, the map $v \mapsto \zeta^{m'}v$ induces an isomorphism between $\mathcal R_m$ and $\mathcal R_1$.
Furthermore, if $m$ is odd the map $v(\zeta) \mapsto i \zeta^m v(\zeta^2)$ sends $\mathcal R_m$ isomorphically to $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_o$.
A function $v\in \mathcal C_{\mathbb C}^{k,\alpha}$ is in the image of $\tau_m$ exactly when $(1 - \zeta)^m v \in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$, i.e. $$(1 - \zeta)^m v= (1 - \overline \zeta)^m \overline v = (-1)^m \zeta^{-m} (1 - \zeta)^m \overline v,$$ which gives the first point (note that $\tau_m$ is an isometry by definition of the norms).
If $m = 2m'$ and $v\in \mathcal R_m$, $u = \zeta^{m'} v$, we have $$u = \zeta^{m'}v = \zeta^{m'} \zeta^{-2m'} \overline v = \zeta^{-m'}\overline v = \overline u,$$ hence $u\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$.
If $m = 2m'+1$ and $v\in \mathcal R_m$, $u = \zeta^{m'} v$, we have $$u = \zeta^{m'}v = -\zeta^{m'}\zeta^{-2m'+1} \overline v = - \overline \zeta \zeta^{-m'}\overline v = -\overline {\zeta u},$$ hence $u\in \mathcal R_1$.
Finally, letting $u(\zeta) = i \zeta^m v(\zeta^2)$ with $v\in \mathcal R_m$ and $m$ odd we have $$u(\zeta) = i \zeta^m v(\zeta^2) = - i \zeta^m \zeta^{-2m} \overline {v(\zeta^2)} = -i \zeta^{-m} \overline {v(\zeta)} =
\overline {u(\zeta)},$$ and furthermore $u(-\zeta) = (-1)^m u(\zeta) = - u(\zeta)$, hence $u\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_o$.
One- and two-dimensional Riemann-Hilbert problems with constraints
==================================================================
Consider the following classical linear Riemann-Hilbert problem which consists, for a given integer $r$, in finding $f \in \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}$ such that $$\label{eqrh0}
{{\rm Re}\,}[\zeta^{-r}f(\zeta)]=0 \ \mbox{ on } b\Delta.$$ Equation (\[eqrh0\]) leads to $$f(\zeta)+\zeta^{2r}\overline{f(\zeta)}=0 \ \mbox{ on } b\Delta.$$ We consider a more general situation:
\[lemrhl\] Let $l$ be an integer. Consider the operator $L^{\pm}: \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha} \to \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}$ defined by $$L^{\pm}(f):=(f\pm\zeta^l\overline{f})|_{b\Delta}.$$ Then the kernel of $L^{\pm}$ has real dimension equal to $\max \{l+1,0\}$.
Indeed it is straightforward to check that if $f \in \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}$ satisfies $$\label{eqrhl}
f\pm\zeta^l\overline{f}=0 \ \mbox{ on } b\Delta,$$ then $$f(\zeta)=\sum_{k=0}^{l} a_k \zeta^k$$ where $a_k=\pm\overline{a_{l-k}}$ for $k=0,\cdots,l$.
Now consider, for $m\geq 0$, the restriction of $L^{\pm}$ to the subspace $(1-\zeta)^m\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}$. Equation (\[eqrhl\]) can be written as $$(1-\zeta)^mf'(\zeta)\pm (-1)^m (1-\zeta)^{m}\zeta^{l-m}\overline{f'(\zeta)}=0$$ and thus $$f'(\zeta)\pm \zeta^{l-m}\overline{f'(\zeta)}=0.$$ In view of Lemma \[lemrhl\], we obtain:
\[lemrhm\] Let $l,m$ be integers. Consider the operator $L^{\pm}_{|}: (1-\zeta)^m\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha} \to \mathcal{C}^{k,\alpha}$ defined by $$L^{\pm}_{|}(f):=(f\pm\zeta^l\overline{f})|_{b\Delta}.$$ Then the kernel ${\rm Ker} \ L^{\pm}_{|} $ has real dimension equal to $\max \{l+1-m,0\}.$
Now, we study the surjectivity of the operator introduced in Equation (\[eqrh0\]).
\[lemsur1\] Let $r$ be an integer. Consider the operator $L: (1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha} \to
\mathcal{C}_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$ defined by $$L(f):={{\rm Re}\,}[\zeta^{-r}f]|_{b\Delta}.$$ Then $L$ is onto if and only if $2r-m \geq -1$.
Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{C}_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}$. Write $\varphi=(1-\zeta)^{m}v$ where $v\in \mathcal R_m$ (see Lemma \[subspaces\]). We need to study the following equation: $$\zeta^{-r} f - \zeta^{r} \overline f = \varphi$$ for $f \in (1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}$. Writing $f=(1-\zeta)^mf'$ with $f' \in \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}$ reduces to $$\label{eqsur}
\zeta^{-r} f' +(-1)^m \zeta^{r-m}\overline f' = v.$$ We distinguish two cases:
$m=2m'$ is even. In such case, Equation (\[eqsur\]) is equivalent to $$\label{eqsureven}
\zeta^{-(r-m')} f' + \zeta^{r-m'}\overline f' = \zeta^{m'}v.$$ Notice that $u\to \zeta^{m'}u$ maps $\mathcal R_m$ isomorphically to $\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$, see Lemma \[subspaces\]. Equation (\[eqsureven\]) is relatively classical and was treated by J. Globevnik in [@gl2] for instance. There exists such an $h'$ if and only if $r-m'\geq 0$.
$m=2m'+1$ is odd. In this case, Equation (\[eqsur\]) is equivalent to $$\label{eqsurodd}
\zeta^{-(r-m')} f' - \zeta^{r-m'} \overline {\zeta f'} = \zeta^{m'}v.$$ Set $u=\zeta^{m'}v$. By Lemma \[subspaces\] follows that $u \in \mathcal R_1$. We write $u = u' + u''$, where $u'= \mathcal P(u)\in \mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$, $\mathcal P$ being the Szegö projection. Since $u=-\overline{\zeta u}$, we have $u'' = -\overline{\zeta u'}$. If $r-m' \geq 0$, then $f'= \zeta^{r-m'}u' \in \mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$ and satisfies (\[eqsurodd\]). If $r-m' < 0$, then $$\int \zeta^{-(r-m')} f \ d\theta = \int \zeta^{r-m'-1}\overline f \ d\theta = 0$$ and so, for instance, $1 - \overline \zeta \in \mathcal R_1$ is not in the image.
Finally, we will also need the following:
\[lemsur2\] Let $r_1,r_2$ be integers. Set $$P(\zeta)= \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+\zeta & -i(1-\zeta) \\ i(1-\zeta)& 1+\zeta \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \zeta^{-r_1} & 0 \\ 0 & \zeta^{-r_2} \end{array}\right).$$ Consider the operator $T: \left((1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2 \to
\left(\mathcal{C}_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2$ defined by $$T(f):={{\rm Re}\,}[Pf]|_{b\Delta}.$$ Then $T$ is onto if and only if $2r_1-m\geq 0$ and $2r_2-m\geq 0$.
Let $\varphi \in \left(\mathcal{C}_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2$. Write $\varphi=(1-\zeta)^{m}v$ where $v\in \left(\mathcal{C}_{{\mathbb C}}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2$ and $f=(1-\zeta)^mf'$ with $f' \in \left(\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2$. We need to study the following equation: $$P f' +(-1)^m \zeta^{-m}\overline {Pf'} = v.$$
$m=2m'$ is even. In that case, we have $$\label{eqsur'2}
\zeta^{m'}P f' +\zeta^{-m'}\overline {Pf'} = \zeta^{m'}v,$$ which was treated by J. Globevnik [@gl2]. In particular, (\[eqsur’2\]) admits a solution if and only if $r_1-m'\geq 0$ and $r_2-m'\geq 0$.
$m=2m'+1$ is odd. We have $$\zeta^{m'}P f' - \zeta^{-m'-1}\overline {Pf'} = \zeta^{m'}v.$$ Following J. Globevnik, we make the substitution $\zeta = \xi^2$ and get $$\xi^{m}P(\xi^2) f'(\xi^2) - \xi^{-m}\overline {P(\xi^2)f'(\xi^2)} = \xi^{m}v(\xi^2),$$ After multiplying by $i$ $${{\rm Re}\,}\left[ \xi^{m}P(\xi^2) if'(\xi^2) \right] = i\xi^{m}v(\xi^2),$$ which becomes $$\label{eqsur'4}
{{\rm Re}\,}\left[
\left(\begin{matrix}i \xi^{-(2r_1-m-1)} f'_1(\xi^2) \\
i \xi^{-(2r_2-m-1)} f'_2(\xi^2) \\
\end{matrix}\right) \right] = 2i\left(\begin{array}{cc} {{\rm Re}\,}\xi & {{\rm Im}\,}\xi \\ -{{\rm Im}\,}\xi & {{\rm Re}\,}\xi \end{array}\right)\xi^{m}v(\xi^2).$$ Notice that, according to Lemma \[subspaces\], $2i\xi^mu(\xi^2)\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_o$ and that moreover the map $u \mapsto \left(\begin{matrix}
{{\rm Re}\,}\xi & {{\rm Im}\,}\xi \\
-{{\rm Im}\,}\xi & {{\rm Re}\,}\xi \\
\end{matrix}\right)u $ is an isomorphism between $(\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_o)^2$ and $(\mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_e)^2$. Thus, (\[eqsur’4\]) reduces to a pair of one-dimensional problems $$\xi^{-(2r_j - m - 1)} f'_j(\xi^2) + \xi^{2r_j-m-1}\overline f'_j(\xi^2) = u_j(\xi)$$ with $u_j\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}_e$, $j=1,2$. Writing $u_j(\xi) = u_j'(\xi^2)$ with $u'_j\in \mathcal C^{k,\alpha}$, this equation is in turn equivalent to $$\zeta^{-(2r_j - m - 1)/2} f'_j(\zeta) + \xi^{(2r_j-m-1)/2}\overline f'_j(\zeta) = u'_j(\zeta).$$ This problem is of the form considered in Lemma \[lemsur1\], and the surjectivity is equivalent to $2r_1-m -1\geq 0$, and $2r_2-m -1\geq 0$.
Linear Riemann-Hilbert problems with pointwise constraints
==========================================================
Birkhoff factorization and indices
----------------------------------
Let $G: b\Delta \to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ be a smooth map. One considers a Birkhoff factorization of $-\overline{G(\zeta)}^{-1}G(\zeta)$, *i.e.* some smooth maps $B^+:\bar{\Delta}\to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ and $B^-:({\mathbb C}\cup \infty)\setminus\Delta\to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ such that for all $\zeta\in b\Delta$ $$-\overline{G(\zeta)}^{-1}G(\zeta)=
B^+(\zeta)
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\zeta^{\kappa_1}& & & (0) \\ &\zeta^{\kappa_2} & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ (0)& & &\zeta^{\kappa_{N}}\end{array}\right)
B^-(\zeta)\,$$ where $B^+$ and $B^-$ are holomorphic on $\Delta$ and ${\mathbb C}\setminus \overline{\Delta}$ respectively. Note that according to N.P. Vekua [@ve], one can find $B^+$ and $B^-$ in such a way that $B^+=\Theta$ and $B^-=\overline{\Theta^{-1}}$, where $\Theta:\bar{\Delta}\to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ is a smooth map. The integers $\kappa_1, \dots, \kappa_N$ are called the [*partial indices*]{} of $-\overline{G}^{-1}G$ and [*the Maslov index*]{} of $-\overline{G}^{-1}G$ is their sum $\kappa:=\sum_{j=1}^N\kappa_j$.
We recall that $G$ being smooth - $C^1$ being enough for the present statement -, the Maslov index coincides with the winding number at the origin of the map $\det\left(-\overline{G}^{-1}G\right)$, namely $${\rm ind} \det\left(-\overline{\tilde{G}^{-1}}\tilde{G}\right)=\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{b\Delta}\frac{\left[\det \left(-\overline{G(\zeta)}^{-1}G(\zeta)\right)\right]'}{\det \left(-\overline{G(\zeta)}^{-1}G(\zeta)\right)}{\rm d}\zeta.$$
Linear Riemann-Hilbert problems with homogeneous pointwise constraints
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $k$ be an integer and let $0<\alpha<1$. Consider the following operator
$$L: \left((1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}
\to \left(C_{0^m}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}$$ defined by $$L(f):=2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{G}f\right],$$ where $G: b\Delta \to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ is smooth. Denote by $\kappa_1, \dots, \kappa_N$ and by $\kappa$ the partial indices and the Maslov index of $-\overline{G}^{-1}G$.
### Surjectivity and kernel of L
\[theorh\] Under the above assumptions:
(i) The map $L$ is onto if and only if $\kappa_j\geq m-1$ for all $j=1,\cdots,N$.
(ii) Assume that $L$ is onto. Then the kernel of $L$ has real dimension $\kappa+N-Nm$.
Before proving Theorem \[theorh\], we need a few more observations. Following [@gl2], one can find a smooth map $V:b\Delta \to GL_N({\mathbb R})$ such that $V\overline {G} = M(-i\Theta)^{-1}$, where $M$ has a special block-diagonal form and where $\Theta: \overline{\Delta} \to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ is smooth and holomorphic on $\Delta$. More precisely, $$\begin{array}{lll}
-\overline{G(\zeta)}^{-1}G(\zeta)& = & \Theta(\zeta)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\zeta^{\kappa_1}& & & (0) \\ &\zeta^{\kappa_2} & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ (0)& & &\zeta^{\kappa_{N}}\end{array}\right)\overline{\Theta(\zeta)}^{-1}\\
\\
& = & \Theta(\zeta)M(\zeta)^{-1}\overline{M(\zeta)} \overline{\Theta(\zeta)^{-1}}.\\
\\
\end{array}$$
Define the operator $$\tilde{L}: \left((1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}
\to \left(C_{0^{m}}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}$$ by setting $$\tilde{L}(f):=2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[M(i\Theta)^{-1}f\right].$$ Since $\Theta: \overline{\Delta} \to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ is smooth and holomorphic on $\Delta$, the map $(i\Theta)^{-1}$ is a Banach space isomorphism of $ \left((1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}
$ onto itself. Therefore the kernels of $L$ and $\tilde{L}$ are of the same dimension and $L$ is onto if and only if $\tilde{L}$ is onto. We will prove Theorem \[theorh\] for $\tilde{L}$.
We first prove $(i)$. Since $\kappa$ is even, the number of odd partial indices is even. Without loss of generality, suppose that $\kappa_j$ is odd for $j=1,\cdots,2r$ and that $\kappa_j$ is even for $j=2r+1,\cdots,N$. According to [@gl2], the matrix $M$ can be written as $$M(\zeta)=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}P_1(\zeta)& & & & & & (0) \\ & \ddots & & & & & \\ & & &P_{r}(\zeta)& & & \\
& & & & \zeta^{-\frac{\kappa_{2r+1}}{2}} & & \\ & & & & & \ddots & \\ (0) & & & & & &
\zeta^{-\frac{\kappa_N}{2}}\\
\end{array}\right),$$ where $$P_j(\zeta)= \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+\zeta & -i(1-\zeta) \\ i(1-\zeta)& 1+\zeta \end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc} \zeta^{-\frac{\kappa_{2j-1}+1}{2}} & 0 \\ 0 & \zeta^{-\frac{\kappa_{2j}+1}{2}} \end{array}\right)$$ for $j=1,\cdots,r$. Lemmas \[lemsur1\] and \[lemsur2\] proves part $(i)$
We now prove $(ii)$. Assume that $$2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[Mf\right]=0.$$ The disc $f \in \left((1-\zeta)^{m}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N}$ satisfies $$f=-M^{-1}\overline{M}\overline{f}=-\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\zeta^{\kappa_1}& & & (0) \\ &
\zeta^{\kappa_2} & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ (0)& & &\zeta^{\kappa_{N}}\end{array}\right)\overline{f}.$$ which, by means of Lemma \[lemrhm\], proves part $(ii)$.
### Finite jet determination of the kernel of L
Let $\ell_0, m, N\in \mathbb N$. We want to consider the linear map $\mathfrak j_{\ell_0}:((1 - \zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha})^N \to \mathbb C^{N(\ell_0 + 1)}$ sending $f$ to its $\ell_0$-jet at $\zeta=1$, i.e. $$\mathfrak j_{\ell_0}(f)=\left ( f(1), \partial f(1), \ldots, \partial_{\ell_0} f(1)\right )\in \mathbb C^{N(\ell_0 + 1)}$$ where $\partial_\ell f(1) \in \mathbb C^N$ denotes the vector $\frac{\partial^\ell f}{\partial \zeta^\ell}(1)$ for all $\ell=1,\cdots,\ell_0$.
Suppose that $L$ is onto and let $\ell_0= \max_{1\leq \iota\leq N}\{\kappa_\iota \} $. Then the restriction of $\mathfrak j_{\ell_0}$ to $\ker L$ is injective.
Let $\Pi: (\mathcal A^{k,\alpha})^N \to ((1 - \zeta)^m\mathcal A^{k,\alpha})^N$ be the isomorphism defined by $$\Pi(f)=(1-\zeta)^m f.$$ It is clear that the restriction of $\mathfrak j_{\ell}$ to $\ker L$ is injective if and only if the restriction of $\mathfrak j_{\ell-m}$ to $\Pi^{-1}(\ker L)$ is injective.
Define the subspace $A(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_N)\subset (\mathcal A^{k,\alpha})^N$ by the elements $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_N)$ satisfying $$f_\iota(\zeta) = \sum_{j=0}^{\kappa_\iota - m } f_{\iota,j} \zeta^j, \ f_{\iota, j} = \overline f_{\iota,\kappa_\iota - 1-j}$$ for all $j=0, \cdots,\kappa_\iota- m$ and $\iota=0, \cdots, N$ where we set $\sum_{j=0}^{\kappa_\iota - m } f_{\iota,j} \zeta^j = 0$ in the case $\kappa_\iota = m - 1$. Let $\ell_1= \max_{1\leq \iota\leq N}\{\kappa_\iota - m \}$: we claim that $\mathfrak j_{\ell_1}|_{A(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_N)}$ is injective.
Indeed, let $f \in A(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_N)$ such that $\mathfrak j_{\ell_1}(f) = 0$, i.e. $\partial_{\ell} f(1)=0$ for all $\ell=0, \cdots, \ell_1$. By the choice of $\ell_1$, in particular $\frac{\partial^{\kappa_\iota - m } f_\iota}{\partial \zeta^{\kappa_\iota - m }}(1) = 0$ for all $\iota=1, \cdots, N$. Since $$\frac{\partial^{\kappa_\iota - m } f_\iota}{\partial \zeta^{\kappa_\iota - m }}(1) = (\kappa_\iota - m )! f_{\iota,\kappa_\iota - m },$$ we get $f_{\iota,\kappa_\iota - m }=0$ for all $\iota=1, \cdots, N$. This in turn implies that $$\frac{\partial^{\kappa_\iota - m - 1} f_\iota}{\partial \zeta^{\kappa_\iota - m - 1}}(1) =
(\kappa_\iota - m - 1)! f_{\iota,\kappa_\iota - m - 1} = 0.$$ A straightforward inductive argument then shows that $f_\iota = 0$ for all $\iota=1, \cdots, N$.
Now, the proof of Theorem \[theorh\] implies that $\ker L = \Pi(\Theta_1A(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_N))$ where $\Theta_1 = (i\Theta)^{-1}$. We claim that the restriction of $\mathfrak j_{\ell_1}$ to the space $\Theta_1 A(\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_N)$ is again injective: by the remarks made at the beginning of the proof, it will follow that the restriction of $\mathfrak j_{\ell_0}$ to $\ker L$ is injective.
Indeed, for any $\ell\geq 0$ we have $$\partial_\ell(\Theta_1 f)(1) = \Theta_1(1) \partial_\ell f(1) + R_{\ell - 1}$$ where $R$ is a linear function of the $(\ell - 1)$-jet of $f$ at $1$. It follows that the (well-defined) linear map $\Theta_{\ell_1}: \mathbb C^{N(\ell_1 + 1)}\to \mathbb C^{N(\ell_1 + 1)}$ which sends the $\ell_1$-jet of $f$ at $1$ to the $\ell_1$-jet of $\Theta_1 f$ at $1$ has a block-triangular matrix representation whose $N\times N$ blocks in the diagonal are all equal to the non-singular matrix $\Theta_1(1)$. Therefore $\Theta_{\ell_1}$ is invertible, and the claim follows from the fact that $\mathfrak j_{\ell_1} \circ \Theta_1 = \Theta_{\ell_1} \circ \mathfrak j_{\ell_1}$ and that $\mathfrak j_{\ell_1} $ is injective on $A(\kappa_1, \ldots, \kappa_N)$.
Linear Riemann-Hilbert problems with pointwise constraints
----------------------------------------------------------
Let $G: b\Delta \to GL_N({\mathbb C})$ be a smooth map such that for all $\zeta \in b\Delta$: $$G(\zeta)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}G_1(\zeta)& & & (*) \\ &G_2(\zeta) & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ (0)& & &G_r(\zeta)\end{array}\right),$$ where $G_j(\zeta) \in GL_{N_j}({\mathbb C})$ for all $j=1,\cdots,r$. Let $\kappa_1, \dots, \kappa_N$ and $\kappa$ be the partial indices and the Maslov index of $-\overline{G}^{-1}G$. Suppose that the following operator $$L: \prod_{l=1}^{r} \left((1-\zeta)^{m_j}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N_j}
\to \prod_{l=1}^{r} \left(C_{0^{m_j}}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{N_j}$$ defined by $$L(f):=2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{G}f\right]$$ is well-defined. Denote by $\tilde{G}(\zeta)$ the following matrix $$\tilde{G}(\zeta)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}G_1(\zeta)& & & (0) \\ &G_2(\zeta) & & \\ & & \ddots & \\ (0)& & &G_r(\zeta)\end{array}\right)$$ and by $\tilde{L}$ the corresponding operator. The kernels of $L$ and $\tilde{L}$ are of the same dimension and $L$ is onto if and only if $\tilde{L}$ is onto. Therefore a direct application of Theorem \[theorh\] gives:
\[theorh2\] Under the above assumptions:
(i) The map $L$ is onto if and only if $\kappa_{l} \geq m_j-1$ for all $l=\sum_{1}^{j-1}N_{\nu}+1,\cdots,\sum_{1}^{j}N_{\nu}$ and all $j=1,\cdots,r$.
(ii) Assume that $L$ is onto. Then the kernel of $L$ has real dimension $\kappa+N-\sum_{j=1}^{r}N_jm_j$.
Note that the case of constraints at points $\zeta \in b\Delta$ other than $1$ can be reduced to the case of the above theorem by means of rotations.
An example of application
-------------------------
Consider the operator $$T: \left(\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}\right)^4 \to \left(C^{k,\alpha}\right)^4$$ defined by $$T(f)=2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{G'}f\right]$$ where the matrix map $G'(\zeta)$ is given by $$\displaystyle G'(\zeta)=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & \displaystyle \zeta(1-\zeta)^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \displaystyle \frac{(1-\zeta)^2}{\zeta} & 0 & \zeta \\
0 & -\displaystyle \frac{i(1-\zeta)^2}{2\zeta} & \displaystyle \frac{-i (1-\zeta)^2}{\zeta^2} & -i\zeta^2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -i\zeta^2\\
\end{matrix}\right).$$ Note that $\det G'(\zeta)=(1-\zeta)^4/\zeta$. The map $T$ fails to be surjective and the usual method based on Birkhoff’s factorization falls apart. Instead we study the operator $T$ as a map from $\left(\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}\right)^4$ to $ C^{k,\alpha} \times \left(C_{0^2}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2 \times C^{k,\alpha}$. In order to use Theorem \[theorh2\], we factorize $$G'(\zeta)=G(\zeta)\overline{D(\zeta)}$$ where $$G(\zeta)=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & \zeta^3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \zeta & 0 & \zeta \\
0 & -\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta}{2} & -i & -i\zeta^2 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -i\zeta^2\\
\end{matrix}\right) \in GL_4({\mathbb C})$$ and where $D(\zeta)$ is the Banach space isomorphism $$D(\zeta): \left(\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}\right)^4 \to \mathcal A^{k,\alpha} \times \left((1-\zeta)^{2}\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}\right)^2 \times \mathcal A^{k,\alpha}$$ defined by $$D(\zeta)(f_1,f_2, f_3, f_4)=(f_1,(1-\zeta)^2f_2, (1-\zeta)^2 f_3, f_4).$$ It follows that the matrix map $G$ and the associated operator $$L: \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha} \times \left((1-\zeta)^{2}\mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}\right)^{2} \times \mathcal{A}^{k,\alpha}
\to C^{k,\alpha} \times \left(C_{0^2}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2 \times C^{k,\alpha}$$ defined by $L(f)=2{{\rm Re}\,}\left[\overline{G}f\right]$ satisfy the assumption of Theorem \[theorh2\], and the problem therefore reduces to estimating the partial indices of $-\overline{G}^{-1}G$ and computing its Maslov index. As pointed out right before Theorem \[theorh2\], for the purpose of studying the indices we consider the block diagonal part of $G$, namely
$$\tilde{G}(\zeta)=\left(\begin{matrix}
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \zeta & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\displaystyle \frac{i\zeta}{2} & -i & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -i\zeta^2\\
\end{matrix}\right)
.$$
We have $$\begin{array}{lll}
\overline{\tilde{G}}^{-1}\tilde{G}&=& \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \zeta^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -\zeta & - 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & -\zeta^4\\
\end{matrix}\right)\\
\\
&=& \left(\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & -\zeta & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & i\\
\end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \zeta & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \zeta & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \zeta^4\\
\end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 & \displaystyle -\frac{1}{\zeta} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & i\\
\end{matrix}\right).
\end{array}$$ Following the notations of Theorem \[theorh2\], we have $\kappa_1=0 , \kappa_2= \kappa_3=1, \kappa_4=4$, $\kappa=6$, $ \ N_1=1 , N_2=2, N_3=1$, $N=4$ and $m_1=0 , m_2=2, m_3=0$. It follows that the operator $L$, and thus $T=L \circ D: \left(\mathcal A^{k,\alpha}\right)^4 \to C^{k,\alpha} \times \left(C_{0^2}^{k,\alpha}\right)^2 \times C^{k,\alpha}$, is surjective and its kernel has real dimension $6+4-1\cdot 0 - 2 \cdot 2 - 1 \cdot 0=6$.
[11111]{}
E.J. Beggs, [*The Riemann-Hilbert problem for singular positive loops*]{}, Rocky Mountain J. Math. [**24**]{} (1994), 1231-1254. G.D. Birkhoff, [*On a simple type of irregular singular point*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**14**]{} (1913), 462-476.
F. Forstnerič, [*Analytic disks with boundaries in a maximal real submanifold of ${\mathbb C}^2$*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier [**37**]{} (1987), 1-44.
J. Globevnik, [*Perturbation by analytic discs along maximal real submanifolds of ${\mathbb C}^N$*]{}, Math. Z. [**217**]{} (1994), 287-316.
J. Globevnik, [*Perturbing analytic discs attached to maximal real submanifolds of ${\mathbb C}^N$*]{}, Indag. Math. [**7**]{} (1996), 37-46.
D. Hilbert, [*Grundzüge einer allgemeinen theorie der linearen integralgleichungen*]{}, Leipzig, 1912. L. Lempert, [*La métrique de Kobayashi et la représentation des domaines sur la boule*]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. France [**109**]{} (1981), 427-474.
J. Plemelj, [*Ein Ergänzungssatz zur Cauchyschen integraldarstellung analytischer funktionen*]{}, Randwerte betreffend, (German) Monatsh. Math. Phys. [**19** ]{} (1908), 205-210.
W. Pogorzelski, [*Integral equations and their applications*]{}, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
N.P. Vekua, [*Systems of singular integral equations*]{}, Noordhoff, Groningen (1967) 216 pp.
[^1]: Research of the first author was supported by Austrian Science Fund FWF grant M1461-N25 and by a CAMS fellowship.
[^2]: Research of the second author was supported by Austrian Science Fund FWF grant P24878 N25 and by a CAMS fellowship.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is known that the presence of background magnetic field in cosmic plasma distorts the acoustic peaks in CMBR. This primarily results from different types of waves in the plasma with velocities depending on the angle between the magnetic field and the wave vector. We consider the consequences of these effects in relativistic heavy-ion collisions where very strong magnetic fields arise during early stages of the plasma evolution. We show that flow coefficients can be significantly affected by these effects when the magnetic field remains strong during early stages due to strong induced fields in the conducting plasma. In particular, the presence of magnetic field can lead to enhancement in the elliptic flow coefficient $v_2$.'
author:
- 'Ranjita K. Mohapatra'
- 'P. S. Saumia'
- 'Ajit M. Srivastava'
title: 'Enhancement of flow anisotropies due to magnetic field in relativistic heavy-ion collisions'
---
It has been recently shown by us that a deep correspondence exists between the physics of inflationary density fluctuations in the early universe which result in the CMBR acoustic peaks and the physics of flow in relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments (RHICE) [@cmbhic]. We further showed that important features such as acoustic peaks and suppression of superhorizon fluctuations may be present in a plot of root-mean square values of flow coefficients $v_n^{rms}$. The possibility of presence of this suppression of superhorizon fluctuations has been recently pointed out by Sorensen in RHIC data [@srnsn]. There have been several works now which discuss flow fluctuations for a large range of values of $n$ [@flowfluct]. This non-trivial connection between the superhorizon fluctuations of inflationary universe and similar fluctuations in RHICE is now discussed in several works and its various consequences are explored (see, e.g. [@shuryak]). We mention that such a connection between physics of RHICE and that of inflationary universe was never anticipated earlier, and indeed, at first sight, it looks surprising that a concept like superhorizon fluctuation which arises from highly non-trivial, superluminal expansion phase of the very early universe could have any relevance for relativistic heavy-ion collision experiments in laboratory. Such superhorizon fluctuations in RHICE originate from the fact that in the center of mass frame the thermalization (and any local homogenization) happens rather quickly, within about 1 fm. Initial parton energy density distribution from HIJING shows that transverse fluctuations (arising from localization of partons inside initial nucleons, and from the fluctuations in nucleon coordinates) with wavelengths significantly larger than 1 fm are necessarily present at the time 1 fm even in central collisions.
It was also emphasized in [@cmbhic] that various analysis tools of CMBR anisotropies can be effectively utilized for RHICE. It was proposed in [@cmbhic] that instead of focusing on the average values of the flow coefficients $v_n$ for small values of $n$ [@v2fluct], one should calculate root-mean square values of the flow coefficients $v_n^{rms}$ for a large range of $n$ upto 30-40. Further, these calculations should be performed in a lab fixed frame, which eliminates the difficulties associated with determination of event plane for conventional elliptic flow analysis for non-central collisions. It was shown in [@cmbhic] that a plot of values of $v_n^{rms}$ vs. $n$ can be used for directly probing various flow coefficients, in particular, the elliptic flow for non-central collisions [@flow0], without any need for the determination of event-plane.
In this paper we continue to explore this fertile connection between CMBR physics and RHICE. It was shown in ref. [@cmbrB] that the presence of background magnetic field in cosmic plasma can distort the acoustic peaks in CMBR. This happens due to the presence of different waves in the plasma, with velocities depending on the angle between the magnetic field and the wave vector. Presence of very strong magnetic fields in the plasma (of order 10$^{15}$ Tesla) during early stages in RHICE has been explored extensively recently in connection with the exciting possibility of observing CP violation effects [@cp; @bcal1; @bcal2]. An important effect of the presence of such strong magnetic fields in the plasma will be to lead to strong variations in velocities of different types of waves in the plasma. In particular the velocity varies with the angle between the wave vector and the direction of the magnetic field. It is thus obvious that this may qualitatively affect the development of anisotropic flow. We argue that the flow coefficients can be significantly affected by these effects. In particular, the presence of magnetic field can lead to enhancement in the elliptic flow coefficient $v_2$ by almost 30 %. (Note, we use $v_2$ with the present definitions to denote the elliptic flow even though we do not adopt the conventional usage of the eccentricity for defining the corresponding spatial anisotropy.) This raises the interesting possibility whether a larger value of $\eta/s$ can be accommodated by RHIC data when these effects are incorporated using full magnetohydrodynamical simulations.
An important issue here is the time scale over which the magnetic field remains strong. The magnetic field arising from the valence charges of the initial nuclei peaks to strong values for a very short time, essentially the passing time of the Lorentz contracted nuclei ($\sim$ 0.2 fm for RHIC energies). Subsequently it rapidly decays ($\sim \tau^{-2}$) [@bcal1]. In such a situation the effect of magnetic field on flow coefficient will be suppressed as time scale for the development of flow is several fm. Even at LHC, where expected magnetic field is more than an order of magnitude larger than that at RHIC, the effect of this initial pulse of magnetic field on flow coefficients may not be very significant, though due to various uncertainties, a full magnetohydrodynamics simulation is needed to investigate these issues.
However, it has been recently pointed out [@tuchin] that magnetic fields of similar magnitude, as the peak value of the external field, can arise from induced currents due to rapidly decreasing external field. Further, in the quasi-static approximation, the magnetic field satisfies a diffusion equation with the diffusion constant equal to $1/(\sigma \mu)$ where $\mu$ is the magnetic permeability and $\sigma$ is the electrical conductivity [@dfusn]. It is argued in ref. [@tuchin] that due to this the magnetic field may survive for much longer time, and can lead to interesting effects.
We will take $\mu \sim 1$ (refs.[@dfusn; @tuchin]). However, the value of electrical conductivity we take is smaller than what is taken in ref.[@tuchin]. We use $\sigma \simeq 0.3 T$ (= 0.3 fm$^{-1}$ for T $\simeq$ 200 MeV) from refs.[@sigma]. The time scale $\tau$ over which the magnetic field remains essentially constant [@tuchin] over length scale $L$ is, $\tau \simeq L^2 \sigma/4$. For $L = 5 - 6$ fm, we get $\tau \simeq
2-3$ fm. For higher temperatures $\sigma$ will be larger increasing the value of $\tau$. (See, also, ref. [@leptons] for effects of leptons on $\sigma$, though for RHICE this may not be significant.) $\sigma$ is also expected to increase due to the effects of magnetic field in the plasma [@sigmaB], further increasing the value of $\tau$.
It is important to note that the initial magnetic field will enter the medium in the longitudinal direction as the medium is only about 1 fm thick in that direction at the initial stage. For this the relevant quantity is the penetration depth $\delta \sim (\mu \sigma \omega)^{-1/2}$ where $\omega$ is the angular frequency of electromagnetic wave. Initial magnetic field, being a narrow pulse of time duration $t \simeq 0.2$ fm (typically the width of Lorentz contracted Nuclei, for RHIC energies), can be taken to have $\omega \simeq 30$ fm$^{-1}$. This gives the penetration depth of order 3 fm. Thus, the picture of magnetic field diffusing through the entire region of the plasma with typical length scale of several fm, and lasting with high initial peak values for time scales of several fm, is self consistent. (Though, note that the time scale of the decay of the field being of same order as the system size makes the assumption of quasi-static field, and to that extent the assumption of ideal magnetohydrodynamics, only marginally valid.) As significant flow anisotropy develops also in the time scale of order 3-4 fm [@oltr], it is then reasonable to assume that magnetic field can be taken to be almost constant for this duration of flow development. In conclusion, induced magnetic field, with similar magnitude as the peak value of the initial magnetic field pulse, decays slowly and, for time scales relevant for our model, can be taken to be approximately constant.
With this discussion, we continue to investigate the effects of (an approximately constant) magnetic field on sound waves in QGP produced in RHICE. For the non-relativistic plasma the effect of magnetic field can be simply described in terms of three different waves [@cmbrB; @mhd]. There is a fast magnetosonic wave which, for small magnetic fields, becomes the ordinary sound wave. Its velocity is given by $c_+^2 = c_s^2 +
v_A^2 \sin^2\theta$, where $v_A = B_0/\sqrt{4\pi\rho}$ is the Alfvén velocity and $\theta$ is the angle between the wave vector and the magnetic field ${\bf B}_0$. $c_s$ is the sound velocity and $\rho$ is the plasma density. Slow magnetosonic wave has velocity $c_-^2 = v_A^2 \cos^2\theta$, and the Alfvén wave velocity is given by $c_A^2 = v_A^2 \cos^2\theta$. These expressions for magnetosonic wave velocities are valid for the case when $v_A << c_s$. It was argued in [@cmbrB] that fast magnetosonic waves lead to distortion of CMBR acoustic peaks while the slow magnetosonic waves may lead to long period modulation of the peaks.
For the situation of plasma in RHICE one needs to consider the situation of relativistic magnetohydrodynamics. We will assume the applicability of magnetohydrodynamical description for the plasma at RHICE and restrict our consideration to wavelengths much larger than the Debye screening length. For the relativistic case, the expressions for the velocities of these waves are given below (we use natural units with $c$ = 1). For the following discussion, we have followed ref.[@mhd].\
[**Alfvén waves**]{}
Phase velocity ${\bf v}_{ph}$ and group velocity ${\bf v}_{gr}$ of these waves are
$${\bf v}_{ph} = {B_0 \cos\theta \over \sqrt{\omega_0}} {\bf n},
\qquad {\bf v}_{gr} = {{\bf B_0} \over \sqrt{\omega_0}} ,$$
where ${\bf n} = {\bf k}/k$, ${\bf k}$ is the wave vector and $\theta$ is the angle between ${\bf n}$ and the magnetic field ${\bf B_0}$. $\omega_0 = \rho_0 h_0 + B_0^2$ where $h$ is the specific enthalpy (subscript denoting the background values) defined as [@mhd] $\rho h \equiv \rho c^2 + \rho \epsilon + P$. Here, $\rho \epsilon$ is the internal energy, $\rho c^2$ is the rest mass energy and $P$ is the pressure. For ultra-relativistic case we take $\rho h = 4 P$.\
[**Magnetosonic waves**]{}
These are the waves which are relevant for our case of discussion of flow as they involve density perturbations. Phase velocities for these waves are given by
$${\bf v}_{ph} = v_{ph} {\bf n} = {\bf n} ({1 \over 2}[(\rho_0 h_0 /\omega_0)
c_s^2 + v_A^2])^{1/2} (1 + \delta \cos^2\theta \pm a)^{1/2} .$$
Here $+$ and $-$ signs correspond to the fast and slow magnetosonic waves respectively, $v_A = B_0/\sqrt{\omega_0}$ is the Alfvén speed, and $\delta$ and $a$ are defined below.
$$a^2 = (1 + \delta \cos^2\theta)^2 - \sigma \cos^2\theta , \\$$
$$\delta = {c_s^2 v_A^2 \over [(\rho_0 h_0/\omega_0)c_s^2 + v_A^2]} ,
~~ \sigma = {4c_s^2 v_A^2 \over [(\rho_0 h_0/\omega_0)c_s^2 + v_A^2]^2} .\\$$
($\sigma$ here should not be confused with the conductivity discussed above.) For propagation of density perturbations, as relevant for the evolution of flow anisotropies, the relevant wave velocity is the group velocity for the magnetosonic waves,
$${\bf v}_{gr} = v_{ph}\left[{\bf n} \pm {\bf t} {[\sigma \mp 2\delta (a
\pm (1 + \delta \cos^2\theta))]\sin\theta \cos\theta \over 2(1 +
\delta \cos^2\theta \pm a)a}\right] .$$
Here ${\bf t} = [({\bf B_0}/B_0) \times {\bf n}] \times {\bf n}$, and again the upper and lower signs ($\pm$ or $\mp$) correspond to the fast and the slow magnetosonic waves respectively. For a given magnetic field ${\bf B_0}$, the direction of ${\bf n}$ can be varied to generate group velocities of these waves in different directions. Fig.1 shows a typical situation of various vectors in Eq.(5) expected in RHICE. It is important to note that the direction of ${\bf v}_{gr}$ depends on the relative factors multiplying ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf t}$ in Eq.(5). This in turn depends on properties of the plasma like energy density. Thus due to the presence of spatial gradients in RHICE, even along a fixed azimuthal direction, we will expect the direction of ${\bf v}_{gr}$ to keep varying with the radial distance. This can lead to the development of very complex flow patterns, possibly leading to generation of vorticity.
=6truecm
[Typical situation expected in RHICE. Magnetic field points in y direction and the direction of the group velocity ${\bf v}_{gr}$ is obtained from ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf t}$ via Eq.(5).]{} \[Fig.1\]
For the strength of the magnetic field expected in RHICE, we use the estimates given in refs.[@bcal1; @bcal2] for Au-Au collisions at RHIC. For first estimates, we use a simple parametrization and take the magnetic field to be proportional to the impact parameter (with somewhat larger magnitudes than in ref. [@bcal1; @bcal2] to illustrate the effects).
$$B_0 = 10^5 {b(fm) \over 10} {\rm MeV^2} .$$
This corresponds to the maximum magnetic field of about $10^{15}$ Tesla and the scale of 10 fm is taken from [@bcal2] (where time integrated value of $eB_0$ is calculated, as coupling to charge particles is of interest there) as the approximate limiting value of the impact parameter $b$ up to which proportionality with $b$ is expected. The effect of magnetic field on wave propagation here comes from an effective magnetic pressure arising from the freezing of magnetic field lines in the plasma in the magnetohydrodynamic limit. Note that the importance of charges (quarks) here is only in establishing the magnetohydrodynamic conditions such that the electric field in the comoving frame vanishes. There is no direct pressure generated by interaction of magnetic field with quarks. (Thus it is of no relevance that gluons, which do not interact with the magnetic field, dominate the energy density of the plasma.) The distortions of magnetic field lines in the presence of density perturbations cost energy leading to an extra contribution to pressure from the presence of magnetic field. This is what is responsible for increasing the effective sound speed as given above.
We will assume a magnetic field with magnitude $B_0$ given above which is uniform over the region of the plasma, and as we have discussed above, is approximately constant for the early stages of time scale of few fm. This early time duration is important for the evolution of flow anisotropies [@oltr]. The magnetic field has direction in the transverse plane, normal to the direction of the impact parameter. From the expression of ${\bf v}_{gr}$ in Eq.(5) we see that an important factor is the ratio $B_0^2/P$ where $P$ is the pressure of the plasma which we take to be the quark-gluon plasma with two light flavors with the pressure given by $P = {37 \over 90}\pi^2 T^4$. Again, to illustrate the effects of the magnetic field on flow, we consider the situation at a lower value of the temperature $T = 180$ MeV. As the important effects occur for strong magnetic field which occurs for large impact parameter, a lower value of $T$ (compared to what is expected in central collisions) may not be very unreasonable. We are considering the effects of magnetic field relevant for Au-Au collisions at RHIC on somewhat larger side of the estimates. However, for higher energy collisions, e.g. at LHC, larger values of $B_0$ (by an order of magnitude compared to RHIC) should be routinely expected, see e.g. [@lhc].
We follow the procedure described in [@cmbhic] for calculating $v_n^{rms}$ using HIJING [@hijingp]. We start with the initial transverse energy density $\epsilon_{tr}$ distribution for Au-Au collision at 200 GeV/A center of mass energy from HIJING. For details, see ref.[@cmbhic]. We assume that the hydrodynamic description becomes applicable by $\tau =\tau_{eq}$, which we take to be 1 fm and calculate the anisotropies in the fluctuations in the spatial extent $R(\phi)$ at this stage, where $R(\phi)$ represents $\epsilon_{tr}$ weighted average of the transverse radial coordinate in the angular bin at azimuthal coordinate $\phi$. As emphasized above, angle $\phi$ is taken in a lab fixed coordinate frame. We divide the region in 50 - 100 bins of azimuthal angle $\phi$, and calculate the Fourier coefficients of the anisotropies in ${\delta R}/R
\equiv ({\bar R}- R(\phi))/{\bar R}$ where $\bar R$ is the angular average of $R(\phi)$. Note that in this way we are representing all fluctuations essentially in terms of fluctuations in the boundary of the initial region. We use $F_n$ to denote Fourier coefficients for these spatial anisotropies, and use $v_n$ to denote $n_{th}$ Fourier coefficient of expected momentum anisotropy in ${\delta p}/p$ defined in the lab frame. We have generated events using HIJING and we present sample results for Au-Au collision at 200 GeV/A center of mass energy. In all the plots, the averages are taken over 1000 events.
In [@cmbhic], the root mean square values $v_n^{rms}$ of the flow Fourier coefficients were obtained from spatial $F_n$s simply by using proportionality factor of 0.2 (with a minus sign as $F_n$ will be negative). We include the effect of magnetic field and the resulting angle dependent velocity of the (fast) magnetosonic wave by replacing this proportionality factor to 0.346 $\times {\bf v}_{gr}$. Here the group velocity of the (fast) magnetosonic wave ${\bf v}_{gr}$ (Eq.(5)) changes with the angle in the event plane. The assumption here is that the flow coefficients are proportional to the sound velocity [@oltr]. (Ignoring that now the time scale of the development of flow may also vary with the azimuthal angle). The factor of 0.346 is chosen so that the proportionality constant becomes 0.2 for zero magnetic field case with the usual sound velocity $c_s = 1/\sqrt{3}$.
In Fig.2 we show the plots of $v_n^{rms}$ for different values of impact parameter $b$ with magnetic field given by Eq.(6) (Solid curves) and without magnetic field (dashed curves). These plots show that magnetic field can strongly affect values of $v_n^{rms}$.
=8truecm
-0.2in
[Plots of $v_n^{rms}$ for different values of impact parameters $b$. Solid (dashed) curves show the plots in the presence (absence) of magnetic field. (a),(b),(c),(d) correspond to the values of $b$ = 10,8,6,2 fm respectively.]{} \[Fig.2\]
We have also calculated average values of flow coefficients in the event plane. Fig.3 shows the plots of the average flow coefficients $v_n$ for $b$ = 10 fm. Solid curve shows the plot with the presence of magnetic field and the dashed curve shows the plot in its absence. Note that both the curves approach almost zero value beyond $n \simeq $ 10 (as higher $v_n$s lose correlation with the event plane).
=5truecm
-0.2in
[Plots of the average flow coefficients $v_n$ for $b$ = 10 fm. Solid curve shows the plot with the presence of magnetic field and the dashed curve shows the plot in its absence.]{} \[Fig.3\]
It is important to study the effect of magnetic field on the elliptic flow $v_2$. In Fig.4 we show the plot of the ratio of $v_2$ with and without the magnetic field, i.e. $v_2(B)/v_2(0)$ as a function of the impact parameter $b$. Elliptic flow itself varies with $b$ and this ratio helps us in separating the effect of the magnetic field on $v_2$ as the field varies with $b$. Note that this ratio becomes as large as 1.3 for $b$ = 10 fm (for which the magnetic field takes its largest value in Eq.(6)). This strong enhancement in the value of $v_2$ is important especially as it raises the interesting possibility whether a larger value of $\eta/s$ can be accommodated by RHIC data when proper accounts of magnetohydrodynamics are incorporated in flow calculations.
=5truecm
-0.2in
[Plot of the ratio of $v_2$ with and without the magnetic field, as a function of the impact parameter $b$ (in fm).]{} \[Fig.4\]
Due to anisotropy of magnetosonic wave velocity, the radial flow itself will get modified. To incorporate this effect we modulated the initial spatial profile with a suitable weight factor proportional to ${\bf v}_{gr}$. However, its effects were insignificant. It still remains a possibility that for much stronger magnetic fields non-trivial flow anisotropies may arise even with almost isotropic initial conditions (though, for central collisions one expects very small magnetic fields). Also, note that the direction of ${\bf v}_{gr}$ depends on the relative weights of factors multiplying ${\bf n}$ and ${\bf t}$ in Eq.(5) which depends on quantities like the plasma energy density etc. Thus due to the presence of spatial gradients of plasma density in RHICE, even along a given azimuthal direction in the transverse plane the direction of ${\bf v}_{gr}$ will keep changing. In particular, fluctuations of energy density will lead to fluctuations in ${\bf v}_{gr}$ as well. Clearly due to such phenomena one expects a complex pattern of flow, even possibly leading to vorticity, to develop in RHICE than just radial flow and flow anisotropies. We have also checked the effects of magnetic field on other features of the plots of $v_n^{rms}$ discussed in [@cmbhic], in particular on the acoustic peaks. The effects are similar to what is shown in Fig.2 hence we do not show it here. It remains to be explored how the slow magnetosonic waves affect various features of the plots of $v_n^{rms}$ in view of its proposed long period modulation of the acoustic peaks in CMBR. The role of Alfvén waves also needs to be explored in the evolution of various fluctuations in RHICE (especially in view of their effects on CMBR [@cmbalfven]). Our approach in this work has been to present rough estimates of various possible effects of the presence of the magnetic field in RHICE. Detailed magnetohydrodynamical simulations are needed to probe these effects. Especially exciting will be the possibility of large effects at LHC energies where large magnetic fields (by almost an order of magnitude compared to RHIC) are expected [@lhc].
We are very grateful to Abhishek Atreya, Anjishnu Sarkar, Uma Shankar Gupta, and Trilochan Bagarti for useful discussions.
[99]{}
A. P. Mishra, R. K. Mohapatra, P. S. Saumia, and A. M. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. [**C 77**]{}, 064902 (2008); Phys. Rev. [**C 81**]{}, 034903 (2010).
P. Sorensen, Proc. 24th Winter Workshop on Nuclear Dynamics, 2008, arXiv:0808.0503.
P. Sorensen, arXiv:0905.0174 \[nucl-th\]; J. Phys. [**G37**]{}, 094011 (2010); B. Alver and G. Roland, Phys. Rev. [**C 81**]{}, 054905 (2010); B.H. Alver, C. Gombeaud, M. Luzum, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. [**C82**]{}, 034913 (2010);
P. Staig and E. Shuryak, arXiv:1008.3139 \[nucl-th\]
P. Sorensen for the STAR Collaboration, J. Phys. [**G 34**]{}, S897 (2007); J. Phys. [**G 35**]{}, 104102, (2008); R.S. Bhalerao and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. [**B 641**]{}, 260 (2006); S. Mrowczynski and E. Shuryak, Acta Phys. Polon. [**B 34**]{}, 4241 (2003).
J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Rev. [**D 46**]{}, 229 (1992); S. Voloshin and Y. Zhang, Z. Physik [**C70**]{}, 665 (1996); S.A. Volosin, A.M. Poskanzer, and R. Snellings, arXiv:0809.2949.
J. Adams, U.H. Danielsson, D. Grasso, and H. Rubinstein, Phys. Lett. [**B 388**]{}, 253 (1996).
D. Kharzeev, R.D. Pisarski, and M.H.G. Tytgat, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 512 (1998), S.A. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. [**C 70**]{}, 057901 (2004).
D.E. Kharzeev, L.D. McLerran, and H.J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. [**A 03**]{} 227 (2008)
M. Asakawa, A. Majumder, and B. Muller, Phys. Rev. [**C 81**]{}, 064912 (2010).
K. Tuchin, arXiv:1008.1604; Phys. Rev. [**C 82**]{}, 034904 (2010).
L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, “Electrodynamics of Continuous Media”, (Pergamon Press, N.Y., USA, 1984), Sect. 58; J.D. Jackson, “Classical Electrodynamics”, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA, 1999, Sect. 5.18.
S. Gupta, Phys. Lett. [**B 597**]{}, 57 (2004); H.-T. Ding et al. arXiv:1012.4963.
P.B. Arnold, G.D. Moore, and L.G. Yaffe, JHEP [**0305**]{}, 051 (2003).
P.V. Buividovich, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 132001 (2010).
J.-Y. Ollitrault, Eur. J. Phys. [**29**]{}, 275 (2008); R. S. Bhalerao, J. P. Blaizot, N. Borghini, and J.-Y. Ollitrault, Phys. Lett. [**B 627**]{}, 49 (2005).
“Advanced Magnetohydrodynamics”, J.P. (Hans) Goedbloed, R. Keppens, and S. Poedts, (Cambridge University Press, UK, 2010)
V. Skokov, A.Yu. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A 24**]{}, 5925 (2009).
X.N. Wang and M. Gyulassy, Phys. Rev. [**D 44**]{}, 3501 (1991); Comput. Phys. Commun. [**83**]{}, 307 (1994).
J. Kim and P. Naselsky, JCAP [**0907**]{}, 041 (2009); G. Chen et al. Astrophys. J. [**611**]{}, 655 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a system of $N$ particles interacting through the Kac collision, with $m$ of them interacting, in addition, with a Maxwellian thermostat at temperature $\frac{1}{\beta}$. We use two indicators to understand the approach to the equilibrium Gaussian state. We prove that i) the spectral gap of the evolution operator behaves as $\frac{m}{N}$ for large $N$ ii) the relative entropy approaches its equilibrium value (at least) at an eventually exponential rate $\sim \frac{m}{N^2}$ for large $N$. The question of having non-zero entropy production at time $0$ remains open. A relationship between the Maxwellian thermostat and the thermostat used in [@BLV] is established through a van Hove limit.'
author:
- |
Hagop Tossounian$^1$, Ranjini Vaidyanathan$^1$\
\
bibliography:
- 'nonequi.bib'
title: Partially Thermostated Kac Model
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
\#1>[\#1]{}
\#1 \#1\#2\#3[[0= -.60]{}]{}
[[^1]]{}
Introduction
============
Mark Kac introduced a stochastic model of $N$ identical particles interacting through binary collisions [@Kac]. The particles are constrained in $1$ dimension and are uniformly distributed in space. Hence, the phase space consists of 1-dimensional velocities ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}=(v_1,...,v_N)$ that evolve when the particles undergo random collisions as follows: Two particles $i,j$ are chosen uniformly among the $\binom{N}{2}$ pairs, and $\theta \in [0,2\pi)$ is chosen uniformly. The outgoing velocities $v_i^\ast$ and $v_j^\ast$ are given by $v_i \cos{\theta}+v_j \sin{\theta}$ and $-v_i \sin{\theta}+v_j \cos{\theta}$ respectively, where $v_i$ and $v_j$ are the incoming velocities of particles $i$ and $j$.
This collision preserves the kinetic energy and hence ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$ lies on the constant energy sphere $S^{N-1}(\sqrt{NE})$, where $E$, the energy per particle, is determined by the initial condition. The system is modeled as a Markov jump process with collision times that are exponentially distributed with mean $\frac{1}{N\lambda}$. A probability density $f({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ on the phase space evolves through the corresponding Kolmogorov forward equation, called the Kac master equation:
$$\label{E:Kmast}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = N\lambda (Q-I)f$$
where $Q=\frac{1}{\binom{N}{2}} \displaystyle\sum_{i<j} Q_{ij}$ is the Kac operator with
$$Q_{ij}f=\dashint_0^{2\pi} f(...,v_i \cos{\theta}+v_j \sin{\theta},...,-v_i \sin{\theta}+v_j \cos{\theta},...) \,d\theta$$
The unique equilibrium state is the uniform distribution on the sphere.
In his paper, Kac precisely formulates Boltzmann’s Stosszahlansatz (molecular chaos hypothesis), which says that for a dilute gas in the large particle limit, the incoming velocities of colliding particles are uncorrelated. Kac proved for his model that this property propagates in time. This notion, now known as “propagation of chaos”, enabled him to rigorously derive a space[-]{}homogeneous Boltzmann equation for his model [@Kac] (see also [@McK]). In fact, one of Kac’s motivations was to study approach to equilibrium for the Boltzmann equation using the *linear* $N$ particle master equation . In particular, Kac conjectured that the spectral gap of $N\lambda (I-Q)$ is bounded below, away from 0, uniformly in $N$. This was proved by Janvresse [@Janvresse] and the exact gap was found by Carlen, Carvalho, and Loss in [@CCL] and independently by Maslen [@Maslen]. It follows from their work that $\vert\vert f(\vec{v},t) - 1 \vert\vert_2 \leq e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2}t} \vert\vert f(\vec{v},0) - 1 \vert\vert_2 $, where $f(\vec{v},t)$ satisfies , and the norm is in $L^2(S^{N-1}(\sqrt{NE}),d\sigma)$, where $d\sigma$ is the normalized uniform measure on the sphere.
It turns out that the relative entropy $S(f\vert 1) = \int f \log f d\sigma$, being an extensive quantity, is a more favorable measure of distance to equilibrium in the large particle limit. For the Kac model, entropic approach to the equilibrium at an exponential rate of order $\frac{1}{N}$ is shown by Villani in [@Villani]. This rate was shown to be essentially optimal near $t=0$ by Einav in [@amit], by constructing states in which a macroscopic fraction of the kinetic energy was contained in a fraction $\sim N^{-\alpha}$ of the particles, for $\alpha>0$ suitably chosen. The Kac model coupled to a heat bath was studied in [@BLV], where they explored the possibility of obtaining better entropic convergence by remaining close to physically realizable initial states. To this end, they considered a system of $N$ particles where, in addition to the Kac collision among them, each collides with a reservoir modeled as an infinite gas in thermal equilibrium. This resulted in a system in which all except a relatively small number of particles are in equilibrium. Exponential convergence to the canonical equilibrium at a rate of $\frac{\mu}{2}$ was proved, where $\mu$ is the strength of the thermostat. Note that since the energy of the $N$ particles is not conserved in the presence of a heat bath, the phase space becomes ${\mathbb{R}}^N$.
In this paper, we take the model in $\cite{BLV}$ but let only $m<N$ of the particles be thermostated, and use a simpler model for the thermostat: the Maxwellian thermostat given by . (We will refer to the Maxwellian thermostat as the strong thermostat, and to the thermostat used in [@BLV] (see ) as the weak thermostat.) The motivation for our study is two-fold. First, studying partially thermostated systems is a step towards introducing spatial inhomogeneity in Kac-type models, by viewing the $m$ thermostated particles as situated “closer” to the heat bath. These $m$ particles act as the medium of heat exchange between the other particles and the reservoir. Second, the convergence to equilibrium in [@BLV] persisted even without the interparticle interaction, which did not play a role in the slowest decay modes. By thermostating only a subset of the particles, the interparticle interaction become necessary for the system to approach the canonical equilibrium and hence their role can be better understood. Using the spectral gap, we show that (strongly) thermostating a macroscopic fraction of particles i.e. $m = \alpha N$ guarantees approach to equilibrium in the $L^2$ distance uniformly in $N$. We also obtain a weaker convergence result in terms of the relative entropy of the system.
Description of Model and Results {#description-of-model-and-results .unnumbered}
================================
We have $N$ particles interacting via the Kac collision, with $m$ among them interacting, in addition, with a Maxwellian thermostat at inverse temperature $\beta$. We fix $N \geq 2$, $1 \leq m < N$ (The case $m=N$ has been studied in [@BLV], using the weak thermostat.) When particle $k \in \{1,...,m\}$ is thermostated, it forgets its precollisional velocity $v_k$ and is given a new velocity from the Gaussian distribution at the temperature of the heat bath. Physically, this could model the behavior of a particle colliding a large number of times with particles from the heat bath. This can also be thought of as a particle in the system being replaced with one from the heat bath.
The collision times with the heat bath for particles $\{1, \dots, m\}$ are independent and exponentially distributed with parameter $\mu$. The master equation for the evolution of a phase space probability density $f({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ is given by
$$\label{E:mast}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}= N \lambda (Q-I)f + \mu \sum_{k=1}^m(R_k - I)f \,\,\,\, ,$$
where the operator
$$\label{E:strongt}
R_k f := \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2\pi}} e^{-\beta \frac{v_k^2}{2}} \int{dw f(v_1,v_2,...,v_{k{-}1},w,v_{k+1},\dots,v_N)}$$
corresponds to the thermostat acting on the $k$-th particle. Recall that phase space is $\mathbb{R}^N$ since our system is non-isolated and energy is not conserved. We assume that the particles $1,2, \dots,m $ and the particles $m+1,...,N$ are indistinguishable, i.e. $f({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ is symmetric under exchange of variables $v_1, \dots, v_m$ and under the exchange of variables $v_{m+1},..., v_N$. The evolution preserves this symmetry. The interplay between the thermostat-interaction and the Kac collisions that distribute the energy to the non-thermostated particles lead the system to equilibrium.
As we will see, the unique equilibrium of eq. is the Gaussian
$$\gamma({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}):= \prod_{k=1}^{N} g(v_k) :=\prod_{k=1}^{N} \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2\pi}} e^{-\beta \frac{v_k^2}{2}} \,\, .$$ The evolution operator in eq. is not self-adjoint on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N)$, and to this end we make the ground-state transformation
$$f({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})=\gamma({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}) \bigl( 1+h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})\bigr) \,\,\, , \label{E:gs}$$
where $\int h \gamma =0$. The evolution equation for $h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ becomes
$$\label{E:hmast}
\frac{\partial h}{\partial t}= N \lambda (Q-I)h + \mu \sum_{k=1}^m(P_k - I)h \,\,\,\, ,$$
where
$$P_k h:= \int{dw g(w) h(v_1,...,v_{k-1},w,v_{k+1},\dots,v_N)}$$
is a function independent of $v_k$. In the Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma)$, the operators $P_k$, $Q$ and hence ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}:= N \lambda (I-Q) + \mu \sum_{k=1}^m(I-P_k)$ associated with the evolution, are self-adjoint. In fact, each $P_k$ is a projection.
The rate at which $h$ tends to its equilibrium value $0$ in the space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma)$ is given by the spectral gap $\Delta_{N,m}$ (see ). Theorem \[T:gap\] states that $\Delta_{N,m} \sim \frac{m}{N}$ for large $N$. It turns out that the kinetic energy $K(t):=\int (\sum_{j=1}^N v_j^2) f({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t) d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$ also behaves similarly for large $N$. More precisely, $K(t)$, which is not conserved since the $N$-particle system is not isolated, tends to its equilibrium value $\frac{N}{2\beta}$ at a rate $\sim \frac{m}{N}$ when $N$ is large.
The behavior of the kinetic energy is indicative of the action of the operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}$ on polynomials of the form $v_j^2$. Moreover, for $N=2, m=1$, we show in Appendix \[A:sp2\] that the gap eigenfunction - the slowest rate of decay in the space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^2,\gamma)$ - is a second degree polynomial. One may thus wonder if the gap eigenfunction is a second degree polynomial for other values of $N$ too. However, currently we only have asymptotic bounds on $\Delta_{N,m}$.
Next, we study the behavior of the relative entropy $S(f|\gamma)$ (defined in ). To obtain a quantitative rate for the decay in the relative entropy (we use the opposite sign for the relative entropy), one could try to prove Cercignani’s conjecture [@Cerc] applied to our system:
$$\label{E:prod}
-\frac{dS(f(.,t)|\gamma)}{dt} \geq k S(f(.,0)|\gamma)$$
for some $k>0$, which would yield an exponential bound $$S(f(.,t)|\gamma) \leq e^{-kt} S(f(.,0)|\gamma)$$ for the entropy. The quantity $-\frac{dS}{dt}$ is called the entropy production. Parenthetically, note that the spectral gap imposes a condition on how big $k$ can be: linearizing and comparing lowest order terms gives
$$\label{E:entbd}
k \leq 2\Delta_{N,m}.$$
For our problem, finding a bound for the entropy production appears to be hard because the familiar methods to obtain such estimates fail (we demonstrate why at the end of Section \[S:entr\]). Instead, we show in Theorem \[T:duh\] that the entropy at time $t$ satisfies
$$\label{E:entrN}
S(f(.,t)|\gamma) \leq D_{N,m}(t) S(f(.,0)|\gamma)$$
where $f(.,t)$ is the solution of with initial condition $f(.,0)$ and $$D_{N,m}(t)=\left(-\frac{\delta_- e^{-\delta_+t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} + \frac{\delta_+ e^{-\delta_-t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} \right).$$
For large $N$ and $t$, $D_{N,m}(t)\sim \exp(-\frac{m\lambda \mu}{(N-1)(N\lambda+\mu)}t)$. Note that is weaker than . For instance, does not yield an entropy production bound at time $0$, since $D_{N,m}'(0)=0$. We prove the Theorem by employing the convexity of $S(f|\gamma)$ directly. The idea is similar to a method used in [@BLV] to study the entropy of a particle acted on by the weak thermostat.
The generator $U$ of the weak thermostat is defined as follows:
$$\label{E:weak}
U [f(v)]:= \int dw\dashint_0^{2\pi} d\theta f(v \cos{\theta}+w\sin{\theta}) g(-v\sin \theta +w \cos \theta)$$
where $g (v)=\sqrt{\frac{\beta}{2\pi}} e^{-\beta v^2/2}$. The following entropy decay bound for the process is shown in [@BLV]:
$$\label{E:entrweak}
S(e^{\eta (U-I)t}f|g) \leq e^{-\eta t/2} S(f|g) \, , \mbox{ or }$$
$$\label{E:kappa}
\frac{dS}{dt} \leq -\frac{\eta}{2}S.$$
As an aside, we show in Appendix \[A:appopt\] that the bound in is optimal by using an optimizing sequence similar to that used in [@bobcerc; @CCLRV; @amit].
One can interpret the weak thermostat as a particle interacting with an infinite heat bath at temperature $\frac{1}{\beta}$ via the Kac-collision. The velocity distribution $g(v)$ of the particles in the heat bath is not affected by the collisions by virtue of the infinite size of the bath. This picture shows why it is weaker than the strong thermostat: In order for a particle from the system to forget its incoming velocity and pick a new one from the distribution $g(v)$, it has to undergo a large number of weak-thermostat interactions. The strong thermostat achieves this in one step . Although the weak thermostat mimics heat bath interactions more naturally, the strong thermostat is advantageous to use as a first step since the corresponding operator is idempotent and thus mathematically simpler. Moreover, we demonstrate in Theorem \[T:vh\] that the weak thermostat can be obtained from the strong thermostat via a van Hove limit.
The paper is organized as follows: We show approach to equilibrium in $L^2$ in Section \[S:L2\], compute the van Hove limit in Section \[S:vh\], and show approach to equilibrium in relative entropy in Section \[S:entr\].
Approach to equilibrium in $L^2$ {#S:L2}
================================
From this point on, we set $\beta=1$ without loss of generality.
In concurrence with the ground-state transformation , let $\mathcal{X}_N:=\{ u \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma) : \<u,1> =0 \}$, where $\<.,.>$ denotes the inner product in the $L^2$ space with weight $\gamma$. The condition $\<u,1>=\int{u({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}) \gamma({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}) d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}}=0$ corresponds to the normalization of the probability density $f$.
\[L:ker\]
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m} \geq 0$ on $\mathcal{X}_N$.
- ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m} h=0 \Leftrightarrow h=0$.
We know from [@Kac; @BLV] that $(I-Q) \geq 0$ and $(I-Q)h=0 \Leftrightarrow h$ is radial. Each $(I-P_k)$ is a projection with kernel precisely the subspace of functions in $\mathcal{X}_N$ that are independent of $v_k$. The only function in $\mathcal{X}_N$ that belongs to the kernel of $\sum_{k=1}^m (I-P_k)$ and is also radial is $0$. Hence, the Lemma is proved.
The spectral gap of the operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}$ is defined as:
$$\label{E:gapdef}
\Delta_{N,m} := \inf \{\<h,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}[h]>: ||h||=1, h \in \mathcal{X}_N\} \,\, .$$
Lemma \[L:ker\] implies that initial states in $\mathcal{X}_N$ decay to equilibrium at an exponential rate $\Delta_{N,m}$.
Gaussian states of temperature greater than twice the temperature of the heat bath cannot be represented by a function $h \in \mathcal{X}_N$.
The observation that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{2,1}$ is simply a linear combination of two projections ($Q \equiv Q_{12}$ is an orthogonal projection onto radial functions in $\mathbb{R}^2$) lets us compute the whole spectrum in this case. This is done in Appendix \[A:sp2\]. We see that the spectral gap is the lower root of the quadratic $x^2-(2\lambda+\mu)x+\lambda \mu$:
$$\label{E:gap2}
\Delta_{2,1}:=\frac{(2\lambda+\mu)-\sqrt{4\lambda^2+\mu^2}}{2}$$
with gap eigenfunction $$\frac{2\lambda}{2\lambda+\mu-\Delta_{2,1}} H_2(v_1) + \frac{2\lambda}{2\lambda - \Delta_{2,1}} H_2(v_2) ,$$
where $H_2$ is the monic Hermite polynomial (with weight $\gamma$) of degree $2$.
For general $N,m$, we have the following theorem:
\[T:gap\] Assume $\lambda, \mu >0$. Then
$$\label{E:est1}\frac{m}{N-1}\Delta_{2,1} \leq \Delta_{N,m} \leq \frac{m}{N-1} \frac{2 \lambda \mu }{\mu+\lambda}\,\, .$$
The proof is based on an inductive argument that follows in essence the one in [@CCL] in which the spectral gap of the Kac model is computed exactly. We first prove the following claim for $1\leq m < N$:
$$\label{E:claim}
\Delta_{N,m} \geq \frac{N-m-1}{N-1} \Delta_{N-1,m} + \frac{m}{N-1} \Delta_{N-1, m-1} \,\, .$$
We let ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}$ be the evolution operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}$ with the $k^{th}$ particle removed:
$${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)} = \frac{(N-1)\lambda} {\binom{N-1}{2}}\sum_{ \begin{array}{c} i{<}j\\ i,j \neq k \end{array}}^N (I - Q_{ij}) + \mu \sum_{ \begin{array}{c} l{=}1 \\ l {\neq} k\end{array}}^m (I- P_l).$$
\[R:induc\] ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}$ is also self-adjoint in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma)$, and will have $m$ or $m-1$ thermostats in it, depending on whether $k>m$ or $k \leq m$, respectively. Also, the coefficient of the Kac term corresponds to collisions among $N-1$ particles.
Next we show that
$$\label{E: motor}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m} = \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{k=1}^N {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}.$$
This follows, since
$$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^N {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)} & = & \sum_{k=1}^N
\left( \frac{2 \lambda}{N-2} \sum_{\begin{array}{c} i<j,\\ i,j \neq k \end{array} }^N (I- Q_{ij}) + \mu \sum_{\begin{array}{c} l=1\\ l \neq k \end{array}}^m (I- P_l) \right ) \\
& = & 2\lambda \sum_{i<j}^N (I - Q_{ij}) + (N-1) \mu \sum_{l=1}^m (I - P_l)\\
&= & (N-1) {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}.\end{aligned}$$
Then
$$\label{E:conn}
\< h,{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}[h]> = \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{k=1}^N{\<h, {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}[h]>}$$
At this point, we want to introduce the gaps $\Delta_{N-1,m}$ and $\Delta_{N-1,m-1}$ for $N-1$ particles into the right hand side; for this, we will need the functions to be orthogonal to $1$ in the space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^{N-1},\gamma(\hat{v}_k))$, where $\gamma(\hat{v}_k)$ is the Gaussian $\gamma$ with the variable $v_k$ missing. To this end, we define the projections $$\pi_k[h]:=\int h \gamma(\hat{v_k})\, dv_1\dots dv_{k-1} dv_{k+1} \dots d{v_N}$$
and write, for each $k$, $\<h, {\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}[h]> = \<(h-\pi_k h),{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}(h-\pi_k h)>$. This holds because the range of the projection $\pi_k$ is exactly the kernel of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}$, and the operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}$ is self-adjoint. Thus, from ,
$$\Delta_{N,m} = \frac{1}{N-1} \inf \sum_{k=1}^{N}{\<(h-\pi_k h),{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}^{(k)}(h-\pi_k h)>}\,$$
where the infimum is over $h \in \mathcal{X}_N$, $||h||=1$ as per the definition of the spectral gap. Since $(h-\pi_k h)$ is orthogonal to the constant function $1$ in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^{N-1},\gamma(\hat{v}_k))$ by construction, we use the definition of the spectral gap to write
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{N,m} &\geq& \frac{1}{N-1} \inf \left(\sum_{k=m+1}^N \Delta_{N-1,m}(||h-\pi_k h||^2) + \sum_{k=1}^m \Delta_{N-1,m-1}(||h-\pi_k h||^2) \right) \text{ (by Remark \ref{R:induc})}\\
& = & \frac{1}{N{-}1} \inf \left( \Delta_{N-1,m} \sum_{k=m{+}1}^N (\vert\vert h \vert\vert ^2 - ||\pi_k h\vert\vert^2) + \Delta_{N-1,m-1} \sum_{k=1}^m (\vert\vert h||^2 - ||\pi_k h\vert\vert^2)\right)\\ & \geq & \frac{N-m}{N-1} \Delta_{N-1,m} + \frac{m}{N-1} \Delta_{N-1,m-1} - \frac{1}{N{-}1} \max\{\Delta_{N-1,m},\Delta_{N-1, m-1}\} \sup\sum_{k=1}^N \vert\vert \pi_k h\vert\vert^2 \ , \end{aligned}$$
where we have used symmetry among $1,...,m$ and $m+1,...,N$ and the fact that the infimum is over functions with norm $1$.
First, we note that $\Delta_{N-1,m} \geq \Delta_{N-1,m-1}$ since $(I-P_m) \geq 0$. Next, $\sup\{\sum_{k=1}^N \vert\vert \pi_k h \vert\vert^2, h\in \mathcal{X}_N\}$ equals $\sup_{\mathcal{X}_N} \< h, \sum_{k=1}^N \pi_kh>$. Since $\{\pi_k\}_1^N$ is a collection of commuting projection operators, $\sum_{k=1}^N \pi_k$ is a projection and the supremum is $1$.
We then get $$\Delta_{N,m} \geq \frac{N{-}m}{N{-}1} \Delta_{N{-}1,m} + \frac{m}{N{-}1} \Delta_{N{-}1,m{-}1} - \frac{1}{N-1} \Delta_{N-1,m},$$
which implies claim .
We now prove the first inequality in Theorem \[T:gap\]. The region of interest is $\{ (N,m): 1\leq m \leq N-1\}$. We will use induction on $N \geq 2$.
- The base case $N=2$, $m=1$ is the trivial statement $\Delta_{2,1}\geq \Delta_{2,1}$.
- Now suppose $$\label{E:indu}
\Delta_{N,m} \geq \Delta_{2,1} \frac{m}{N-1}$$ for all $m$ such that $1\leq m \leq N{-}1$. To show that $\Delta_{N+1,m} \geq \Delta_{2,1} \frac{m}{N}$ for all $m$ such that $1 \leq m \leq N$, consider the following two cases:
- $m=1$: We need to show that $\Delta_{N+1,1} \geq \frac{\Delta_{2,1}}{N}$. From , we deduce that $$\Delta_{N+1,1} \geq \frac{N-1}{N} \Delta_{N,1} + \frac{1}{N}\Delta_{N,0} = \frac{N-1}{N} \Delta_{N,1}\; .$$ In the above, we have $\Delta_{N,0}=0$ because when none of the particles are thermostated, the ground-state is degenerate (any radial function in $\mathbb{R}^N$ is an equilibrium for the Kac part). Applying with $m=1$ then completes the proof of this case.
- $1<m \leq N$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{N+1,m} &\geq \frac{N{-}m}{N} \left( \frac{m \Delta_{2,1} }{N-1}\right) + \frac{m}{N} \left(\frac{(m{-}1) \Delta_{2,1}}{N-1} \right) \text{ (using \eqref{E:claim} and \eqref{E:indu})}\\ &= \Delta_{2,1} \frac{m}{N(N-1)} (N-m + m -1) = \Delta_{2,1} \frac{m}{N}\end{aligned}$$
This proves the first inequality in . We prove second inequality in , by finding an upper bound proportional to $\frac{ m }{N-1}$, for $\Delta_{N,m}$. This can be done by finding a (possibly crude) upper bound on the eigenvalues of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}$ on the space of second degree Hermite polynomials with weight $\gamma$. This space is invariant under ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}$ and its action on it with basis $\{ \sum_{k=m+1}^N H_2(v_k),\sum_{k=1}^m H_2(v_k) \}$ can be described by the following matrix (as mentioned before, this is related to the evolution of kinetic energy of the system). We use the identities $Q_{ij}H_2(v_i) = (H_2(v_i)+H_2(v_j))/2$ and $Q_{ij}H_2(v_k) = H_2(v_k)$ for $i,j \neq k$ in obtaining the entries.
$$\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\lambda m}{N-1} & \frac{-\lambda m}{N-1} \\
-\frac{\lambda(N-m)}{N-1} & \frac{\lambda (N-m)}{N-1} + \mu
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Its smallest eigenvalue is $\frac{1}{2}(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1}) \bigl( 1-\sqrt{1- \frac{4 m \lambda \mu}{N-1} \frac{1}{(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1})^2}} \bigr)$. Hence, by definition of the gap,
$$\Delta_{N,m} \leq \frac{1}{2}(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1}) \bigl( 1-\sqrt{1- \frac{m }{N-1} \frac{4\lambda \mu}{(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1})^2}} \bigr)$$
For $N$ large enough, we can write
$$\Delta_{N,m} \leq \frac{1}{2}\left(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1}\right)\frac{m}{N-1} \frac{4\lambda \mu}{(\mu + \frac{N\lambda}{N-1})^2}$$
or
$$\Delta_{N,m} \leq \frac{m}{N-1} \frac{2\lambda \mu}{\mu + \lambda}$$
Thus, as we are close to equilibrium, $h \to 0$ in $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma)$ at an exponential rate $\Delta_{N,m}$, which for large $N$, is proportional to the fraction of thermostated particles.
van Hove Limit {#S:vh}
==============
In this section, we relate the strong and weak thermostats by studying the two-particle system ($N=2$, $m=1$) described by eq. :
$$\label{E:hvh2}
\frac{\partial f^\lambda}{\partial t} = - 2\lambda (I-Q_{12})f^{\lambda} - \mu (I-R_1)f^\lambda =: -\mathcal{G}^\lambda f^\lambda \,\, ,$$
Here the superscript makes it explicit that the solution depends on $\lambda$.
Particle $2$ interacts through the Kac collision with Particle $1$, which is given the Gaussian distribution $g(v)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{v^2}{2}}$ at random times due to the action of the strong thermostat $R_1$. We increase the rate $\mu$ at which the strong thermostat acts relative to the rate of the Kac collision $2\lambda$. This can be achieved by increasing the time scale of the Kac operator $\frac{1}{2\lambda}\rightarrow \infty$ and sampling at longer time intervals $\displaystyle \tau:= t \lambda$. Thus, the thermostat, operating on a much smaller time-scale, becomes powerful in the limit. The result is that by passing through a van Hove (weak-coupling, large time) limit [@DA] of this system, Particle $2$ gets thermostated “weakly", via its interaction with Particle $1$ whose distribution is essentially always $g(v)$.
We are interested in the evolution of $ \tilde{f}^\lambda(v_1, v_2,\tau):= f^\lambda(v_1,v_2,\frac{\tau}{\lambda})$ in the limit $ \lambda \to 0 $. Here $f^\lambda(v_1,v_2,t)$ satisfies above. The equation satisfied by $\tilde{f}^{\lambda}(v_1,v_2,\tau)$ is then:
$$\label{E:til}
\frac{\partial \tilde{f}^{\lambda}}{\partial \tau} = -2(I-Q_{12}) \tilde{f}^{\lambda} - \frac{\mu}{\lambda}(I - R_1)\tilde{f}^{\lambda} =: -\frac{\mathcal{G}^\lambda}{\lambda} \tilde{f}^\lambda$$
We have the following theorem, which states that the diagram in Figure $1$ commutes.
\[T:vh\]
Let $\tilde{f}^{\lambda}$ satisfy eq. with initial condition $\tilde{f}^{\lambda}(v_1,v_2,0)=\phi(v_1,v_2) \in L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$. Then for $\tau>0, \, \displaystyle
\lim_{\lambda \to 0} \tilde{f}^{\lambda}=:g(v_1)\tilde{f}(v_2,\tau)$ exists in $L^1(\mathbb{R}^2)$, where $\tilde{f}$ satisfies the equation
$$\label{E:vh}
\frac{\partial \tilde{f}}{\partial \tau} = -2(I-U_2) \tilde{f}$$
together with the initial condition $\tilde{f}(v_2,0)=\frac{R_1 \phi(v_1,v_2)}{g(v_1)}$. $U_2$ is the weak thermostat acting on $v_2$.
\(m) \[matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=4em,minimum width=2em\] [ (v\_1, v\_2) & \^(v\_1, v\_2, )\
g(v\_1)(v\_2,0) & g(v\_1)(v\_2,)\
]{}; (m-1-1) edge node \[left\] [$R_1$]{} (m-2-1) edge node \[above\] [$e^{-\frac{\tau}{\lambda} \mathcal{G}^{\lambda}} $]{} (m-1-2) (m-2-1) edge node \[below\] [$e^{-2\tau(I-U_2)} $]{} (m-2-2) (m-1-2) edge node \[right\] [$\lambda\rightarrow 0$]{} (m-2-2);
We can write $e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} \tau(I-R_1)} = I + (I- R_1)(e^{-\mu \tau/\lambda}- 1)$ because $(I-R_1)$ is idempotent. This implies that
$$\label{E:vhbound}
\vert\vert e^{-\frac{\tau \mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1)}- R_1 \vert\vert_{1} = e^{-\mu \frac{\tau}{\lambda}} \vert\vert I - R_1\vert\vert_1\leq 2e^{-\mu \frac{\tau}{\lambda}}.$$
For each $\lambda$, the operators in $\frac{1}{\lambda}\mathcal{G}^\lambda$ are bounded. Thus, the Dyson expansion (the infinite series version of the Duhamel formula) corresponding to the evolution in gives $ e^{-\frac{\tau}{\lambda} \mathcal{G}^\lambda} \phi = \sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k(\phi)$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
b_0 (\phi) & = & e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) \tau} \phi, \\
b_1 (\phi) & = & \int_{t_1=0}^\tau e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) (\tau-t_1)} [-2(I- Q_{12})] e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) t_1} \phi\,\,dt_1 \mbox{, and}\\
b_k(\phi) & = & \int_{ \{0\leq t_k \leq \dots t_1 \leq \tau\}} e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) (\tau-t_1)}[-2(I- Q_{12})] e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) (t_1-t_2)} \dots [-2(I- Q_{12})] e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I-R_1) (t_k)}\phi\,d\vec{t}\\ \end{aligned}$$
Using and the identity $R_1 Q_{12} R_1 = R_1 U_2 = U_2 R_1$, we show that $\forall k$, $b_k(\phi)$ converges to
$$\int_{\{0\leq t_k \leq \dots t_1 \leq \tau\}} R_1 [-2(I- Q_{12})]R_1 \dots [-2(I- Q_{12})] R_1 \phi \,\, d\vec{t}= \frac{1}{k!}\left( -2(I-U_2)\right)^k (R_1 \phi)$$
in $L^1$ as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$.
Finally, we use the fact that for each $u\geq 0$, $\vert\vert e^{-\frac{\mu}{\lambda} (I - R_1) u} \phi \vert\vert_1 = \vert\vert \phi \vert\vert_1$ and $\vert\vert (I-Q_{12}) \phi \vert\vert_1 \leq 2 \vert\vert \phi \vert\vert_1$ so that $\vert\vert b_k(\phi) \vert\vert\leq 4^k \int_{\{0\leq t_k \leq \dots t_1 \leq \tau\}} dt_1 \dots dt_k \vert\vert \phi \vert\vert_1 = \frac{(4\tau)^k}{k!}\vert\vert \phi \vert\vert_1$, independently of $\lambda$. Therefore the dominated convergence theorem can be applied to give
$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} e^{-\frac{\tau}{\lambda} \mathcal{G}^\lambda} \phi & = & \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} \sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k(\phi) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} b_k(\phi)\\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^\infty (-2(I-U_2))^k \frac{\tau^k}{k!} (R_1 \phi) = e^{-2(I - U_2)\tau} (R_1 \phi).\end{aligned}$$
The above proof can be generalized to give the following van Hove results for the $N$-particle case. We will use the statement “the van Hove limit of $\{ A(\lambda): \lambda>0\}$ as $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ is $A^\ast$ with idempotent operator $B$” to mean $\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0} e^{-\frac{\tau}{\lambda} A(\lambda)} \phi = e^{-\tau A^\ast} (B\phi) = B e^{-\tau A^\ast} \phi$ for all $\tau>0$ and all $\phi \in L^1$.
- The van Hove limit of $\{ \lambda \sum_{j=2}^N ( I - Q_{1j}) + \mu (I - R_1)\}$, acting on $L^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, is $\sum_{j=2}^N(I-U_j)$ with idempotent operator $R_1$.
- The van Hove limit of $\{N \lambda (I-Q) + \mu (I-R_1)\}$, acting on $L^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ is $\frac{2}{N-1}\sum_{j=2}^N (I-U_j) + \frac{N-2}{N-1} (N-1)(I- Q^{(1)})$ with idempotent operator $R_1$. Here $Q^{(1)} = \frac{2}{N-2} \sum_{2 \leq i<j} (I-Q_{ij})$ is the Kac operator acting on particles $2, \dots, N$.
- Let $\alpha= \frac{2N-1}{N-1}$. The van Hove limit of $\{ \lambda \alpha 2N(I-Q_{(2N)}) + \mu \sum_{i=N+1}^{2N} (I-R_i)\}$, acting on $L^1({\mathbb{R}}^{2N})$, is $N(I-Q_{(N)}) + \frac{2N}{N-1} \sum_{i=1}^N (I-U_i)$, with idempotent operator $R_{N+1} R_{N+2} \dots R_{2N}$. Here $Q_{(N)}$ and $Q_{(2N)}$ are the Kac operators acting on particles $v_1, \dots, v_{N}$ and $v_1, \dots, v_{2N}$ respectively.
The first two results show that having one strongly thermostated particle is sufficient to“weakly" thermostat each particle colliding with it in the van Hove limit. The strength of this thermostat will be $O(\frac{1}{N})$ under the usual Kac collision unless $\sim N$ strongly thermostated particles are used, as in the third result.
\[R:BLV\] The third result shows that up to a constant in the thermostat terms, it is possible to obtain the model in [@BLV] as a van Hove limit of models in which half the particles are strongly thermostated.
Approach to Equilibrium in Entropy {#S:entr}
==================================
In this section, we study the behavior of the relative entropy functional
$$\label{E:relent}
S(f|\gamma):= \int f\log \frac{f}{\gamma} d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$$
under the evolution . This is a standard way to track the approach to equilibrium since it satisfies $S(f|\gamma) \geq 0$ and $S(f|\gamma)=0 \Leftrightarrow f=\gamma$. For our model, we show below that $S(f(.,t)|\gamma) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$, provided the initial distribution $f(.,0)$ has finite relative entropy.
Set $f=\gamma h$ (this is slightly different from the ground-state transformation ), and restrict to $h \geq 0$, $\int h \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}=1$. The evolution equation obeyed by $h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ is eq. , which we restate below:
$$\frac{\partial h}{\partial t} = N \lambda (Q-I) h + \mu \sum_{k=1}^m(P_k-I)h = -{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m} h \,\, .$$
The relative entropy then becomes $\int h \log h \, \gamma \, d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$, which we denote by $S(h)$ (overloading the notation) for the remainder of this section.
Now, $$\frac{dS}{dt} \, = \int \frac{\partial h}{\partial t} \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}+ \int \frac{h}{h} \frac{\partial h}{\partial t} \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\,= \int \frac{\partial h}{\partial t} \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\, ,$$
where the second term vanishes because the normalization $\int h \gamma \, d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}=1$ is preserved by the evolution. Hence, $$\frac{dS}{dt} =\int \left(N \lambda (Q-I) h + \mu \sum_{k=1}^m(P_k-I)h\right) \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\, .$$
We know (from [@Kac]) that $\int N (Q-I) h \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\leq 0$. Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\int P_k h \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}&= \int P_k h \,\, P_k(\log h) \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\,\,\,\, \text{(by self-adjointness of $P_k$ as observed in Section~\ref{S:L2})}\\
& \leq \int (P_k h) \log(P_k h) \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\,\,\,\, \text{(by concavity of $\log$ and averaging property of $P_k$)}\\
& \leq \int h \log h \, \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\,\,\,\, \text{(by convexity of $x\log x$)}\end{aligned}$$
Thus $\frac{dS}{dt} \leq 0$. The following theorem indicates how fast the relative entropy decays under the evolution.
\[T:duh\] Assume $1 \leq m <N$ and let $h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ be the solution of . Then we have that $$\label{eq:main}
S(h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)) \leq \left(-\frac{\delta_- e^{-\delta_+t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} + \frac{\delta_+ e^{-\delta_-t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} \right)S(h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},0))$$
where $\delta_{\pm} \equiv \delta_{\pm}(N,m)=\left(\frac{N\lambda+\mu}{2} \pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(N\lambda+\mu)^2-4m\lambda \mu/(N-1)}\right)$.
We first state a few observations on the above bound. Let us define
$$D(t):=-\frac{\delta_- e^{-\delta_+t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} + \frac{\delta_+ e^{-\delta_-t}}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} \, .$$
As expected, $D(t)$ is identically equal to $1$ when $\lambda$ or $\mu$ is $0$. For $\lambda, \mu >0$, $\displaystyle\lim_{t \to \infty} D(t) = 0$, $D(t)$ is equal to $1$ at $t=0$ and it is a decreasing function of $t>0$. The last claim can be seen by computing
$$\label{E:entr0}
\frac{dD}{dt} = \frac{\delta_- \delta_+}{\delta_{+}-\delta_{-}} \bigl( e^{-\delta_+ t}-e^{-\delta_- t}\bigr) \leq 0$$
since $\delta_-<\delta_+$. For large $t$, the dominant term in the bound is $e^{-\delta_- t}$, and for large $N$, $\delta_- \sim \frac{m\lambda \mu}{(N-1)(N\lambda+\mu)}$. Hence, we obtain an eventually exponential decay of relative entropy through this bound, albeit with decay constant $\sim \frac{m}{N^2}$.
In this paragraph, we make a few remarks about the bound for the special case $N=2, m=1$. Observe that $\delta_-(2,1) =\Delta_{2,1}$ is the spectral gap of $2\lambda(I-Q)+\mu(I-P_1)$ (see ). As an aside, note that this is in accordance with . Upon making the transformation $(\mu,\lambda) \rightarrow (\frac{\mu}{\lambda},1)$ corresponding to the van Hove limit (see eq. ), we obtain $D(t) \rightarrow e^{-t}$ as $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. This is exactly the optimal entropy production bound for the weak thermostat (Note: the weak thermostat here appears with a factor of $2$, owing to the $2\lambda$ term).
The Theorem is proved as follows: we write $h({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}},t)$ explicitly in terms of the exponential of the generator of the evolution, expand the latter using the Dyson series and use the convexity of the entropy. We exploit the entropic *contraction* of terms of the form $P_jQ$ in the expansion. These steps will yield a non-trivial bound for the entropy at time $t$ in terms of the initial entropy.
The following lemmas build up to the evolution operator $e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}t}$ in steps. For instance, Lemma \[L:half\] bounds some of the terms obtained by decomposing the Kac operator in the expression $S(P_1Qh)$. Throughout, we assume that $h \in L^1(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma)$ and $h \geq 0$.
\[L:half\] We have $$\sum_{j=2}^N S(P_1 Q_{1j}h) \leq \bigl((N-1) - \frac12 \bigr) S(h)$$
In the following proof, we will apply the continuous version of Han’s inequality [@Han] (this also follows from the Loomis-Whitney inequality [@LW]) for the entropy rewritten to suit our situation:
$$\label{E:Han}
\sum_{j=1}^N S(P_jh) \leq (N-1)S(h)$$
Note that if $h$ is symmetric in its arguments, this amounts to saying that for each $j=1,..,N$, $$\label{E:Hansym}
S(P_j h) \leq \frac{N-1}{N} S(h)$$ For $j>1$, $$\begin{aligned}
S(P_1Q_{1j}h) &= \int P_1 Q_{1j}h \log \bigl(P_1 Q_{1j}h\bigr) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\\
&=\int P_1 (\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh}) \log \bigl( P_1 (\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh}) \bigr) P_1P_jh \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}+ \int P_1Q_{1j}h \log (P_1P_jh) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\end{aligned}$$ where we use that $P_1P_jh$ does not depend on $v_1$. Since the argument of the logarithm in the last term is also independent of $v_j$, we can integrate $P_1Q_{1j}h$ with respect to those variables and use that $\int P_1 Q_{1j}h \;g(v_1)g(v_j)dv_1 dv_j = \int h \;g(v_1)g(v_j)dv_1 dv_j = P_1P_jh$ to write:
$$S(P_1Q_{1j}h) = \int P_1 (\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh}) \log \bigl( P_1 (\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh}) \bigr) P_1P_jh \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}+ \int P_1P_jh \log (P_1P_jh) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$$
Now, we apply the symmetric version of Han’s inequality to $\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh}$ as a function of $v_1$ and $v_j$ to get:
$$\begin{aligned}
S(P_1 Q_{1j}h) &\leq \frac{1}{2} \int \frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh} \log \bigl(\frac{Q_{1j}h}{P_1P_jh} \bigr) P_1P_jh \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}+ \int P_1P_jh \log (P_1P_jh) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\\
&= \frac{1}{2} S(Q_{1j}h) - \frac{1}{2} \int Q_{1j}h \log (P_1P_jh) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}+ \int P_1P_jh \log(P_1 P_j h) \; \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}\\
&=\frac{1}{2}S(Q_{1j}h) + \frac{1}{2}S(P_1P_jh)\end{aligned}$$
where, to get to the last step, we have used that $Q_{1j}$ is self-adjoint and $P_1P_j$ is independent of $v_1$ and $v_j$.
Now, summing these terms, and noting that $S(Q_{1j}h) \leq S(h)$ by the averaging property of $Q_{1j}$, we get $$\sum_{j=2}^N S(P_1 Q_{1j}h) \leq \frac{N-1}{2}S(h) + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=2}^N S(P_jP_1h) \,.$$
We invoke Han’s inequality on $P_1 h \equiv (P_1h)(v_2,...v_N)$, ie. $\sum_{j=2}^N S(P_jP_1h) \leq (N-2)S(P_1h) \leq (N-2)S(h)$ to complete the proof.
$$S(e^{\mu(P_1-I)t}Qh) \leq \left(1-\frac{1-e^{-\mu t}}{N(N-1)}\right) S(h) \, .$$
$$\begin{aligned}
S(e^{\mu(P_1-I)t}Qh) &= S(e^{-\mu t}Qh+(1-e^{-\mu t})P_1Qh) \;\;\;\;\; \text{ (since $P_1$ is a projection)} \\
&\leq e^{-\mu t} S(Qh) + (1-e^{-\mu t}) S(P_1Qh) \\
&\leq e^{-\mu t} S(h) + (1-e^{-\mu t}) \frac{1}{\binom{N}{2}} \sum_{i<j}S(P_1Q_{ij}h)\\
&= e^{-\mu t} S(h) + (1-e^{-\mu t}) \frac{1}{\binom{N}{2}} \bigl(\sum_{i<j, i,j \neq 1} S(P_1 Q_{ij}h) + \sum_{j=2}^N S(P_1 Q_{1j}h)\bigr) \\
&\leq e^{-\mu t} S(h) + (1-e^{-\mu t}) \frac{1}{\binom{N}{2}} \bigl(\sum_{i<j, i,j \neq 1} S(h) + (N-1 - \frac{1}{2})S(h)\bigr) \\
&= \left(1-\frac{1-e^{-\mu t}}{N(N-1)}\right) S(h),\end{aligned}$$
where we use Lemma \[L:half\] in the last inequality. We use the convexity of the entropy and the averaging property of $P_1$ and $Q$ in the previous steps.
\[L:2entr\] Let $1 \leq m < N$. Then $$\label{E:m}
S\left(\exp{\left(\mu \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^m (P_k-I)t)\right)} Q h\right) \leq \left( 1-\frac{m(1-e^{-\mu t})}{N(N-1)} \right)S(h).$$
We prove the above by induction on $m$. The base case $m=1$ (and any $N>1$) was shown in the previous Lemma. We restrict to $\{(N,m):2 \leq m < N\}$ for the rest of the proof. Assume that the Lemma is true for $m-1$ (and any $N > m-1)$. To infer from this its validity for the case $m$ (and any $N>m$), we analyze below the entropy of $P_m \exp{\left(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\right)}$, where we expand the Kac operator $Q$, split it into terms that contain $m$ and those that do not, and utilize the convexity of the entropy.
$$\begin{aligned}
S\left(P_m \exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}Qh\right) &\leq (1-\frac2N)S\left(\frac{\exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}}{\binom{N-1}{2}} \displaystyle\sum_{\substack{i<j \\ i,j \neq m}} Q_{ij}P_m h \right) \\
&+\frac{2}{N}S\left(\frac{\exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t}\bigr)}{N-1} P_m \displaystyle\sum_{l \neq m} Q_{lm}h \right) \, .\end{aligned}$$
In the first term[^2], we also use the commutativity of $P_m$ with $Q_{ij}$ when neither $i$ nor $j$ equal $m$. Next, we treat the terms as follows:
- Term 1: We apply the induction hypothesis for $m-1$, $N-1$ since $P_m h$ is a function of $N-1$ variables and $\binom{N-1}{2}^{-1} \displaystyle\sum_{\substack{i<j \\ i,j \neq m}} Q_{ij}$ is the Kac operator acting on $N-1$ variables.
- Term 2: We use the averaging property of $\exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t}\bigr)$, convexity, and Lemma \[L:half\].
We obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:now}
S(P_m \exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}Qh) &\leq (1-\frac2N)\left(1-(m-1)\frac{1-e^{-\mu t}}{(N-1)(N-2)}\right)S(h) + \frac2N \frac{1}{N-1} (N- \frac32) S(h) \, .\end{aligned}$$
Now starting with the left-hand side of and using convexity plus the fact that $P_m$ is a projection, write $$\begin{aligned}
S\left(\exp{(\mu \displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^m (P_k-I)t)} Q h \right) &= S\left((e^{-\mu t}I+(1-e^{-\mu t})P_m)\exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}Qh \right)\\
&\leq e^{-\mu t} S\left(\exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}Qh \right) \\ &+ (1-e^{-\mu t}) S\left(P_m \exp{\bigl(\mu \sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(P_k-I)t\bigr)}Qh \right)\end{aligned}$$
Using the induction hypothesis for the case $m-1$, $N$ for the first term, and the bound for the second term, the Lemma follows through some algebraic simplification.
In the following, denote $A(t):=1-\frac{m(1-e^{-\mu t})}{N(N-1)}$.
Expanding $e^{-{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{N,m}t}$ using the Dyson series with $Q$ as the perturbation: $$\begin{aligned}
e^{N\lambda (Q-I)t+\mu \sum_k(P_k-I)t}&=e^{-N\lambda t} e^{N\lambda Qt+\mu \sum(P_k-I)t} \\
&= e^{-N\lambda t} \{e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)t}+\int_0^t dt_1 e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)(t-t_1)} \; N \lambda Q \; e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)t_1} \\
&+ \int_0^t dt_1 \int_0^{t_1} dt_2\; e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)(t-t_1)} \; N\lambda Q \; e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)(t_1 - t_2)} \;N\lambda Q \;e^{\mu \sum(P_k-I)t_2} + ...\}\end{aligned}$$
Therefore, using the convexity of entropy, and Lemma \[L:2entr\], $$S(h(.,t)) \leq e^{-N\lambda t} \left(1+N\lambda \int_0^t dt_1 A(t-t_1) +(N\lambda)^2 \int_0^t dt_1 \int_0^{t_1} dt_2 A(t-t_1)A(t_1-t_2) + ...\right) S(h(.,0))$$ $$= e^{-N\lambda t} \left(1+N\lambda (A*1) + (N\lambda)^2 (A*A*1) + ...\right) S(h(.,0))$$ where $*$ is the Laplace-convolution operation. Thus we have that $$\label{eq2}
S(h(.,t)) \leq e^{-N \lambda t}\; \varphi(t) S(h(.,0))$$
where $\varphi$ is defined through the series above. We compute $\varphi(t)$ using its Laplace transform $\tilde{\varphi}(s)$. Then: $$\tilde{\varphi}(s)= \frac{1}{s} \; \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}{(N \lambda \; \tilde{A}(s))^k}$$ where $\tilde{A}(s)=\frac{1}{s}-\frac{m}{N(N-1)}(\frac{1}{s}-\frac{1}{s+\mu})$ is the Laplace transform of $A(t)$.
Summing the geometric series (the sum converges if we assume, for instance, that $\tilde{\varphi}(s)$ is defined on the domain $s>N\lambda$),
$$\tilde{\varphi}(s)=\frac{s+\mu}{s^2+(\mu-N\lambda)s-N\mu \lambda (1-\frac{m}{N(N-1)})}$$
The inverse Laplace transform of the above is $$-\frac{\delta_- e^{(N\lambda - \delta_+)t}}{\sqrt{(N\lambda+\mu)^2-4m\lambda \mu /(N-1)}} + \frac{\delta_+ e^{(N\lambda-\delta_-)t}}{\sqrt{(N\lambda+\mu)^2-4m\lambda \mu /(N-1)}}$$
Now we invoke the uniqueness of the Inverse Laplace Transform: No two piecewise continuous, locally bounded functions of exponential order can have the same Laplace transform (see e.g. [@Churchill]). Since $\varphi(t)$ (see eq. ) belongs to this space, we get
$$\varphi(t)= -\frac{\delta_- e^{(N\lambda - \delta_+)t}}{\sqrt{(N\lambda+\mu)^2-4m\lambda \mu /(N-1)}} + \frac{\delta_+ e^{(N\lambda-\delta_-)t}}{\sqrt{(N\lambda+\mu)^2-4m\lambda \mu /(N-1)}}$$
Plugging this into , we obtain the desired result .
- From , one notices that $\frac{dD}{dt}|_{t=0}=0$. This implies, in particular, that Theorem \[T:duh\] does not give us a bound like on the entropy production. This results from the fact that the significant bounds used in the proof, from Lemma \[L:half\], required the presence of the second-order term $\sum_k (P_k-I)Q$. Note that $\frac{d^2D}{dt^2}|_{t=0}<0$.
- The main bound (Lemma \[L:half\]) was obtained by estimating terms of the form $S(P_1 Q_{1j}h)$, and we ignored any possible contribution from many other terms e.g. $S(Q_{ij}Q_{kl}h)$. Thus, there may be scope for a better bound.
- In particular, we hope to obtain an entropy decay rate that scales as $\frac{m}{N}$ (as we had for the spectral gap). We were able to obtain a decay rate scaling as $\frac{1}{N}$ for a modified model: a system of $N$ particles where one of them is thermostated (through a Maxwellian thermostat) and the Kac collision interaction is replaced by the (much stronger) projection onto radial functions. Thus, the role of the Kac interaction in the equilibration process needs to be better understood.
Finally, we demonstrate why it is not easy to find an entropy production bound in our problem. Consider the case $N=2$, $m=1$ with $\lambda=\frac12$, $\mu=1$. Here, one could write $$\frac{dS(h)}{dt} = \int{P_1h \log h \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}} + \int{Qh \log h \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}} -2S(h)$$ $$\leq \int{P_1h \log P_1h \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}} + \int{Qh \log Qh \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}} -2S(h) \; .$$
We use in the last step that $P_1$, $Q$ are projections and $\log x$ is concave. Bounding this from above by $-k S(h)$ (for some $k>0$) would be sufficient to obtain an entropy production bound. This idea has worked, e.g., for a sum of mutually orthogonal projections like strong thermostats acting on different particles. However, in our case, we can find, for every $\epsilon>0$, a density $h_{\epsilon}$ such that $$\frac{\int{P_1h_{\epsilon} \log P_1h_{\epsilon} \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}} + \int{Qh_{\epsilon} \log Qh_{\epsilon} \gamma d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}}}{S(h_{\epsilon})} \geq 2-\epsilon$$
The idea is to take $h$ proportional to the characteristic function of the set $[-a,a] \times [R-a,R+a]$. As $R \to \infty$, the ratio above asymptotically approaches the value $2$. The intuition behind this construction is that as $R \to \infty$, $h$ is supported approximately in the intersection of the supports of $P_1h$ (a “band” of width $2a$ parallel to the $v_1$ axis) and $Qh$ (an annulus around the origin). It is the tangential nature of this intersection that precludes the application of Han’s inequality [@Han] to improve the bound $S(P_1h)+S(Qh) \leq 2S(h)$. We are not, however, ruling out the possibility of using a different method to obtain an entropy production bound.
Conclusion
==========
Our results imply that if a macroscopic fraction of particles is thermostated, the kinetic energy and the $L^2$ norm decay exponentially to their respective equilibrium values at a rate *independent* of $N$. However, our entropy bound yields a decay rate that vanishes as $\frac{1}{N}$ in the thermodynamic limit. Hence, at least under a suitable class of initial conditions, we think it should be possible to improve to reflect the physical situation.
The question of entropy production at $t=0$ (and any $N$) remains unsettled. The bound does not preclude the possibility of zero entropy production at time $0$. However, we do not know if it actually occurs in the model for some initial conditions. One could wonder how the notion of propagation of chaos (which was the main motivation behind the formulation of the Kac model) adapts to our situation. When $m$ is finite, the coupling to the heat bath becomes insignificant in the thermodynamic limit. On the other hand, when $m=\alpha N$ for some $\alpha <1$, preliminary calculations indicate that in the limit, a coupled Boltzmann equation system should result. The *Stosszahlansatz* needs to be reformulated in a precise manner to account for different distributions of the thermostated and the non-thermostated particles. Moreover, generalizations of our model could bring about connections to previously studied thermostated Boltzmann equations [@CLM].
Lastly, the results in Section \[S:vh\] suggest that it should be possible to extend our analysis to the case of systems partially coupled to the *weak* thermostat.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We are grateful to our advisors Federico Bonetto and Michael Loss for suggesting this topic, and for very fruitful discussions. We also thank them for their help in Theorem \[T:gap\] and Lemma \[L:half\].
Appendix: Spectrum of Evolution Operator for $N=2,m=1$ {#A:sp2}
======================================================
We analyze the spectrum of the self-adjoint evolution operator ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{2,1}=2\lambda (I-Q)+\mu(I-P_1)$, in the space $L^2(\mathbb{R}^2,\gamma({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})$, and deduce its spectral gap stated in . For simplicity, we denote the operators ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{2,1}$ and $P_1$ by ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}$ and $P$.
Notice that ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}$ is a linear combination of two projections ($Q \equiv Q_{12}$ is an orthogonal projection onto radial functions in $\mathbb{R}^2$). The condition $\<h,1>=0$ corresponding to the normalization of $f = \gamma (1+h)$, the leads us to work in the space of Hermite polynomials $\{H_{\alpha}(v)\}_{\alpha=0}^{\infty}$ with weight $g(v)$. The space of interest $\mathcal{X}_2$ is spanned by $\{K_{i,j}: i,j \in \mathbb{N}, (i,j) \neq (0,0) \}$, where $K_{i,j}:=H_i(v_1)H_j(v_2)$. Without loss of generality, we work with monic Hermite polynomials.
The action of $P$ is as follows:
$$P K_{i,j} = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
0 & : i \neq 0\\
K_{0,j} & : i=0
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since each term in $K_{i,j}$ is odd in either $v_1$ or $v_2$ when either $i$ or $j$ is odd, we have that $Q K_{i,j} =0$ when either $i$ or $j$ is odd. We deduce the action of $Q$ on $K_{2\alpha_1,2\alpha_2}$ from its action on $v_1^{2\alpha_1}v_2^{2\alpha_2}$ using the following Lemma from [@BLV], which applies to $Q$ as it is a projection onto radial functions.
[@BLV] Let $A$ be a self-adjoint operator on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^N,\gamma({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})d{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}})$ that preserves the space $P_{2l}$ of homogeneous even polynomials in $v_1,...,v_N$ of degree $2l$. If $$A(v_1^{2\alpha_1}...v_N^{2\alpha_N})=\sum_{\sum \alpha_i = \sum \beta_i} c_{
\beta_1...\beta_N}v_1^{2\beta_1}...v_N^{2\beta_N} \ ,$$ we get $$A(H_{2\alpha_1}(v_1)...H_{2\alpha_N}(v_N))=\sum_{\sum \alpha_i = \sum \beta_i}
{c_{\beta_1...\beta_N}H_{2\beta_1}(v_1)...H_{2\beta_N}(v_N)} \ .$$
Let $n:=\alpha_1+\alpha_2$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}:=\dashint_0^{2\pi}{\cos^{2\alpha_1}{\theta} \sin^{2\alpha_2}{\theta}} d\theta=\frac{(2\alpha_1-1) !! (2\alpha_2-1)!!}{2^{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)!}$, with the standard definition $(-1)!!=1$. Then we have
$$Q K_{i,j}= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & : i \text{ or } j \text{ odd} \\
\Gamma_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2} \sum_{m=0}^n \binom{n}{m} K_{2m,2n-2m} & :i=2\alpha_1, j=2\alpha_2
\end{array} \right.$$
Now a case-by-case analysis, using the fact that $L_{2n}:=\text{Span}\{H_{2\alpha_1}(v_1)H_{2\alpha_2}(v_2):\alpha_1+\alpha_2=n\}$ are invariant subspaces for ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}$, yields the following for the spectrum of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}$:
Eigenvalue Eigenfunction
------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$2\lambda + \mu$ $K_{i,j}$, $i$ or $j$ odd, $i \neq 0$
$\sum_{i=1}^n c_i K_{2i,2n-2i}$ where $\sum_{i=1}^n c_i \Gamma_{i,n-i}=0$
$2\lambda$ $K_{0,j}$, $j$ odd
$x^{\pm,n}$ $\sum_{i=0}^n c^{\pm,n}_i K_{2i,2n-2i}$ and eq.
The first row corresponds to functions that belong to the kernels of both $Q$ and $P$, and the second row to functions that belong to the kernels of $Q$ and $I-P$.
Here, $$x^{\pm,n}=\frac{(2\lambda+\mu) \pm \sqrt{(2\lambda+\mu)^2-8\lambda \mu(1-\Gamma_{0,n})}}{2}$$
and
$$\label{E:cond}
c_0^{\pm,n}= \frac{2\lambda}{2\lambda - x^{\pm,n}} \text{ and } c_i^{\pm,n}= \frac{2\lambda \binom{n}{i}}{x^{\mp,n}}\text{ for } i \neq 0$$
Using the fact that $\Gamma_{0,n}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}{\cos^{2n}{\theta} d\theta}$ is decreasing in $n$, it is easy to see that the smallest eigenvalue is $x^{-,1}$. The corresponding eigenfunction is $\frac{2\lambda}{2\lambda-x^{-,1}}K_{0,2} + \frac{2\lambda}{x^{+,1}}K_{2,0}$.
Appendix: Entropy Bound Optimizer for the Weak Thermostat {#A:appopt}
=========================================================
In [@BLV], the convexity of entropy is employed to show that if $f(v,t)$ satisfies
$$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \eta(Uf - f)$$
where $U$ is the weak thermostat, then holds true.
We remark here that if $\phi_\delta (v):=(1-\delta)M_x(v)+\delta M_y(v)$, where $x=\frac{1}{\beta(1-\delta)}$, $y=\frac{1}{\beta\delta}$ and $M_a(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}e^{-v^2/2a}$, then
$$\lim_{\delta \to 0} \frac{1}{S(\phi_\delta)}\frac{dS}{dt}(\phi_\delta) \geq -\frac{\eta}{2}$$
thereby showing that is an optimal bound. $\phi_\delta$ is a convex combination of Maxwellians, one of which approaches the distribution of the heat bath $M_{\frac{1}{\beta}}$ and the other corresponds to a very high energy distribution (albeit with a vanishing weight) as $\delta \to 0$. These types of functions have been used in [@bobcerc; @CCLRV; @amit] as examples of distributions that are away from equilibrium (in the sense of the entropy) and yet have vanishingly low entropy production (in magnitude).
[^1]: Work partially supported by U.S. National Science Foundation grant DMS 1301555\
© 2015 by the authors. This paper may be reproduced, in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes.
[^2]: This term is non-zero only when $N>2$, which is the case here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Upper and lower bounds for the typical storage capacity of a constructive algorithm, the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm for the Parity Machine \[M. Biehl and M. Opper, Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{} 6888 (1991)\], are determined in the asymptotic limit of large training set sizes. The properties of a perceptron with threshold, learning a training set of patterns having a biased distribution of targets, needed as an intermediate step in the capacity calculation, are determined analytically. The lower bound for the capacity, determined with a cavity method, is proportional to the number of hidden units. The upper bound, obtained with the hypothesis of replica symmetry, is close to the one predicted by Mitchinson and Durbin \[Biol. Cyber. [**60**]{} 345 (1989)\].'
address: 'SPSMS/DRFMC/CEA Grenoble, 17 av. des Martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France'
author:
- 'Arnaud Buhot and Mirta B. Gordon [^1]'
title: Storage capacity of a constructive learning algorithm
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the problem of learning binary classification tasks from examples with neural networks. The network’s architecture and the neurons’ weights are determined based on a training set of examples or patterns ${\cal L}_{\alpha}$, composed of $P= \alpha N$ input vectors $\left\{{\bf x}^{\mu}
\right\}_{\mu=1,\cdots,P}$ in $N$-dimensional space and their corresponding classes $\tau^{\mu} = \pm 1$. The latter are the targets to be learned. Hereafter, we call $\alpha \equiv P/N$ the [*size*]{} of the training set. One interesting property that characterizes a neural network is its storage capacity, which is the size $\alpha_c$ of the largest training set with arbitrary targets the network is able to learn (with probability $1$). The perceptron, a single neuron connected to its inputs through $N$ weights, performs linear separations and has a storage capacity $\alpha_c =
2$ [@Cover; @Gardner; @Gardner2; @GaDe]. It is possible to increase the storage capacity of neural networks by considering more complicated architectures, like those with one hidden layer of $k$ units. Such monolayer perceptrons map each input vector ${\bf x}$ to a binary $k$-dimensional internal representation determined by the outputs of $k$ perceptrons, which in this context are also called hidden units. The overall network’s output to an input pattern is a boolean function of the corresponding internal representation. This function may be learned by an output perceptron, but then the internal representations of the training set must be linearly separable. In order to get rid of this constraint, networks implementing particular functions of the hidden states have been investigated. Among these, the committee machine, whose output is the class of the majority of the hidden units, and the parity machine, whose output is the product of the $k$ components of the internal representation, have deserved particular attention [@WRB].
Learning consists of adapting the number of hidden perceptrons and their weights in order that the outputs of the network to the training examples match the corresponding targets. The main problem is that the internal representations are unknown. Besides the CHIR algorithm [@GMD], that determines the internal representations through a random process involving learning faithful sets of internal representations with $k$ fixed, most learning algorithms build the internal representations through a deterministic incremental procedure that determines $k$ by construction. In the latter case, the hidden perceptrons are trained one after the other with targets that differ from one algorithm to another, until the correct classification is achieved. The first incremental procedure has been proposed by Gallant [@Gallant]. Many other authors developed further this idea, like Mézard and Nadal with the Tiling Algorithm [@MeNa], Ruján and Marchand with the Sequential Learning Algorithm [@RuMa] and Biehl and Opper with the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm [@BiOp]. Other variations have been proposed [@Frean; @MaEs]. It has been argued that these incremental procedures may require a number of hidden units much larger than the number actually needed by a network making use of its full storage capacity. In the following we distinguish thus the algorithm’s capacity, defined as the size of the largest training set (with arbitrary targets) learnable with the algorithm, from the capacity of the network with the same architecture. Clearly the former cannot be larger than the latter. An upper bound for the storage capacity of the parity machine with $k$ hidden perceptrons has been obtained by Mitchinson and Durbin [@MiDu] through a geometric approach: $\alpha_c(k) \leq k \ln k /\ln2$. Recent replica calculation results, obtained in the limit of a large number of hidden perceptrons ($k
\rightarrow + \infty$) [@XKO], strongly suggest that this upper bound may effectively be reached. However, the learning problem remains: is there a learning algorithm whose capacity saturates this bound? This question was addressed recently in [@WeSa2] within the same statistical mechanics framework as the present work. In spite of a thorough analysis, no clear-cut conclusion could be drawn in the asymptotic regime of large $k$, because of a lack of precision in the numerical integration of the corresponding equations.
In this paper, we determine analytically the storage capacity of a parity machine built with the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm (TLA). Our results present strong evidence showing that the storage capacity of the obtained network is close to the upper bound, at least within the replica-symmetry approximation. The paper is organized as follows: in section \[sec:TLA\], we describe the TLA. The conditions necessary for the TLA to converge impose strong constraints on the cost function used to train the hidden perceptrons. These are discussed in section \[sec:convcond\]. Despite intensive research in this field, no analytic results on the learning properties of the perceptron with threshold, in the asymptotic limit $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$ needed here, exist. These are deduced in section \[sec:percept\] for the Gardner cost function with vanishing and finite margin, within the replica-symmetry (RS) approximation. As this approximation is known to provide only a lower bound to the perceptron’s actual training error [@ErTh; @MEZ], we also determined an upper bound through a generalization of the Kuhn-Tucker (KT) cavity method proposed by Gerl and Krey [@GeKr]. The general expression for the number of hidden perceptrons generated by the TLA in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$ is deduced in section \[sec:k(alpha)\]. Our main result is that the number of hidden units needed by the TLA to converge grows proportionally to $\alpha/(\ln \alpha)^\nu$ in the large $\alpha$ limit, where $\nu =1$ in the RS approximation and $\nu=0$ within the KT cavity method, provided that the hidden perceptrons learn through the minimization of their training errors. Our results are discussed and compared both to the Mitchinson and Durbin bound [@MiDu] and to the numerical results obtained by West and Saad [@WeSa2]. The general conclusion is left to section \[sec:concl\].
The Tilinglike Learning Algorithm (TLA) {#sec:TLA}
=======================================
In the following, we describe the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm (TLA) considered in the following because of its simplicity. The TLA needs hidden perceptrons with a threshold to generate the parity machine. The classification performed by a perceptron is a linear separation defined by a hyperplane in the $N$-dimensional input space, of normal vector ${\bf J}$ (${\bf J} \cdot {\bf J} = 1$) and distance to the origin $\theta$. The $N$ components of ${\bf J}$ are the perceptron’s weights and $\theta$ is its threshold. An example ${\bf x}$ is classified as follows:
$$\label{classe}
\sigma \equiv {\rm sign} \left( {\bf J}
\cdot {\bf x} - \theta \right).$$
As already pointed out in [@WeSa2] the threshold is useful in the case of unbalanced training sets, containing more examples of one class than of the other. As we will see in the following, this is the case for the successive perceptrons included by the TLA.
In the first learning step of the algorithm, the parameters ${\bf J}_1$ and $\theta_1$ of a perceptron are adapted in order to obtain the lowest possible number of training errors. This is usually done through the minimization of a cost function:
$$\label{cost}
E( {\bf J}_1,\theta_1;{\cal L}_{\alpha}) =
\sum_{\mu = 1}^{P} V \left( \lambda_1^{\mu} \right)$$
where the potential $V$ is a function of $\lambda_1^{\mu}$, the stability of the example $\mu$:
$$\label{stab}
\lambda_1^{\mu} \equiv \tau^{\mu} \left( {\bf J}_1
\cdot {\bf x}^{\mu} - \theta_1 \right).$$
The stability is positive if and only if the example is correctly classified. Its absolute value is the distance of the example to the separating hyperplane.
In principle, there is some freedom in the choice of the potential $V(\lambda)$. As it has to penalize training errors, it has to be a decreasing function of $\lambda$. Considering as cost function the number of training errors corresponds to the particular choice $V(\lambda)
= \Theta(-\lambda)$, where $\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function. Other potentials, that do not minimize the number of training errors but possess interesting learning or algorithmic properties may be chosen. Examples are $V(\lambda) = (\kappa - \lambda)^{\, n} \,
\Theta (\kappa - \lambda)$ where $\kappa \geq 0$ is a fixed positive margin chosen [*a priori*]{}. The case $n=0$ corresponds to the so-called Gardner potential [@Gardner2; @GaDe] which reduces to the error counting function for $\kappa = 0$. The potential defined by $n=1$ corresponds to the Perceptron learning algorithm [@AbKe; @AbKe2; @GrGu] and $n=2$ to the AdaTron [@AnBi; @GrGu].
After learning, the training error of the first perceptron is:
$$\varepsilon_t^1 ({\bf J}_1^*,\theta_1^*;{\cal L}_{\alpha})
= \frac{1}{P} \sum_{\mu = 1}^{P} \Theta \left(- \tau^{\mu}
\sigma_1^{\mu} \right)$$
where $\sigma_1^{\mu}$, the class given by the perceptron to the example ${\bf x}^{\mu}$, depends through equation (\[classe\]) on the parameters ${\bf J}_1^*$ and $\theta_1^*$ that minimize the cost function.
If the training error is zero, the learning procedure stops. Then, the class associated to the patterns by the parity machine is just the class given by the first perceptron. Otherwise, another perceptron is included and trained with the aim of separating the correctly learned examples from the wrongly learned ones. The corresponding training set ${\cal L}_{\alpha}^2
= \left\{ {\bf x}^{\mu}, \tau_2^{\mu} \right\}_{\mu
= 1, \cdots,P}$ contains the same input examples as ${\cal L}_{\alpha}$ with new targets $\tau_2^{\mu}$ defined as follows: $\tau_2^{\mu} = + 1$ if the example ${\bf x}^{\mu}$ is correctly classified by the previous perceptron and $\tau_2^{\mu} = - 1$ if not. These targets may be expressed as $\tau_2^{\mu} =
\sigma_1^{\mu} \tau^{\mu}$. Notice that a fraction $1 - \varepsilon_t^1$ of patterns have targets $+1$, and a fraction $\varepsilon_t^1$ have targets $-1$. Since we expect the training error $\varepsilon_t^1$ to be smaller than $1/2$, the probability of targets $-1$ is smaller than that of targets $+1$. The successive perceptrons need a threshold to learn such biased training sets. Otherwise, the tilinglike construction cannot converge.
The parameters ${\bf J}_2^*$ and $\theta_2^*$ of the second perceptron are learned with the training set ${\cal L}_{\alpha}^2$, minimizing the same cost function as the first one. The same procedure, in which the perceptron $i+1$ learns the training set ${\cal L}_{\alpha}^{i+1} =
\left\{ {\bf x}^{\mu},\tau_{i+1}^{\mu} = \tau_i^{\mu}
\sigma_i^{\mu} \right\}_{\mu = 1,\cdots,P}$, has to be iterated until $\varepsilon_t^k = 0$. Then, the product $\sigma^{\mu}$ of the classes $\left\{ \sigma_i^{\mu} \right\}_{i=1,\cdots,k}$ given by the hidden perceptrons to an example ${\bf x}^{\mu}$ corresponds to the target $\tau^{\mu}$ [@BiOp; @MaEs], as $\sigma^{\mu} \equiv
\sigma_1^{\mu} \cdots \sigma_k^{\mu} = \sigma_1^{\mu}
\cdots \sigma_{k-2}^{\mu} (\sigma_{k-1}^{\mu})^2
\tau_{k-1}^{\mu} = \sigma_1^{\mu} \cdots \sigma_{k -
2}^{\mu} \tau_{k-1}^{\mu} = \cdots = \tau^{\mu}$. Thus, the TLA constructs a parity machine with $k$ hidden units.
Convergence conditions {#sec:convcond}
======================
It has been shown that if the examples are binary [@BiOp], or real-valued vectors in general position [@Gordon], there is a solution that satisfies the TLA construction with the property that $P \varepsilon_t^i$ is a succession of decreasing integer numbers. Thus, a finite $k \leq P$ exists for which $\varepsilon_t^k = 0$.
In the following, we are interested in the [*typical*]{} number $k$ of hidden perceptrons necessary for the TLA to learn a training set of size $\alpha$. This is obtained in the thermodynamic limit where $N$ and $P$ diverge keeping $\alpha = P/N$ constant. In this limit, $k$ is expected to be independent of the particular set of training patterns, and to depend only on $\alpha$. However, as $P \rightarrow + \infty$, it is not possible to argue that $P \varepsilon_t^i$ is a succession of strictly decreasing numbers in order to guarantee the convergence of the TLA in a finite number of steps (i.e. of hidden units). In particular, the solution in which a single example is correctly learned at each step, used by the convergence proofs [@BiOp; @Gordon] at finite $N$, leads to $k \rightarrow +\infty$. In order to obtain a [*finite*]{} number $k(\alpha)$ in the thermodynamic limit, each perceptron has to learn at least a number of examples of the order of $N$. This imposes some general conditions on the learning algorithm used to train the perceptrons.
It is worth to point out that the conditions for convergence with finite $k$ in the thermodynamic limit do not guarantee the convergence for [*all*]{} the possible training sets of size $\alpha$. This is due to the probabilistic nature of the statistical physics results, which predict the average behaviour. The results may not be correct for subsets of zero measure in the space of training sets, and in particular for the worst case.
As described before, the training set ${\cal L}_{\alpha}^i$ used to train the perceptron $i$ contains a fraction $1-\varepsilon_t^{i-1}$ of patterns with targets $+1$, and a fraction $\varepsilon_t^{i-1}$ of patterns with targets $-1$. These targets are slightly correlated, as they are determined by the training errors of the preceding perceptron. However, it has been shown that these correlations are weak [@WeSa2]. We neglect them in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow
+ \infty$ considered in the following. Thus, we consider that the targets to be learned by the successive perceptrons are i.i.d. random variables, and have a probability $1 - \varepsilon_t^{i-1}$ to be $+1$ and $\varepsilon_t^{i-1}$ to be $-1$. As this neglects the constraints imposed by the correlations on the minimization of the training error, we expect that the assumption of uncorrelated targets underestimate the perceptrons’ training errors. It follows that our estimation of the number $k(\alpha)$ of perceptrons necessary to construct the parity machine is a lower bound to the actual value.
Consider a perceptron learning a training set of size $\alpha$ with targets given by the following biased probability distribution:
$$\label{prob}
P(\tau) = (1-\varepsilon) \, \delta(\tau-1) +
\varepsilon \, \delta (\tau +1).$$
If ${\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon)$ is the perceptron’s training error, i.e. the fraction of wrongly learned examples, there is a simple relationship between the training errors $\varepsilon_t^{i-1}$ and $\varepsilon_t^i$ of two successive hidden perceptrons:
$$\label{relationEt}
\varepsilon_t^i = {\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon_t^{i-1})$$
since the bias in the probability of the targets of perceptron $i$ is due to the training error of the preceding unit.
The successive training errors $\varepsilon_t^i$ must decrease monotonically with $i$ and eventually vanish for a finite $k$. Otherwise the TLA does not converge. Taking equation (\[relationEt\]) into account, this imposes that:
$$\label{condition}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon) < \varepsilon.$$
Condition (\[condition\]) restricts the possible potentials in the cost function (\[cost\]). For example, in the following section we show that the Perceptron and the AdaTron potentials [@AbKe; @AbKe2; @GrGu; @AnBi] do not satisfy the condition (\[condition\]) for all $\alpha$ when $\varepsilon < 1/2$.
The stopping condition of the TLA imposes that there is a finite value of $k$ such that:
$$\label{stop}
\varepsilon_t^k = {\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon_t^{k-1}) = 0.$$
This in turn imposes that for all $\alpha$, there always exists $\varepsilon_0 (\alpha) \neq 0$ such that ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon_0
(\alpha)) = 0$. Thus, the stopping condition (\[stop\]) imposes that the inverse function $\alpha_0(\varepsilon)$ diverges as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. In fact, $\alpha_0(\varepsilon)$ is the storage capacity of a perceptron learning targets drawn with the biased probability (\[prob\]) (in the literature, the bias is usually defined as $1 - 2 \varepsilon$). Actually, the divergence of $\alpha_0(\varepsilon)$ occurs whenever the potential $V(\lambda)$ vanishes for $\lambda > 0$ and is strictly positive for $\lambda < 0$. This is the case for the Gardner potential with $\kappa
= 0$, for which $\alpha_0 (\varepsilon) \sim - (\varepsilon
\ln \varepsilon)^{-1}$ [@Gardner; @Gardner2; @GaDe]. However, even if the perceptron has been extensively studied, very few results exist for the case of training sets with biased distributions of targets [@Gardner2; @BiOp; @WeSa]. In particular, the asymptotic behaviour of the learning curves ${\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon)$ as a function of $\alpha$ is unknown. These are deduced in the next section. The reader not interested in these intermediate calculations may skip them and go straight to section \[sec:k(alpha)\]. Only the results displayed by equations (\[EqEt\]), (\[EqEtkappa\]), (\[eqEtKT\]) and (\[eqEtKTkappa\]) are used to determine the asymptotic behaviour of the TLA.
Perceptron’s training error for biased target-distributions {#sec:percept}
===========================================================
In order to learn such training sets with biased distributions of targets, the perceptron must have a threshold, as the separating hyperplanes that minimize the training error do not contain the origin. Here we present new analytic results, mainly in the asymptotic regime $\alpha
\rightarrow +\infty$, for the Gardner cost function defined by the potential:
$$\label{potential}
V (\lambda) = \Theta ( \kappa - \lambda).$$
For $\kappa = 0$, the corresponding cost function is the number of training errors. For $\kappa
> 0$, the cost function is the number of examples with stability (\[stab\]) smaller than $\kappa$.
The section is divided in two parts. In the first one we derive results within the Replica-Symmetry (RS) approximation, which is known to underestimate the training error. In the second part we obtain upper bounds for the training error, using a cavity method.
Replica calculation
-------------------
We briefly recall the main steps of the replica calculation, that follows the same lines as [@BiOp; @WeSa]. As we are interested in the properties of the minimum of the cost function, a temperature $T \equiv 1/\beta$ is introduced and the cost function is considered as an energy. The corresponding partition function writes:
$$\label{partition}
Z(\beta, {\cal L}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon)) = \int
d \theta P(\theta) \, \int d {\bf J}
P({\bf J}) \exp \left( - \beta
E({\bf J},\theta;{\cal L}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon) \right)$$
where the components of ${\bf J}$ are the weights, and $\theta$ is the perceptron’s threshold. ${\cal L}_{\alpha} (\varepsilon)$ is a training set of size $\alpha$. The input vectors ${\bf x}^{\mu}$ are drawn from a gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance in all the directions. The targets have the biased distribution (\[prob\]).
Following Gardner’s approach, the patterns of the training set are considered as frozen disordered variables. The replica trick allows to calculate the mean free energy in the thermodynamic limit ($N \rightarrow + \infty$, $P \rightarrow + \infty$ and $\alpha$ constant) averaged over all possible training sets, as follows:
$$f(\alpha,\varepsilon) = \lim_{\beta \rightarrow + \infty}
\lim_{{\scriptstyle N \rightarrow +\infty \atop \scriptstyle
P \rightarrow +\infty} \atop \scriptstyle \alpha = P/N}
\lim_{n \rightarrow 0} - \frac{1}{\beta n N} \ln \overline{Z^n
(\beta, {\cal L}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon))}$$
where the bar stands for the mean over the training sets with same size $\alpha$. Thus, the free energy is obtained through the averaging of a partition function of $n$ replicas of the original system. Hereafter we assume replica symmetry (RS), i.e. that the replicas are equivalent under permutation. However, it is well known that replica symmetry breaks down when the training error is finite [@Bouten]. Calculations including one step of replica symmetry breaking have shown that the training error obtained within the RS approximation is a lower bound for the actual one [@ErTh; @MEZ].
Assuming that the weights have a uniform prior probability over the surface of the $N$-dimensional sphere of unitary radius, and the threshold a uniform distribution over the real axis between $-\sqrt{N}$ and $+\sqrt{N}$, the free energy within the RS approximation writes:
$$f(\alpha,\varepsilon) = \max_c \, \min_{\theta}
\, g(\alpha,\varepsilon,c,\theta)$$
where the function $g$ is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber g(\alpha,\varepsilon,c,\theta) & = &
- \frac{1}{2c} + \alpha ( 1 - \varepsilon ) \int
W(\lambda(y,c),y,c) \exp \left( - \frac{(y +
\theta)^2}{2} \right) \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\\
\label{foncg}
& & + \, \alpha \, \varepsilon \int W(\lambda(y,c),y,c)
\exp \left( - \frac{(y - \theta)^2}{2} \right)
\frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\end{aligned}$$
with $\lambda(y,c)$ the function that minimizes: $W(\lambda,y,c) \equiv V(\lambda) + (\lambda - y)^2/2c$. $c$ is the usual order parameter in replica calculations ($c = \lim_{\beta \rightarrow +\infty} \beta (1-{\bf J}_a
\cdot {\bf J}_b)$ with ${\bf J}_a$ and ${\bf J}_b$ the directions corresponding to two different replicas). The parameters $c$ and $\theta$ are solutions of the following extremum conditions:
$$\label{foncextr}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial c} =
\frac{\partial g}{\partial \theta} = 0.$$
The training error ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)$ may be easily deduced by integration of the distribution of stabilities over the negative values [@WeSa], yielding:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber {\cal E}_t(\alpha,\varepsilon) & = &
\left(1 - \varepsilon \right) \int \Theta \left( -
\lambda(y,c) \right) \exp \left( - \frac{(y +
\theta)^2}{2} \right) \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\\
\label{foncEt}
& & + \, \varepsilon \int \Theta \left( -
\lambda (y,c) \right) \exp \left( - \frac{(y -
\theta)^2}{2} \right) \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2\pi}}.\end{aligned}$$
Equations (\[partition\]) to (\[foncEt\]) are valid for any potential $V(\lambda)$ in (\[cost\]). In the following, we concentrate specifically on the Gardner potential (\[potential\]). The function $\lambda (y,c)$ that minimizes $W(\lambda,y,c)$ for a given $\kappa$ is:
$$\label{lambda}
\lambda(y,c) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cccrcl}
y & & {\rm for} & &y&< \kappa - \sqrt{2c}\\
\kappa & & {\rm for} & \kappa - \sqrt{2c} <&y&< \kappa\\
y & & {\rm for} & \kappa <&y& \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Introducing (\[lambda\]) into (\[foncg\]), we deduce $g(\alpha,\varepsilon,c,\theta)$. The conditions (\[foncextr\]) allow to determine the equations for $c$ and $\theta$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eqc1}
\frac{1}{\alpha} & = & (1-\varepsilon) \int_{\kappa -
\sqrt{2c} + \theta}^{\kappa + \theta} (\kappa +
\theta - y)^2 Dy + \varepsilon \int_{\kappa - \sqrt{2c}
- \theta}^{\kappa - \theta} (\kappa - \theta - y)^2 Dy,\\
\label{Eqtheta1}
0 & = & (1-\varepsilon) \int_{\kappa - \sqrt{2c} +
\theta}^{\kappa + \theta} (\kappa + \theta - y) Dy -
\varepsilon \int_{\kappa - \sqrt{2c}
- \theta}^{\kappa - \theta} (\kappa - \theta - y) Dy,\end{aligned}$$
where $Dy = \exp(-y^2/2) \, dy/\sqrt{2\pi}$. The distribution of stabilities of the training patterns is $\rho(\lambda) = (1-\varepsilon) \rho_{+} (\lambda) +
\varepsilon \rho_{-} (\lambda)$ with:
$$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\pm} (\lambda) & = & \delta ( \lambda - \kappa )
\int_{\kappa - \sqrt{2c} \pm \theta}^{\kappa \pm
\theta} Dy \\
\nonumber & & + \left\{ \Theta ( \kappa - \sqrt{2c} - \lambda)
+ \Theta (\lambda - \kappa ) \right\} \exp \left( -
\frac{(\lambda \pm \theta)^2}{2} \right) \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}. \end{aligned}$$
$\rho (\lambda)$ presents a two band structure with a gap between $\lambda_{-} =
\kappa - \sqrt{2 c}$ and $\lambda_{+} = \kappa$. Notice that only if $\lambda_{-} < 0$ the lower band corresponds to wrongly classified patterns. If $\kappa > 0$, then $\lambda_{-}$ may become positive for sufficiently small values of $c$. In that case, the training error is only a fraction of the patterns lying in the lower band. Taking this into account, the training error ${\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon)$ is :
$$\label{Et1}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) =
(1-\varepsilon) \int_{\max [- \theta, \sqrt{2c} - \kappa -
\theta]}^{+ \infty} Dy + \varepsilon \int_{\max [\theta,
\sqrt{2c} - \kappa + \theta]}^{+\infty} Dy,$$
We derive separately the asymptotic properties for $\kappa = 0$ and for $\kappa \neq 0$, for reasons that will become clear in the following.
We consider first the case $\kappa = 0$. The band of positive stabilities starts at $\lambda_{+}
= 0$ so that the gap, of width $\sqrt{2 c}$, lies strictly in the region of negative stabilities. As we expect that the gap vanishes for $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$, we look for solutions of the extremum equations with $c \rightarrow 0$ and $| \theta | \rightarrow + \infty$ (notice that $\theta$ is negative for $\varepsilon < 1/2$) with the product $a = \theta \sqrt{2c}$ finite. Introducing these assumptions into (\[Eqtheta1\]), we determine $\varepsilon$ as a function of $a$:
$$\label{afonc}
\varepsilon = \frac{e^{a} \left( 1-a \right) -
1}{2 \, (\cosh a - a \sinh a - 1)}.$$
The relation between $\alpha, \theta$ and $a$ follows from (\[Eqc1\]) and (\[afonc\]):
$$\label{thetafonc}
\frac{1}{\alpha} = \frac{\exp \left( -
\theta^2/2 \right)}{\theta^3 \sqrt{2\pi}} \left\{ \frac{a^2 \,
\left(\sinh a - a \right)}{\cosh a - a \sinh a - 1} \right\}.$$
$a$ and $\theta$ are increasing functions of $\varepsilon$ as expected. For a symmetric distribution of targets ($\varepsilon = 1/2$) then $a = 0$ corresponding to a vanishing threshold. Conversely, if all the targets are $+1$ ($\varepsilon = 0$), the threshold diverges to $- \infty$. For finite $\varepsilon < 1/2$, the absolute value of the threshold is an increasing function of $\alpha$. From equation (\[thetafonc\]) we obtain the development $\theta^2 = 2 \ln \alpha + O(\ln \ln \alpha)$. Notice that neglecting $\ln \ln \alpha$ with respect to $\ln \alpha$ is an approximation only valid for large enough $\alpha$ ($\alpha >
10^{10}$). As was already pointed out in [@WeSa], this behaviour cannot be deduced by solving the equations (\[Eqc1\]) and (\[Eqtheta1\]) numerically.
The training error ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,
\varepsilon)$ (\[Et1\]) with $\kappa = 0$ in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$ is then:
$$\label{Etfonc}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) \simeq \varepsilon -
\frac{\exp \left( - \theta^2/2 \right)}{\theta \sqrt{2\pi}}
\left\{ \frac{\sinh a - a}{\cosh a - a \sinh a - 1} \right\}.$$
Using equations (\[thetafonc\]) and (\[Etfonc\]), we deduce:
$$\label{EqEt}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) \simeq \varepsilon -
\frac{\theta^2}{\alpha \, a^2(\varepsilon)} \simeq
\varepsilon - \frac{\ln \alpha}{\alpha} \,
\frac{2}{a^2(\varepsilon)}$$
where $a(\varepsilon)$ is the inverse function of $\varepsilon(a)$ given by (\[afonc\]).
Consider now the Gardner potential with finite $\kappa$. Although, a solution of equations (\[Eqc1\]) and (\[Eqtheta1\]) under the assumption that $c
\rightarrow 0$ with finite $\theta$ in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$ exists, it does [*not*]{} correspond to the correct extremum of $g$ (\[foncg\]). It is however worth to examine it. The corresponding value of $\theta$ as a function of $\varepsilon$ and $\kappa$ follows form (\[Eqtheta1\]), and the relation between $\alpha, \theta, \kappa$ and $c$ from (\[Eqc1\]). We find:
$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon & = & \frac{1}{1 + \exp (2 \kappa \theta)},\\
\frac{1}{\alpha} & = & \frac{2 \varepsilon \, (2c)^{3/2}}{3
\sqrt{2\pi}} \exp \left( - \frac{(\kappa + \theta)^2}{2} \right). \end{aligned}$$
As $\sqrt{2c} < \kappa$, the training error given by equation (\[Et1\]) writes:
$$\label{WrongEt}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) =
\varepsilon + (1-2\varepsilon) \int_{-\theta}^{+ \infty} Dy$$
and is larger than $\varepsilon$ for any finite $\theta$. Notice that this (incorrect) solution does not satisfy the condition (\[condition\]) necessary for the TLA to converge.
In fact, the correct training error corresponds to a solution with finite gap ($\sqrt{2c}
\rightarrow 2 \kappa$) and a diverging threshold ($\theta \rightarrow - \infty$) in the large $\alpha$ limit. Defining $\delta \equiv 2 \kappa - \sqrt{2c}$, and keeping only the leading terms, equations (\[Eqc1\]), (\[Eqtheta1\]) and (\[Et1\]) for $\kappa > 0$ give:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varepsilon}{1 - \varepsilon} & \simeq & -
\frac{\exp \left( \delta (\theta + \kappa)
\right)}{2 \kappa (\theta + \kappa)}, \\
\frac{1}{\alpha} & \simeq & \frac{2 \kappa (1 -
\varepsilon)}{(\theta+\kappa)^2 \sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp
\left( - \frac{(\theta+\kappa)^2}{2} \right), \\
\label{EqEtkappa}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) & \simeq & \varepsilon
- \frac{1}{(2\kappa)^2} \, \frac{1}{\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$
The neglected terms are of the order $O(\exp(-2 \kappa \sqrt{2 \ln \alpha} + \ln \ln \alpha))$, which are only negligible if $\kappa$ is finite. The prefactor $1/(2 \kappa)^2$ in (\[EqEtkappa\]), that diverges when $\kappa \rightarrow 0$, reflects the existence of the different behaviours for vanishing and for finite $\kappa$.
This second solution only exists for bounded potentials. The Perceptron and the AdaTron potentials diverge for $\lambda \rightarrow -\infty$, and the corresponding training errors become larger than $\varepsilon$ in the large $\alpha$ limit. Thus, if these learning algorithms were used to train the hidden perceptrons, the TLA would not converge.
Although the case of unbiased targets (i.e. $\varepsilon = 1/2$) is not essential for our study, we include here the corresponding analytic results for the sake of completeness. In this case, the free energy $g$ (\[foncg\]) is invariant with respect to the threshold symmetry $\theta
\leftrightarrow -\theta$. Thus, $\theta = 0$ is a trivial extremum of $g$. However, as already discussed by West and Saad in [@WeSa], two new solutions breaking the threshold symmetry appear above a given training set size $\alpha_{\theta}$. The analytical expression of $\alpha_{\theta}$ may be deduced under the assumption that the two different solutions appear continuously at $\alpha_{\theta}$, as in usual second order phase transitions, through a series expansion of the free energy in powers of $\theta$:
$$g(\alpha,\varepsilon,c,\theta) = g(\alpha,\varepsilon,c,0)
+ \frac{\theta^2}{2} \left. \frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial
\theta^2} \right|_{\theta = 0} + \frac{\theta^4}{24} \left.
\frac{\partial^4 g}{\partial \theta^4} \right|_{\theta = 0}.$$
Due to the symmetry, the odd derivatives with respect to $\theta$ vanish. The condition:
$$\frac{\partial^{\, 2} g}{\partial \theta^{\, 2}} = 0 =
\int_{\kappa-\sqrt{2c}}^{\kappa} y \, (\kappa - y) Dy$$
defines $\sqrt{2c}$ at the transition. The size $\alpha_{\theta}$ satisfies:
$$\alpha_{\theta} = \left( \int_{\kappa-\sqrt{2c}}^{\kappa}
(\kappa - y)^2 Dy \right)^{-1}$$
and the two new solutions that appear for $\alpha > \alpha_{\theta}$ correspond to a threshold $\theta_{\pm} \sim \pm \sqrt{\alpha - \alpha_{\theta}}$. Notice that the usual stability criterion for second order phase transitions, ${\partial^{\, 4} g}/
{\partial \theta^{\, 4}} > 0$, cannot be directly applied here because we have two order parameters. Taking into account the leading corrections to $c$, proportional to $\theta^2$, it is straightforward to verify that the solutions with finite threshold are stable.
Kuhn-Tucker cavity method
-------------------------
In order to circumvent the RS approximation, we determine the training error ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,
\varepsilon)$ using the Kuhn-Tucker (KT) cavity method proposed by Gerl and Krey [@GeKr], that we generalize here to the case of a perceptron with a threshold learning a training set with a biased probability of targets given by (\[prob\]). Contrary to the RS solution, this cavity method has been shown to overestimate the training error [@GeKr]. Consequently, the results allow us to deduce an upper bound for the number of perceptrons needed by the tilinglike procedure to converge.
The KT cavity method allows to determine the properties of the perceptron by analyzing self-consistently its response to the introduction of a new pattern into the training set. It is particularly adapted to study the properties of the Gardner potential (\[potential\]) because it is based on the fact that the weights minimizing the corresponding cost function are a (conveniently normalized) linear combination of the patterns with stability $\kappa$, which are called [*support vectors*]{}.
Let us assume that the perceptron has learned the training set and that the value of the cost function is $E$. This is the number of examples with stability smaller than the margin $\kappa$. The support vectors belong to the subset of $\alpha N - E$ remaining examples that do not contribute to the cost. The perceptron’s weights may be expressed as follows:
$$\label{eq_J}
{\bf J} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mu \in \{\alpha N - E \} }
\tau^{\mu} a^{\mu} \, {\bf x}^{\mu}$$
with $a^{\mu} > 0$ for $\lambda^{\mu} =
\kappa$, and $a^{\mu} = 0$ for $\lambda^{\mu} >
\kappa$. These are the so-called Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Defining $a^{\mu} = 0$ for examples with $\lambda^{\mu} <
\kappa$, the normalization of the weights imposes:
$$\label{norm}
1 = {\bf J} \cdot {\bf J} = \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{\mu=1}^{\alpha N} \tau^{\mu} a^{\mu} \, {\bf x}^{\mu}
\cdot {\bf J} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mu = 1}^{\alpha N} a^{\mu}
\left( \kappa + \tau^{\mu} \theta \right).$$
As usual with cavity methods, we introduce a new example ${\bf x}^0$ with target $\tau^0$, drawn respectively with the same probability densities as the other inputs and targets in the training set. Before any modification, as the pattern $0$ is uncorrelated with the direction ${\bf J}$ and its components are assumed to have a gaussian distribution, its projection onto ${\bf J}$ has a gaussian probability. Therefore, the joint probability distribution of the target $\tau^0$ and the stability $\tilde{\lambda}^0=
\tau^0 ({\bf x}^0 \cdot {\bf J} - \theta)$ before learning is:
$$\Pi \left( \tilde{\lambda}^0,\tau^0 \right) =
\frac{P(\tau^0)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \exp \left( -
\frac{(\tilde{\lambda}^0 + \tau^0 \theta)^2}{2} \right)$$
where $P(\tau^0)$ is defined by (\[prob\]). We assume a single ground state and we calculate the necessary adjustments of the weights ${\bf J}$ in order to obtain self-consistent equations for the cost function as a function of $\alpha$.
If $\tilde{\lambda}^0 \geq \kappa$, no learning is needed, as the new example does not contribute to the cost. If $\tilde{\lambda}^0 < \kappa$, two different situations may occur. Either the distance of the new example to the hyperplane is too large and the perceptron is unable to learn it, or the example is close enough and can be learned. The natural strategy to minimize the cost function is to include the new example in the subset of support vectors only if $\kappa - \sqrt{2c} <
\tilde{\lambda}^0 < \kappa$, where $\sqrt{2c}$ is a positive quantity which has to be determined self-consistently. Otherwise, the weights are not modified and the new example is left in the subset of examples contributing to the cost. We are left with the problem of determining the perturbation on the weights such that examples with $\kappa - \sqrt{2c} < \tilde{\lambda}^0
< \kappa$ become support vectors after learning. As a first step, this can be obtained by taking $a^0 = \kappa - \tilde{\lambda}^0$. However, this modifies the stabilities of the other support vectors. The coefficients $a^{\mu} > 0$ ($\mu \geq 1$) must be corrected by a small amount to compensate for this perturbation. This correction in turn modifies the stability of the new example $0$, and $a^0$ has to be corrected. After a full summation of the contributions, Gerl and Krey [@GeKr] have shown that the correct value of $a^0$ is:
$$\label{eq_a0}
a^0 = \frac{\kappa - \tilde{\lambda}^0}{1-\alpha P(a^{\mu} > 0)}$$
where $P(a^{\mu} > 0)$ is the probability that $a^{\mu} > 0$. This probability is determined assuming that the new example is equivalent to the others:
$$\label{eq_Pamu}
P ( a^{\mu} > 0) \equiv P(a^0 > 0) = \sum_{\tau^0 = \pm 1}
\int_{\kappa - \sqrt{2c}}^{\kappa} \Pi \left(
\tilde{\lambda}^0,\tau^0 \right) d\tilde{\lambda}^0.$$
Having specified the learning procedure, we are able to determine $\sqrt{2c}$ and $E$ self-consistently. First of all, the normalization of the weights given by equation (\[norm\]), may be written as follows:
$$\label{eqnorm}
1 = \alpha \sum_{\tau^0 = \pm 1} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
a^0 \left(\kappa + \tau^0 \theta \right) \Pi \left(
\tilde{\lambda}^0,\tau^0 \right) d\tilde{\lambda}^0$$
with $a^0$ given by (\[eq\_a0\]) for $\kappa-\sqrt{2c} < \tilde{\lambda}^0
< \kappa$ and $a^0=0$ elsewhere. Combining equations (\[eq\_Pamu\]) and (\[eqnorm\]), we obtain:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2c}
1 & = & \alpha \, (1 - \varepsilon) \int_{\kappa -
\sqrt{2c}+\theta}^{\kappa+\theta} \left( 1 + (\kappa +
\theta)(\kappa + \theta - y) \right) Dy\\
\nonumber & & + \, \alpha \, \varepsilon \int_{\kappa
- \sqrt{2c}-\theta}^{\kappa-\theta} \left( 1 + (\kappa
- \theta)(\kappa - \theta - y) \right) Dy.\end{aligned}$$
This equation, which determines $\sqrt{2c}$ for a fixed threshold $\theta$, is slightly different from the RS result (\[Eqc1\]). The cost function $E$ is determined assuming that it remains unchanged (to order $\sqrt{N}$) upon learning the new example. Thus, the cost per example writes:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \frac{E}{\alpha N} & = & \sum_{\tau^0 = \pm 1} \int_{-\infty}^{
\kappa - \sqrt{2c}} \Pi \left( \tilde{\lambda}^0,\tau^0
\right) d\tilde{\lambda}^0\\
\label{eqet}
& = & (1-\varepsilon) \int_{-\infty}^{\kappa-\sqrt{2c}+\theta}
Dy + \varepsilon \int_{-\infty}^{\kappa-\sqrt{2c}-\theta} Dy.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that when $\kappa - \sqrt{2c} < 0$, $E/(\alpha N)$ (\[eqet\]) represents the fraction of training errors ${\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon)$ and is similar to (\[Et1\]). The threshold $\theta$ may be optimized in order to minimize the cost function:
$$\label{eq_theta}
\frac{\partial {E}}{\partial \theta} = 0.$$
In the following, we solve (\[eq2c\]) and (\[eq\_theta\]) in the large $\alpha$ limit. First of all, we consider the case $\kappa = 0$. In this case, $E/(\alpha N)$ (equation (\[eqet\])) is the training error ${\cal E}_t$. As for the RS calculation, we may assume $\sqrt{2c} \ll |\theta|$ and $a = \theta \sqrt{2c}$ finite. We obtain the following equations:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqaKT}
\frac{\varepsilon}{1 - \varepsilon} & \simeq \hskip 0.3cm &
e^{2a} \left( \sqrt{4a^2+1} - 2a \right),\\
\hskip 0.5cm \frac{1}{\alpha} & \simeq & a \left\{
(1 - \varepsilon) \, e^a + \varepsilon \, e^{-a} \right\}
\frac{\exp \left(- \theta^2/2 \right)}{ \theta \sqrt{2 \pi}},\\
\label{eqEtKT}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon) & \simeq & \varepsilon
- \frac{F(a)}{\alpha} \simeq \varepsilon - \frac{1}{\alpha}
\, \frac{\left( 1 + 2a - \sqrt{4a^2+1} \right)}{a
\left( 1 + \sqrt{4a^2+1} - 2a \right)}. \end{aligned}$$
These results differ from those obtained with the RS calculation (Equations (\[afonc\]), (\[thetafonc\]) and (\[EqEt\])).
In the case of finite margin $\kappa$, the pertinent assumptions in the large $\alpha$ limit are $\sqrt{2c} \rightarrow
2 \kappa$ with $\delta = 2 \kappa - \sqrt{2c}$ and $\theta \rightarrow - \infty$. With these, here again $E/(\alpha N)$ (\[eqet\]) is the training error, and we get:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\varepsilon}{1 - \varepsilon} & \simeq \hskip 0.3cm &
\frac{4 \exp(\delta (\theta+\kappa))}{(\theta + \kappa)^2},\\
\hskip 0.5cm \frac{1}{\alpha} & \simeq & \frac{8 \kappa
(1 - \varepsilon)}{(\theta + \kappa)^2 \sqrt{2\pi}} \exp
\left( - \frac{(\theta + \kappa)^2}{2} \right),\\
\label{eqEtKTkappa}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha, \varepsilon) & \simeq & \varepsilon +
\frac{1}{2 \kappa \alpha (\theta + \kappa)} \simeq
\varepsilon - \frac{1}{2 \kappa \alpha \sqrt{2 \ln \alpha}}. \end{aligned}$$
It is worth to point out that even within the KT cavity method, the training error satisfies the convergence conditions (\[condition\]) and (\[stop\]).
The main conclusion of this section is that the TLA converges provided that the hidden perceptrons are trained through the minimization of a cost function with a bounded potential. The Gardner potential (\[potential\]) satisfies this constraint. The asymptotic behaviours of the training error in the large $\alpha$ limit, calculated for $\kappa = 0$ and $\kappa \neq 0$ using two different approaches are used in the following sections to characterize the storage capacity of the constructive algorithm.
Number of hidden perceptrons in the large $\alpha$ limit {#sec:k(alpha)}
========================================================
We assume that the probability distribution of the targets $\tau^{\mu}$ in the training set is symmetric, given by (\[prob\]) with $\varepsilon= 1/2$, so that the training error of the first perceptron is $\varepsilon_t^1 = {\cal E}_t (\alpha, 1/2)$. Considering iteratively the relationship between the training errors of two consecutive perceptrons (\[relationEt\]) yields:
$$\circ_{k} f_{\alpha} (1/2) = \underbrace{f_{\alpha}
\circ \cdots \circ f_{\alpha}}_{k \
{\rm times}} \ (1/2) = 0$$
where $f_{\alpha} (\varepsilon)$ stands for ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)$, the symbol $\circ$ for the composition of functions and $k$ is the number of perceptrons necessary for convergence of the TLA algorithm.
The evolution of the training errors of the successive perceptrons is schematically represented on figure \[epsit\] for an arbitrary function ${\cal E}_t
(\alpha,\varepsilon)$, where the tilinglike algorithm is shown to converge in six steps, i.e. $k = 6$.
We are interested in the limit of large training set sizes ($\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$). In this limit, the training error ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)$ is close to $\varepsilon$:
$$\label{fonch}
{\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon) \simeq
\varepsilon - h(\alpha,\varepsilon)$$
with $h(\alpha,\varepsilon)$ a function that vanishes in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow +\infty$. Notice that those cost functions that do not satisfy condition (\[condition\]) for all $\alpha$ are useless in this limit, since the error reduction at each step $\varepsilon_t^{i+1} - \varepsilon_t^i = -
h(\alpha,\varepsilon_t^i)$ vanishes at some finite value of $\alpha$. For larger values of $\alpha$ it becomes positive, and the TLA does not converge. In the preceding section we showed that the Gardner potential both with vanishing and finite margin $\kappa$ has $h(\alpha,\varepsilon) > 0$ (see equations (\[EqEt\]) and (\[EqEtkappa\])) and satisfies condition (\[condition\]).
As $h(\alpha,\varepsilon)$ vanishes in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow + \infty$, we can guess that the number $k(\alpha)$ diverges. In this limit we can introduce the continuum approximation, replacing $i/k$ by the real-valued variable $x$. Then, the error reduction at each step is given by:
$$\label{derivee}
\varepsilon_t^{i+1} - \varepsilon_t^i \simeq \frac{1}{k}
\frac{d\varepsilon}{dx} = - h(\alpha, \varepsilon).$$
After integration of both sides of the equation $d\varepsilon/h(\varepsilon,\alpha) = - k \, dx$ at constant $\alpha$, from $\varepsilon = 1/2$ and $x = 0$ to $\varepsilon = 0$ and $x = 1$, we obtain:
$$\label{kalpha}
k (\alpha) \simeq \int_{0}^{1/2} \frac{d \varepsilon}{
h (\alpha,\varepsilon)} = \int_{0}^{1/2} \frac{d
\varepsilon}{\varepsilon - {\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)}.$$
Equation (\[kalpha\]) gives the asymptotic behaviour of the number of hidden perceptrons necessary for the tilinglike algorithm to converge in the limit $\alpha \rightarrow +\infty$. It depends on the cost function used to train the perceptrons through ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)$. The storage capacity $\alpha_c(k)$ of the TLA is then obtained through the inversion of $k(\alpha)$.
Hereafter we consider the case where the hidden perceptrons are trained with the Gardner cost function, using the results of the preceding section.
We determine first the number of hidden units obtained when the perceptrons minimize the number of training errors, that is, the Gardner cost function with $\kappa = 0$. Inserting into (\[kalpha\]), the result (\[EqEt\]) obtained within the RS approximation, we obtain:
$$k^{RS} (\alpha) \simeq \int_{0}^{1/2} \frac{d\varepsilon}{
\varepsilon - {\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)}
\simeq \frac{\alpha}{2 \, \ln \alpha} \int_{0}^{1/2}
a^2(\varepsilon) \, d \varepsilon \simeq 0.475 \,
\frac{\alpha}{\ln \alpha}$$
where $a(\varepsilon)$ is given by (\[afonc\]). From this result, we deduce the storage capacity in the limit of a large number of hidden perceptrons:
$$\label{alphaRS}
\alpha_c^{RS} (k) \simeq 2.11 \, k \ln k.$$
Surprisingly, the capacity of the TLA scales with $k$ like the upper bound for the parity machine with the same number of hidden units, and only the prefactor is overestimated.
Using the result (\[eqEtKT\]) obtained with the KT cavity method, that overestimates the perceptron’s training error, we get:
$$k^{KT}(\alpha) \simeq \alpha \int_{0}^{1/2}
\frac{d\varepsilon}{F(a(\varepsilon))} \simeq 1.082 \, \alpha$$
where $F(a)$ is defined in (\[eqEtKT\]) and $a(\varepsilon)$ is given by (\[eqaKT\]). The corresponding storage capacity is:
$$\label{alphaKT}
\alpha_c^{KT} (k) \simeq 0.924 \, k.$$
We find that $\alpha_c^{KT} < \alpha_c^{RS}$ as expected. The behaviour of the storage capacity, obtained with the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method is linear in $k$. This suggests that including replica symmetry breaking in the replica calculation may modify the $k \ln k$ behaviour to one proportional to $k (\ln k)^{\nu}$ with $0 \leq \nu \leq 1$. However, as the actual training error of the perceptrons seems closer to the RS solution than to the Kuhn-Tucker cavity result [@GeKr], we expect $\nu$ to be close to $1$.
In the following we consider the parity machine obtained when the perceptrons are trained using the Gardner cost function with a finite margin $\kappa$. We get:
$$\label{kRSKT}
k^{RS}(\alpha,\kappa) \simeq 2 \kappa^2 \alpha,
\hskip 0.5cm {\rm and} \hskip 0.5cm k^{KT}
(\alpha,\kappa) \simeq \kappa \alpha \sqrt{2 \ln \alpha}.$$
After inversion of (\[kRSKT\]), the capacities deduced within the two approximations are:
$$\label{alphaRSKT}
\alpha_c^{RS} (k,\kappa) \simeq \frac{k}{2\kappa^2},
\hskip 0.5cm {\rm and} \hskip 0.5cm \alpha_c^{KT}
(k,\kappa) \simeq \frac{k}{\kappa \sqrt{2 \ln k}}$$
respectively. Here again, the behaviours of $k(\alpha)$ and $\alpha_c (k)$ obtained with the RS approximation and with the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method differ. In both cases, the value of $\kappa$ only affects the prefactor but not the scaling with $\alpha$ or $k$. Consistently, the prefactor of $\alpha_c$ diverges for $\kappa
\rightarrow 0$, where the expressions (\[kRSKT\]) and (\[alphaRSKT\]) have to be replaced by (\[alphaRS\]) and (\[alphaKT\]) respectively, as the functional dependence of the storage capacity with $k$ is different for $\kappa = 0$.
Imposing a finite margin dramatically decreases the capacity of the TLA. More precisely, the exponents $\nu$ of the logarithmic factor differ, depending on the approximations (RS and KT cavity method), in both $\kappa$-regimes ($\nu^{RS}(\kappa
= 0) = 1$, $\nu^{RS}(\kappa > 0) = 0$, $\nu^{KT}(\kappa = 0) = 0$ and $\nu^{KT}(\kappa
> 0)= - 1/2$).
It is interesting to compare the exponents determined analytically within the RS approximation, to those obtained by West and Saad [@WeSa2] through a numerical iteration over the successive perceptrons’ training errors. For $\kappa = 0$, they obtain $\nu$ close to $1$ ($n_e = 1.070$ and $1.049$, and $n_l = 1.079$ and $1.062$, for $k = 1000$ and $4000$ respectively (table 3 in [@WeSa2])) in very good agreement with our result $\nu^{RS}(\kappa = 0) = 1$. In the case of finite $\kappa$, West and Saad find that the exponent decreases with increasing $\kappa$ (figure 13 left in [@WeSa2]). Our result (\[alphaRSKT\]) shows that the exponent does not depend on $\kappa$, only the prefactor does. The dependence found numerically is probably due to higher order corrections, that behave like $O(\exp ( - 2 \kappa \sqrt{2 \ln \alpha} +
\ln \ln \alpha ))$. These terms, which are less and less negligible when approaching $\kappa = 0$, hinder the determination of the power-law exponent in the asymptotic regime $\alpha \rightarrow +\infty$. Remarkably, the RS and KT exponents $\nu^{RS}$ and $\nu^{KT}$ provide correct upper and lower bounds for the exponent obtained numerically within the one-step replica symmetry breaking approximation (figure 13 right in [@WeSa2]).
Conclusion {#sec:concl}
==========
We determined [*analytically*]{} the typical number of hidden units needed by a simple constructive procedure, the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm proposed in [@BiOp], to build a parity machine. The number of hidden units depends strongly on the asymptotic properties of the learning algorithm used to train them.
We showed that the cost function minimized by the hidden perceptrons has to be bounded. This rules out, in particular, the Perceptron or the AdaTron learning algorithms, as with these the training error cannot decrease beyond a finite value that depends on the training set size and on the bias of the target’s distribution. This is so because the hidden perceptrons have to learn highly biased output distributions. In the asymptotic regime, large thresholds are needed to minimize the training error as, loosely speaking, such solutions allow to classify correctly most patterns of the majority class. In such solutions, a non-negligible fraction of patterns have large negative stabilities. If the cost function is unbounded for $\lambda \rightarrow -\infty$, it favours solutions with small thresholds, which have large training errors. With bounded potentials, like the counting functions used in the Gardner cost function, solutions with large thresholds exist.
We deduced the properties of a perceptron with threshold, learning targets drawn with a biased distribution, trained with the Gardner cost function with and without margin. In particular, solutions such that the training error is smaller than the bias always exist. This is a condition necessary for the TLA to converge. The asymptotic behaviour of the learning curves ${\cal E}_t
(\alpha,\varepsilon)$ was determined through a replica calculation assuming replica symmetry, and also using the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method. The former approximation underestimates the training error, while the latter overestimates it. The main results are the expressions (\[EqEt\]), (\[EqEtkappa\]), (\[eqEtKT\]) and (\[eqEtKTkappa\]) relating the training error of the perceptron ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)$ to the bias $\varepsilon$ of the target distribution. Closer inspection of equations (\[EqEt\]) and (\[EqEtkappa\]) shows that the error reduction ${\cal E}_t (\alpha,\varepsilon)
- \varepsilon$ at large $\alpha$ is larger if $\kappa=0$ than for $\kappa >0$.
These results allow us to find analytically the number of units $k(\alpha)$ needed by the constructive procedure to converge in the large $\alpha$ limit. As expected, the smallest $k(\alpha)$ is obtained when the hidden perceptrons minimize their training errors, which corresponds to the Gardner cost function with $\kappa = 0$. Nevertheless, it is worth to study also the case with $\kappa > 0$, which is interesting in noisy applications. The storage capacity $\alpha_c(k)$ of the TLA is obtained through the inversion of $k(\alpha)$. Our results have been obtained under the simplifying assumption that the targets the successive perceptrons have to learn are uncorrelated. This hypothesis has been shown to be a good approximation [@WeSa2] in the limit of large training sets considered here.
In the limit of large $k$ we find $\alpha_c^{RS} (k)
\simeq 2.11 \, k \ln k$ within the RS approximation. It is interesting to compare this algorithm-dependent storage capacity to the storage capacity of a parity machine with the same number of hidden perceptrons. The latter is independent of the learning algorithm. Geometric arguments [@MiDu] and a replica calculation where the permutation symmetry among hidden units has to be broken [@XKO], both lead to $\alpha_c = k \ln k / \ln 2$. It is surprising that, although we disregarded the correlations between perceptrons and assumed replica-symmetry, which both lead to an overestimation of the storage capacity, we find the same leading behaviour. Only the prefactor is overestimated. In fact, the permutation symmetry only arises when the perceptrons are trained simultaneously. As it is absent in the case of the incremental construction, the consequence of the RS approximation is less dramatic than in [@XKO].
As the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method provides an upper bound to the perceptron’s training error, it allows to determine a lower bound for the TLA storage capacity. This bound scales linearly with the number of hidden units, suggesting that a calculation including full replica symmetry-breaking may change the power-law of the logarithmic factor. We expect that $\alpha_c \sim k (\ln k)^{\nu}$ with $0 \leq \nu \leq 1$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
It is a pleasure to thank K. Y. Michael Wong for clarifying comments about the KT cavity method.
[99]{}
T. M. Cover [*IEEE Trans. on Electronic Computers*]{} [**14**]{} 326-334 (1965).
E. Gardner [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**4**]{} 481-485 (1987).
E. Gardner [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**21**]{} 257-270 (1988).
E. Gardner and B. Derrida [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**21**]{} 271-284 (1988).
T. L. H. Watkin, A. Rau and M. Biehl [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} 499-543 (1993).
T. Grossman , R. Meir and E. Domany [*Complex Systems*]{} [**2**]{} 555 (1989).
S. I. Gallant [*Proc. $8$th Ann. Conf. Science Soc.*]{} (Amherst, MA, 15-17 August 1986) 652-660 (1986).
M. Mézard and J.-P. Nadal [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**22**]{} 2191-2203 (1989).
P. Rujàn and M. Marchand [*Complex Systems*]{} [**3**]{} 229 (1989).
M. Biehl and M. Opper [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**44**]{} 6888-6894 (1991).
M. Frean [*Neural Computation*]{} [**2**]{} 198-209 (1990).
D. Martinez and D. Estève [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**18**]{} 95-100 (1992).
G. J. Mitchinson and R. M. Durbin [*Biol. Cyber.*]{} [**60**]{} 345 (1989).
Y. S. Xiong, C. Kwon and J.-H. Oh [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**31**]{} 7043-7049 (1998).
A. H. L. West and D. Saad [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**31**]{} 8977-9021 (1998).
R. Erichsen and W. K. Theumann [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**26**]{} L61-L68 (1993).
P. Majer, A. Engel and A. Zippelius [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**26**]{} 7405-7416 (1993).
F. Gerl and U. Krey [*J. Phys. I France*]{} [**7**]{} 303-327 (1997).
L. F. Abbott and T. B. Kepler [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**22**]{} L711-L717 (1989).
L. F. Abbott and T. B. Kepler [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**22**]{} 2031-2038 (1989).
M. Griniasty and H. Gutfreund [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**24**]{} 715-734 (1991).
J. K. Anlauf and M. Biehl [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**10**]{} 687-692 (1989).
M. B. Gordon [*Proc. ICNN’96*]{} pages 381-386 (1996).
A. H. L. West and D. Saad [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**30**]{} 3471-3496 (1997).
M. Bouten [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**27**]{} 6021-6023 (1994).
[^1]: also at Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
July 10, 2002\
[10mm]{}
\
[15mm]{}
[**Abstract** ]{}
We describe three-dimensional Kerr-de Sitter space using similar methods as recently applied to the BTZ black hole. A rigorous form of the classical connection between gravity in three dimensions and two-dimensional conformal field theory is employed, where the fundamental degrees of freedom are described in terms of two dependent $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ currents. In contrast to the BTZ case, however, quantization does not give the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy connected to the cosmological horizon of Kerr-de Sitter space.
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The past few years have seen significant progress in the understanding of the fundamental degrees of freedom in quantum gravity, most notably within string theory and regarding the calculation of black hole entropy from statistical mechanics. The entropy of a black hole appears to be connected with the presence of a horizon, but black holes are not the only geometries with horizons. It was shown [@GibHawk:cosmhor] early on that also cosmological horizons have corresponding entropies, given by the same expression $$S=\frac{A}{4G}$$ (the Bekenstein-Hawking formula) as for black holes, where now $A$ is the ( generalized) area of the cosmological horizon and $G$ is Newton’s constant. A prototype of spacetimes with cosmological horizons is provided by de Sitter spacetime, and the spinning black hole generalizations, Kerr-de Sitter (KdS).
Following Carlip [@Carlip:95], numerous papers have appeared calculating the entropy of the three-dimensional BTZ [@BTZ] black hole. As emphasized [@Carlip:98], these share some serious shortcomings, and it looks difficult to arrive at the Bekenstein-Hawking formula from pure gravity. In the light of these shortcomings it was proposed in [@FjHw:01] how to reconcile pure gravity with the Bekenstein-Hawking formula. A main theme in that work was the discovery of new sectors of solutions which provided the necessary increase in the number of degrees of freedom. This was in turn inspired by earlier results [@FjHw:99] where a classical equivalence between Chern- Simons gauge theory and a WZNW model was rigorously formulated, and also by the construction of multi-black hole solutions [@MaSu:00] in three-dimensional gravity with negative cosmological constant.
Starting with Maldacena and Strominger [@MaldStr:98] similar methods as those used on the BTZ black hole have been employed for positive cosmological constant in three dimensions. There are no black holes in this theory, but solutions in general have a cosmological horizon. The most recent of these methods makes use of a conjectured correspondence between quantum gravity on a de Sitter background and (Euclidean) conformal field theory (CFT) on the conformal boundary of de Sitter spacetime [@Str:dSCFT]. In this case the boundary is disconnected with one spacelike component in the asymptotic past and one in the asymptotic future. These methods share all the shortcomings of the original methods, in addition to new interpretative difficulties due to the boundary being spacelike.
The main purpose of the present investigation was to investigate whether the results of [@FjHw:01] on the statistical mechanics of the BTZ black hole generalize to the case of positive cosmological constant. We consider here a two-parameter family of solutions, the KdS$_{3}$ solutions first considered in [@Park:KdS] where also a macroscopic derivation of the entropy is presented. Previous results depended crucially on the structure of unitary representations of $SL(2,{\mathbb{R}})$, as being the gauge group in the Chern-Simons theory. In the present case the gauge group is $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$, whose representations are drastically different from those of $SL(2,{\mathbb{R}})$. It is therefore far from obvious that the entropy calculation for the BTZ black hole can be generalized to KdS$_{3}$, and as we will show it indeed does not.
In the next section we establish the equivalence between three-dimensional gravity with positive cosmological constant on a manifold with boundary, and a conformal field theory (CFT) closely related to the $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ WZNW model on the boundary. There is an important difference to the dS/CFT correspondence, however, since the boundary is not the conformal boundary of spacetime. Rather it is the boundary of a disc-like region excised around a charge which appears in the Chern- Simons formulation of gravity. This boundary is in general timelike. The procedure is actually independent of the location of the boundary, and the correspondence is merely a consequence of the geometry having mass and/or spin. Section \[sec:holonomies\] is devoted to a brief discussion of the topological observables of the Chern-Simons theory, the Wilson loops. We then establish the existence of multi-center solutions also for positive cosmological constant in section \[sec:multicenter\]. The obstruction to generalizing the BTZ story is encountered in section \[sec:sectors\] when we try to introduce new non-local sectors of solutions. Nevertheless we proceed with the construction of the state space in section \[sec:statespace\], and the vacuum structure seem to conform with recent results in the dS/CFT correspondence We also show that the statistical entropy does not coincide with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Finally a brief discussion is included, relating our results to some other methods.
3d gravity with $\Lambda>0$ as CFT {#sec:gravCSCFT}
==================================
From the seminal work of Witten [@Witten:gravcs] we know that three-dimensional gravity can be formulated as a Chern-Simons gauge theory. In the case of positive cosmological constant $\Lambda=\frac{1}{l^{2}}$ the gauge group is $SO(3,1)\cong SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$, and up to a boundary term the Einstein-Hilbert action is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
I_{EH} & = & -\frac{k}{4\pi}\int_{{\cal{M}}}Tr\left[A\wedge dA+\frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A\right]+\frac
{k}{4\pi}\int_{{\cal{M}}}Tr\left[\bar{A}\wedge d\bar{A}+\frac{2}{3}\bar{A}\wedge \bar{A}\wedge \bar{A}
\right]\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{\lambda}{2\pi}Im\left(\int_{{\cal{M}}}Tr\left[A\wedge dA+\frac{2}{3}A\wedge A\wedge A\right]
\right)\nonumber\\
\label{csaction}
& = & I_{CS}[A]-I_{CS}[\bar{A}]\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A & = & \left(\omega^{a}+\frac{i}{l}e^{a}\right)T_{a}\\
\bar{A} & = & \left(\omega^{a}-\frac{i}{l}e^{a}\right)\bar{T}_{a}\\
k & = & -\frac{il}{8G} : = i{\lambda}$$ The $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C})$ generators $T_{a}$ and $\bar{T}_{a}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ T_{a}, T_{b}\right] & = & f_{ab}^{\ \ c} T_{c}\\
\left[\bar{T}_{a}, \bar{T}_{b}\right] & = & f_{ab}^{\ \ c} \bar{T}_{c}\\
\left[ T_{a}, \bar{T}_{b}\right] & = & 0\end{aligned}$$ with $f_{ab}^{\ \ c} = {\epsilon}_{abd}\eta^{dc}$, $\eta^{ab}=diag(-1,1,1)$ and ${\epsilon}_{012}=+1$ [^1]. This complex basis is related to a real basis of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ via $$\begin{aligned}
M_{a} & = & T_{a}+\bar{T}_{a}\\
P_{a} & = & \frac{i}{l}\left(T_{a}-\bar{T}_{a}\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{JPrel1}
\left[ M_{a}, M_{b}\right] & = & f_{ab}^{\ \ c} M_{c}\\
\label{JPrel2}
\left[ P_{a}, P_{b}\right] & = & -\frac{1}{l^{2}}f_{ab}^{\ \ c} M_{c}\\
\label{JPrel3}
\left[ M_{a}, P_{b}\right] & = & f_{ab}^{\ \ c} P_{c}.\end{aligned}$$ To simplify the discussion of representations, let us introduce the following more common basis of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ $$L_{MN}=-L_{NM}, \quad N,M=0,\ldots,3,\quad \eta_{MN} =diag(-1,1,1,1)$$ in which the commutation relations read $$\label{lorentzcomm}
\left[L_{KL},L_{MN}\right] = \eta_{KM}L_{LN} + \eta_{LN}L_{KM} - \eta_{KN}L_{LM} -
\eta_{LM}L_{KN}.$$ This is the natural basis when utilizing $SO(3,1)$ as the Lorentz group in four-dimensional spacetime. Two quadratic Casimirs are easily constructed in this basis $$\begin{aligned}
C_{1} & = & \frac{1}{2}\eta^{KM}\eta^{LN}L_{KL}L_{MN}\\
& = & -L_{12}^{2} - L_{23}^{2}-L_{31}^{2}+L_{01}^{2}+L_{02}^{2}+L_{03}^{2}\\
C_{2} & = & \frac{1}{4}\varepsilon^{KLMN}L_{KL}L_{MN}\\
& = & L_{01}L_{23}-L_{12}L_{30}+L_{20}L_{13}\end{aligned}$$ and the relation to the $M,P$ basis is given as $$M_{0}=L_{12},\ M_{1}=L_{20},\ M_{2}=L_{01}$$$$P_{0}=l^{-1}L_{30},\ P_{1}=l^{-1}L_{13},\ P_{2}=l^{-
1}L_{23}.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
C_{1} & = & \eta^{ab}M_{a}M_{b}-l^{2}\eta^{ab}P_{a}P_{b}\\
C_{2} & = & l\eta^{ab}M_{a}P_{b}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{ab}T_{a}T_{b} & = & \frac{1}{4}(C_{1}+2iC_{2})\\
\eta^{ab}\bar{T}_{a}\bar{T}_{b} & = & \frac{1}{4}(C_{1}-2iC_{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Any unitary representation $D$ of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ can be decomposed into a direct sum of unitary representations, $D_{n}$, of the compact $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ algebra generated by $L_{ij}$, $i, j=1,2,3$. The label $n$ is the usual spin. A unitary irreducible representation of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ carry a lowest spin $k_{0}$, but since unitary irreducible representations are infinite dimensional there is no upper bound, i.e. $$D=\bigoplus_{n=k_{0}\atop
step=1}^{\infty}D_{n}.$$ Note that if $k_{0}$ is an integer the full $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ representation will only contain integer $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ spins, and if $k_{0}$ is a half-integer it will only involve half-integral spins. The unitary irreducible representations $D_{c_{1}}^{c_{2}}$ come in two series labelled by the values of the Casimirs [@Bargmann:46; @Knapp:repth]
1. The complementary series $D^{0}_{c_{1}}$ where $0<c_{1}\leq 1$ and $c_{2}=0$
2. The principal series $D^{c_{2}}_{c_{1}}$ where $c_{2}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $c_{1}=k_{0}^{2}-(c_{2}/k_{0})^{2}-1$ for $k_{0}\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$.
The identity representation in fact corresponds to the upper limit of the complementary series, i.e. $D_{1}^{0}$. We can also classify the unitary irreducible repreentations by the lowest spin $k_{0}$ together with a parameter $c$ [@Naimark:linreps] related to the Casimirs as $$\begin{aligned}
c_{1} & = & k_{0}^{2}+c^{2}-1\\
c_{2} & = & -ik_{0}c\end{aligned}$$ The two series correspond to
1. $D^{0}_{c_{1}}$: $k_{0}=0$ and $0<c<1$
2. $D^{c_{2}}_{k_{0}^{2}-(c_{2}/k_{0})^{2}-1}$: $c=i\rho$, $\rho\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $k_{0}\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{N}$.
Diagonalize the operator $M_{0}$ and denote its eigenvalues in $D_{j}$ by $m_{j}$ where $m_{j}\in\{-j,-j+1,\ldots,j-1,j\}$. There is no compact generator which commutes with $M_{0}$ so the other Cartan generator must be a non-compact generator, which then has continuous eigenvalues. The eigenvalue of the operator $P_{0}$, which commutes with $M_{0}$, is given by $$\frac{i}{l}(m+k_{0}+c
+1+{\sigma})$$ where ${\sigma}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ is arbitrary.
Since the action (\[csaction\]) consists of two commuting parts, the canonical analysis on a manifold ${{\cal{M}}} ={\mathbb{R}}\times{\Sigma}$ such that ${\partial}{\Sigma}\neq\emptyset$ can be directly transfered from the $SO(2,2)$ case, and for details we refer to [@FjHw:99] and [@FjHw:01]. The boundary destroys gauge invariance, and to restore this we introduce two sets of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{sl}_{2}}}$ currents on the boundary, parametrized by the coordinate $\phi$, with the equal time Poisson relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Jalg1}
\{J_{a}(\phi),J_{b}(\phi')\} & = & -f_{ab}^{\ \ c}J_{c}(\phi){\delta}(\phi-\phi') - \frac{k}{4\pi}
\eta_{ab}{\partial}_{\phi}{\delta}(\phi-\phi')\\
\label{Jalg2}
\{\bar{J}_{a}(\phi),\bar{J}_{b}(\phi')\} & = & -f_{ab}^{\ \ c}\bar{J}_{c}(\phi){\delta}(\phi-\phi') +
\frac{k}{4\pi}\eta_{ab}{\partial}_{\phi}{\delta}(\phi-\phi').\end{aligned}$$ Including these boundary degrees of freedom we can write down first class constraints of a form similar to those in [@FjHw:01] $$\label{constraints}
{\partial}_{r}A_{\phi}^{\ a}-{\partial}_{\phi}A_{r}^{\ a} + f^{a}_{bc}A_{r}^bA_{\phi}^c-(A_{\phi}^{\
a}+\frac{4\pi}{k}J^{a})\delta(x\in{\partial}\Sigma)=0$$ where $r$ is chosen such that $(r,\phi)$ parametrize ${\Sigma}$. The boundary delta function $\delta(x\in{\partial}\Sigma)$ is defined by $\int_{\Sigma}d^2xf(x)\delta(x\in{\partial}\Sigma)=\int_{{\partial}\Sigma}[f(x)]_{{\partial}\Sigma}$. We refer to [@FjHw:01] for details of the canonical analysis. On the constraint surface, and considering only smooth field configurations near and on the boundary, these constraints imply $$\begin{aligned}
J^{a} & = & -\frac{k}{4\pi}A_{\phi}^{\ a}|_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}\\
\bar{J}^{a} & = & \frac{k}{4\pi}\bar{A}_{\phi}^{\ a}|_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $(A^{a})^{*}=\bar{A}^{a}$, the currents satisfy $$\label{JJbar} (J^{a})^{*}=\bar
{J}^{a}.$$
From [@FjHw:99] and [@FjHw:01] we know that we can fix the gauge and obtain the following gauge fixed Hamiltonian $$\label{Ham}
H = \frac{1}{2{\alpha}kl}\int_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}J^{a}J_{a} +
\frac{1}{2\bar{{\alpha}}kl}\int_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}\bar{J}^{a}\bar{J}_{a}$$ where ${\alpha}$ and $\bar{{\alpha}}$ are arbitrary constants with the constraint ${\alpha}\neq-\bar{{\alpha}}$ [^2]. We fix these parameters such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wzwH}
lH & = & -\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\int_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}J^{a}J_{a} -
\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}\int_{{\partial}{\Sigma}}\bar{J}^{a}\bar{J}_{a}\\
& = & L_{0}+\bar{L}_{0}.\end{aligned}$$ The Fourier modes of the currents are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Fmodes} J^{a} & = &
\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}J^{a}_{m}e^{-im\phi}\\ \label{barFmodes} \bar{J}^{a} & = & \frac{
1}{2\pi}\sum_{m\in\mathbb{Z}}\bar{J}^{a}_{m}e^{im\phi}.\end{aligned}$$
Inserting the Fourier decomposition in (\[wzwH\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
L_{0} & = & \frac{1}{4\lambda}\left(C_{1}+2iC_{2}\right)+ \mbox{non-zero mode part}\\
\label{LCas}
\bar{L}_{0} & = & \frac{1}{4\lambda}\left(C_{1}-2iC_{2}\right)+ \mbox{non-zero mode part}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of negative cosmological constant the two parts of the Hamiltonian combine to the full $SL(2,{\mathbb{R}})$ WZNW Hamiltonian. Here, however, we do not obtain the full $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ WZNW model since each current do not independently generate the $\mathfrak{sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ algebra. Instead the classical degrees of freedom correspond to those of the so called $H_{3}^{+}$ WZNW model [@Gawedzki:91; @Teschner:97_1; @Teschner:97_2; @GivKutSeib:98; @Teschner:99], conjectured to describe string propagation on the Euclidean version of AdS$_3$.
There exists a two-parameter class of three-geometries called Kerr-de Sitter (KdS$_{3}$) solutions [@Park:KdS] with metrics $$\label{KdS}
ds^{2} = -\left(GM-\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}+\frac{G^{2}{{\cal J}}^{2}}{4r^{2}}\right)dt^{2} + \left(GM-\frac{r
^{2}}{l^{2}}+\frac{G^{2}{{\cal J}}^{2}}{4r^{2}}\right)^{-1}dr^{2} + r^{2}\left(d\phi - \frac{G{{\cal J}}}{2r^{2}}
dt\right)^{2}.$$ The case $M=1/G$, ${{\cal J}}=0$ corresponds to pure de Sitter which has a cosmological horizon at $r=r_{+}=l$. For generic values of the parameters there is a single cosmological horizon, thus one should not speak of black holes. The horizon dissapears, however, for $M={{\cal J}}=0$. By inspection, it is also clear that there is, in general, a conical singularity at $r=0$. The parameters $M$ and ${{\cal J}}$ can be expressed in terms of the parameters $r_{+}$ and $r_{-}$ as $$M=
\frac{r_{+}^{2}-r_{-}^{2}}{l^{2}G} \quad \mbox{and} \quad{{\cal J}}=\frac{2r_{+}r_{-}}{lG}$$ analogous to the expressions for the BTZ case.
In the region $r>r_+$ we can perform the following coordinate transformation $$r^2=r_+^2\cosh^2{\tau}+r_-^2\sinh^2{\tau}$$ The metric then transforms to $$\label{kerr-de metric}
ds^2 = -l^2 d\tau^{2} + \cosh^2{\tau}\left(\frac{r_-}{l}dt-r_+d\phi\right)^2
+\sinh^2{\tau}\left(\frac{r_+}{l}dt+r_-d\phi\right)^2 $$ The dreibein and spin connections can now be chosen to be $$\begin{aligned}
e_{0} & = l d\tau & \omega_{0} & = 0 \\
e_{1} & = -\sinh{\tau}(\frac{r_+}{l}dt+r_-d\phi) & \omega_{1} & = \frac1{l}
\sinh{\tau}(\frac{r_-}{l}dt-r_+d\phi) \\
e_{2} & = -\cosh{\tau}(\frac{r_-}{l}dt-r_+d\phi) & \omega_{2} & = -\frac1{l} \cosh{\tau}(\frac{
r_+}{l}dt+r_-d\phi).\end{aligned}$$ By the relation $A_{\alpha}=\omega_{\alpha}+\frac{i}{l}e_{\alpha}$ the $\phi$-component of the vector field corresponding to this metric is $$A_{\phi} = -\frac1{l}\left(\sinh\tau\, [r_{+}+ir_{-}]T_{1} + \cosh\tau\, [r_{-}-ir_{+}]T_{2}
\right)$$ which yields the currents $$\begin{aligned}
J^{0} & = & 0\\
J^{1} & = & \frac{i\lambda}{4\pi l}\sinh\tau [r_{+}+ir_{-}]\\
J^{2} & = & \frac{i\lambda}{4\pi l}\cosh\tau [r_{-}-ir_{+}].
\end{aligned}$$ The $\bar{J}$ sector is obtained by complex conjugation, and the Virasoro zero-modes become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LzMJ1}
L_{0} & = & -\frac{\lambda}{4 l^2}\left[ r_{+}^{2}-r_{-}^{2}+2ir_{+}r_{-}\right]\\
\label{MJ1}
& = & -\frac{\lambda G}{4}\left[ M-i{{\cal J}}/l \right]\\
\label{LzMJ2}
\bar{L}_{0} & = & -\frac{\lambda}{4 l^2}\left[ r_{+}^{2}-r_{-}^{2}-2ir_{+}r_{-}\right]\\
\label{MJ2}
& = & -\frac{\lambda G}{4}\left[ M+i{{\cal J}}/l\right].
\end{aligned}$$ Comparison with (\[LCas\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
M & = & -\frac{1}{G\lambda^{2}}C_{1}\\
& = & -\frac{1}{G\lambda^{2}}(k_{0}^{2}+c^{2}-1)\\
{{\cal J}}& = & \frac{2\, l}{G\lambda^{2}}C_{2}\\
& = & -\frac{i2\, l}{G\lambda^{2}}k_{0}c.\end{aligned}$$ We see in particular that all geometries with positive mass correspond to principal representations. The relevance of the negative mass geometries is not clear to us.
Holonomies {#sec:holonomies}
==========
The topological nature of Chern-Simons theory implies that the fields are locally pure gauge $A = U^{-1}dU$, for $ U $ an element of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$, and any non-trivial observable has to be associated with the boundaries of spacetime or be topological. The simplest topological observables are holonomies (or Wilson loops) measuring the effect of parallel transport along a closed loop in spacetime. For flat connections the result can only be non-zero if the loop $ C $ is non-contractible. Then the Wilson loop is $$W(C)={\mathcal{P}}\exp\left(\oint_{C}A\right)$$ where $ {\mathcal{P}} $ denotes path ordering of the exponential. The Wilson loop by itself is not invariant under gauge transformations but the trace of it is.
For the KdS$_{3}$ solutions we obtain [^3] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}}W(C) & = & 4 \left[\cosh \left(\pi\frac{ r_-}{l}\right)\cos\left(\pi \frac{r_+}{l}
\right)-
i\sinh\left(\pi \frac{r_-}{l}\right)\sin\left(\pi \frac{r_+}{l}\right)\right]\\
\label{KdSWl}
& = & 4\cosh\left(\pi\frac{r_{-}-ir_{+}}{l}\right)\\
{\mathrm{Tr}}\bar{W}(C) & = & 4\left[\cosh\left(\pi \frac{r_-}{l}\right)\cos\left(\pi
\frac{r_+}{l}\right)
+i\sinh\left(\pi \frac{r_-}{l}\right)\sin\left(\pi \frac{r_+}{l}\right)\right]\\
& = & 4\cosh\left(\pi\frac{r_{-}+ir_{+}}{l}\right)
\label{eq:W1}\end{aligned}$$ which relate the holonomies to the mass and spin of the geometry. So we see that generically the Wilson loop will take [*complex*]{} values, and genuine observables are related to real combinations of traces of the Wilson loops. This in turn implies that every possible eigenvalue of the Wilson loop corresponds to a certain KdS$_{3}$ solution which is not the case for the BTZ solution. It may be interesting also to notice the value of the holonomy for pure de Sitter. As mentioned earlier, this is obtained by setting $r_+=l$ and $r_-=0$. Then we see that the trace of the holonomy takes the value ${\mathrm{Tr}}W(C)=-4$. A peculiar feature is the periodicity in $r_{+}$.
In analogy to the case of negative curvature there also exist multicenter solutions when the curvature is positive which will be established in the next session. For these solutions the Wilson loop will just add up all separate charges ($r_+$ respective $r_-$ for each source) that are enclosed [@MaSu:00]. If we enclose KdS$_{3}$-like solutions the Wilson loops are $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Tr}}W(C) & = & 4\cosh\left(\pi\frac{r_{C-}-ir_{C+}}{l}\right)\\
{\mathrm{Tr}}\bar{W}(C) & = & 4\cosh\left(\pi\frac{r_{C-}+ir_{C+}}{l}\right),
\label{eq:W2}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{C+}$ ($r_{C-}$) denotes the sum of all charges $r_+$ ($r_-$) enclosed by $C$. Here we see an important difference between the KdS$_{3}$ and the BTZ black hole case. If several spinless (i.e. $r_{-}=0$) KdS$_{3}$ sources are encircled such that the sum of all $r_+$ adds up to $l(1+2n)$ for some integer $n$, then by the periodicity the total Wilson loop at infinity will be that of pure de Sitter.
Multi-center solutions {#sec:multicenter}
======================
In [@MaSu:00] it was shown that in the Chern-Simons formulation there exist multi-center generalizations of the BTZ-solution, and in [@FjHw:01] the solutions were further generalized to line sources. It is easy to generalize the multi-center solutions to positive cosmological constant. Here we will write down the solution for the case of having point sources and we will also ensure that it behaves asympotically as KdS$_{3}$. We do, however, leave an analysis of the physical relevance, as performed in [@MaSu:00], aside. For point source solutions the equations of motion $dA + A \wedge A=0$ are satisfied by the vector potential outside the sources. We previously used these solutions as inspiration for the introduction of new sectors of solutions, and in that case we believe they provide an important contribution to the density of states.
It should be pointed out that even though inside the horizon the radial coordinate $\tau$ is spatial also for KdS$_{3}$, the asymptotic behavour is quite different. Outside the horizon $\tau$ becomes the time coordinate, and the boundary at infinity is spacelike. The vector field for such a solution outside the horizon can be written $$\label{ansatz1}
A=-(f+Qdt)\sinh(h)T_1 + i(f+Qdt)\cosh(h)T_2-dh T_0$$ where $ h $ is a scalar function generalizing the coordinate $\tau$ and $ f $ is a one-form inside the horizon which is closed except at isolated sources $$df = 2 \pi\sum_{i=1}^{N} q_i \delta^2(\vec{x}-\vec{x}_i)\; dx\wedge
dy~.\label{eq:f}$$ The charges $q_{i}=r_{i+}-ir_{i-}$ determine the strength of the sources (the masses and spins of KdS$_{3}$ solutions). By integrating (\[eq:f\]) over a large disk $ D $ enclosing all sources we obtain $$\oint_{\partial D} f =\int_{D} df = 2 \pi \sum_{i=1}^{N} q_i = 2\pi Q~.$$ If appropriate boundary conditions on $ f $ are assumed, $ f \to Q
d\phi $ as $ r \to \infty $. The second gauge field $\bar{A}$ is just the complex conjugate of $A$.
The metric corresponding to the Chern-Simon fields is, $$ds^2=\cosh^2(h(x,y))\left\{r_- dt - \Re(f(x,y))\right\}^2
+\sinh^2(h(x,y))\left\{ r_+ dt + \Im(f(x,y)) \right\}^2
-dh(x,y)^2~,\label{SimpMultiBTZMet}$$ where $$r_{+}=\Re(Q) ~,\qquad r_{-}=\Im(Q)$$ The metric is easily compared with (\[kerr-de metric\]). The one-form $ f /Q $ generalizes the angular one-form $ d\phi $. Asymptotically it behaves like KdS$_{3}$ as long as $h(x,y)\rightarrow \tau$ at infinity.
It may appear strange to discuss spatial sections with boundary when we intend to describe KdS$_{3}$ geometries which have no spatial boundary. The reason is that we insist on describing the whole ${\Sigma}$ with one set of coordinates. As described in [@FjHw:01] all (but a zero-measure set of) solutions are then described by gauge connections which are singular along some world-line in the Chern-Simons theory. This is made obvious by the discussion above regarding the construction of multi-center solutions, where the position of the charges correspond to such singularities. A singularity forces us to remove a (small) disc around the charge in each spatial section, presenting us with a boundary. In a multi-center solution we should remove a disc around each charge which results in several disconnected bondaries, ${\partial}{\Sigma}_{i}$, each supporting a current $J^{a}_{i}$. We thus stress that the presence of boundaries in $\mathcal{M}$ is a natural feature.
Another important feature is that nothing in the formalism depends on the location of the boundary, and it is strictly not correct to say that the CFT lives “on the boundary”, whether that is at infinity or any other place. Thus although we are forced to introduce boundaries, [*the locations of the boundaries are irrelevant*]{}.
One might think that an infinite number of currents are needed to describe all possible configurations, but this is interestingly enough not the case. It is possible [@FjHw:99] to choose a gauge in the full theory such that $$J^{a} = -\frac{k}{4\pi}A_{\phi}^{\ a}$$ [*everywhere*]{}, and not only on the boundary. For a solution with several disconnected boundaries this constraint relates all currents to each other, and only one is really needed. Note, however, that it may well be impossible to apply this constraint globally, and in the previous work [@FjHw:01] this provided inspiration to include also sectors with non-local boundary conditions.
Generating solutions by singular gauge transformations {#sec:sectors}
======================================================
We will now investigate what solutions can be generated by singular gauge transformations. In [@FjHw:01] this technique was used to find new sectors of solutions. We consider transformations of $B=A+\bar{A}$. Consider the one-parameter family of transformations $$B\Rightarrow g^{-1}(B+d)g,\quad g=e^{-\phi(sT_{0}+\bar{s}\bar{T}_{0})}.$$ We obtain $$\tilde{A}_{{\alpha}}^{\ 0} = A_{{\alpha}}^{\ 0}-s{\delta}_{{\alpha},2},\quad \tilde{A}^{\ \pm}_{{\alpha}} = e^{\mp is\phi}
A_{{\alpha}}^{\ \pm}$$ $$\tilde{\bar{A}}_{{\alpha}}^{\ 0} =\bar{A}_{{\alpha}}^{\ 0} - \bar{s}{\delta}_{{\alpha}, 2},\quad
\tilde{\bar{A}}_{{\alpha}}^{\ \pm} = e^{\mp i s\phi}\bar{A}_{{\alpha}}^{\ \pm}$$ where $A^{\pm}=iA^{1}\pm A^{2}$ and vice versa for $\bar{A}$. Demanding that the transformed fields are still related by complex conjugation gives the constraint $$s^*=\bar{s}$$ with two special solutions $$s\in {\mathbb{R}},\ s=\bar{s}$$ and $$is\in{\mathbb{R}},\ s=-\bar{s}.$$ In the first case the group element $g$ used in the transformation becomes $g=e^{-s\phi M_{0}}$ which is periodic with period $2\pi$, and therefore a regular gauge transformation, for $s\in\mathbb{Z}$. The second case implies $g = e^{is\phi P_{0}}$ which is only a regular gaugetransformation for $s=0$ since $P_{0}^{\,\dagger}=P_{0}$. Extending this to a complete “gauge” transformation, i.e. transforming also the boundary currents, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J}^{0} & = & J^{0}+\frac{sk}{4\pi},\quad \tilde{J}^{\pm} = e^{\mp is\phi}J^{\pm}\nonumber
\\
\label{Jtrf}
\tilde{\bar{J}}^{0} & = & \bar{J}^{0}-\frac{\bar{s}k}{4\pi},\quad \tilde{\bar{J}}^{\pm} = e^{\mp
i\bar{s}\phi}\bar{J}^{\pm}\end{aligned}$$ or in terms of Fourier modes $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{J}^{0}_{n} = J^{0}_{n}+\frac{sk}{2}{\delta}_{n},&& \tilde{J}^{\pm}_{n} = J^{\pm}_{n\mp s}
\nonumber\\
\label{mtrf}
\tilde{\bar{J}}^{0}_{n} = \bar{J}^{0}_{n}-\frac{\bar{s}k}{2}{\delta}_{n},&& \tilde{\bar{J}}^{\pm}_{n}
= \bar{J}^{\pm}_{n\mp \bar{s}}\end{aligned}$$ which we recognize as the spectral flow of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{2}$. To see how the $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ representations are affected we move to the $M,\,P$-basis. Since $M_{0}^{0}= J^{0}_{0}+\bar{J}^{0}_{0}$ is a compact generator it has discrete eigenvalues while $P_{0}^{0}=i(J^{0}_{0}-\bar{J}^{0}_{0})$, being non-compact, has continuous spectrum. Therefore, following [@FjHw:01], we should consider $M_{0}^{0}$ which transforms as $$M_0^0\rightarrow
\widetilde{M}_0^0=M_0^0+\frac{k}{2}(s-\bar{s}).$$ The first case, $s$ real, implies that $M_0^0$ does not transform at all, and consequently there is no restriction on $s$ from representation theory. In the second case, $s$ imaginary, we have $$M_0^0\rightarrow \widetilde{M}_0^0=M_0^0+ks.$$ Performing this transformation on a unitary irreducible representation of $\mathfrak{so}(3,1)$ has the effect of shifting the $M_0$ eigenvalue, and to stay within the class of unitary representations we must demand $ks\in\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{Z}$. Unlike the BTZ case, however, there are no values of $s$ which give regular gauge transformations, and consequently $k$ is not quantized and there is no bound on the number of new sectors. There are also further differences regarding the solution generating transformations above. The values of the KdS$_3$ Wilson loops (\[KdSWl\]) changes according to $$\label{Wtransf}{\mathrm Tr} W[C]\longrightarrow 4\cosh \left(\pi\frac{r_{-}-ir_{+}}{
l}+i\pi s\right).$$ These transformations do not generate new eigenvalues of the Wilson loops since any value of $s$ can be incorporated in a redefinition of $r_{+}$ and $r_{-}$ while remaining in the class of KdS$_3$ solutions. This is in contrast to the AdS$_3$ case where the analogous transformation generated genuinely new Wilson loops.
We have discovered a significant difference between the space of solutions for positive and negative cosmological constant in three dimensions. An important consequence is that the microscopic mechanisms responsible for the entropy are not the same for positive ${\Lambda}$ as for negative ${\Lambda}$. It should be pointed out that the result obtained in this sector is independent of the spectral flow direction in the $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_2$ algebras.
Quantum state space {#sec:statespace}
===================
Since the left- and right-moving currents are now related by complex conjugation, it is perhaps not obvious how to construct the state space from the Fourier modes. By moving to the real $M$, $P$ basis, it is obvious that there are $6$ real field degrees of freedom, and we should thus let $J^{a}$ and $\bar{J}^{a}$ act independently. The relation (\[JJbar\]), which in the quantized version reads $$(J^{a}_{n})^{\dagger} = \bar{J}^{a}_{n},$$ has instead implications for the inner product of the state space as will now be discussed. We have in principle two possible choices of vacua, either $$J^{a}_{n}|0\rangle = \bar{J}^{a}_{-n}|0\rangle = 0 \quad \forall n>0$$ or $$J^{a}_{n}|0\rangle =
\bar{J}^{a}_{n}|0\rangle = 0\quad \forall n>0.$$ The commutators corresponding to (\[Jalg1\]) and (\[Jalg2\]) read in modes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qJalg1}
[J^{a}_{m},J^{b}_{n}] & = & -if^{ab}_{\ \ c}J^{c}_{m+n} -\frac{k}{2}m{\delta}_{m+n,0}\eta^{ab} \\
\label{qJalg2}
[\bar{J}^{a}_{m},\bar{J}^{b}_{n}] & = & -if^{ab}_{\ \ c}\bar{J}^{c}_{m+n} -\frac{k}{2}m{\delta}_{m+
n,0}\eta^{ab}.\end{aligned}$$ In the first choice of state space we define a sesquilinear form by $$(|\psi\rangle,|\phi\rangle ) = \langle\psi|\phi\rangle$$ where $\langle\psi| = (|\psi\rangle )^{\dagger}$. This is the first step in constructing an inner product on the state space, and it is instructive to study a few simple examples. By defining $|1,a\rangle=J^{a}_{-1}|0\rangle$ and $|\bar{1},a\rangle=\bar{J}^{a}_{1}|0\rangle$ we get using the hermiticity properties of the modes together with (\[qJalg1\]) and (\[qJalg2\]) $$\begin{array}{ll}
(|1,a\rangle,|1,b\rangle) = 0 & (|1,a\rangle,|\bar{1},b\rangle)= \frac{k}{2}\eta^{ab} \\
(|\bar{1},a\rangle,|1,b\rangle) = -\frac{k}{2}\eta^{ab} & (|\bar{1},a\rangle,|\bar{1},b\rangle) =
0.
\end{array}$$ We see that the form is not diagonal in this basis, but it is still obvious that (even if we get rid of the factor of $i$ present in $k$) the indefinite metric $\eta^{ab}$ results in an indefinite sesquilinear form. We can thus not create a unitary theory in this state space.
If we try to define the form $( , )$ in the same way for the latter choice of vacuum, however, we run into trouble. Since now $(|\bar{1},a\rangle,|1,b\rangle) = \langle 0|J^{a}_{1}J^{b}_{-1}|0\rangle =
-\frac{k}{2}\eta^{ab}\langle 0|0\rangle$ and $|\bar{1},a\rangle=\bar{J}^{a}_{1}|0\rangle=0$, we necessarily get $\langle 0|0\rangle =0$. Hence we need to define another state $\widetilde{|0\rangle}$ by $$J^{a}_{-n}\widetilde{|0\rangle} = \bar{J}^{a}_{-n}\widetilde{|0\rangle}
= 0 \quad \forall n>0$$ and then it is consistent to impose the normalization $\widetilde{\langle 0|}0\rangle = 1$ and define the sesquilinear form $$(\widetilde{|\psi\rangle}, |\phi\rangle ) = \widetilde{\langle\psi|}\phi\rangle.$$ Since e.g. $(\widetilde{|1,a\rangle},|2,b\rangle) = \frac{k}{2}\eta^{ab}\widetilde{\langle 0|}0\rangle$, however, it is impossible to build a unitary state space also with this choice of vacuum. It is interesting to note that the definition of the vacuum state in QFT on a de Sitter background has recently been discussed [@Witten:01; @BouMalStr:01], and seems to fit the second choice above.
In certain applications, such as strings described by WZNW models with compact groups, unitarity picks the latter vacuum. This is because the representations of the left- and right-moving affine algebras then have the same value of the level $k$. With the former choice of vacuum, the levels in the two chiral sectors differs by a sign. Since in that case the left- and right-moving currents are not related by complex conjugation, the subtlety with the state $\widetilde{|0\rangle}$ does not appear, however. In the present gravitational context, the question of which vacuum to choose is not as obvious. Consider the action of $H$ on a state corresponding to either of the two choices of vacuum. Disregarding the zero-modes, we see that the commutation relations (\[qJalg1\]) and (\[qJalg2\]) implies the Hamiltonian acting on the former space yields $N-\bar{N}$ while acting on the latter space it gives $N+\bar{N}$, where $N$ and $\bar{N}$ are the number operators in the respective sectors. This, we believe, shows that the latter state space is more natural.
Since we could not establish the presence of different sectors this is the full story and the calculation of the semiclassical entropy is a simple exercise. The Hamiltonian is written in eq. (\[wzwH\]), and the state space is constructed by acting with negative frequency modes on ground states $|R\rangle |\bar{R}\rangle$, transforming in some unitary representation of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$. Recall that describing the theory only in terms of the currents involves a complete gauge fixing, and there are therefore no constraints left to kill states in the state space constructed by negative frequency modes of the six current degrees of freedom. A consequence of this and the fact that the state space has the same number of states as that of three free bosons is that the number of different states of a given chirality at “mode number” $N$ is simply the $3$rd partition of $N$, and the asymptotic behaviour of this function is easily determined by e.g. a saddle point method to be [@Brigham] $$p^{(3)}(N)\sim e^{2\pi\sqrt{N/2}}.$$ Note that no assumptions on unitarity or modular invariance have been made. For fixed values of the zero modes of $L_0$ and $\bar{L}_0$ the asymptotic number of states with ( large) eigenvalues $\Delta$ and $\bar{\Delta}$ of $L_0$ and $\bar{L}_0$ is $$\label{density}
\varrho(\Delta,\bar{\Delta})\sim e^{2\pi\sqrt{\Delta\over 2}}e^{2\pi\sqrt{\bar{\Delta}
\over 2}}.$$ We now assume that we can make the identification (\[MJ1\]), (\[MJ2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta & = & \frac{1}{16|k|}\left(\frac{r_+ + ir_-}{2G}\right)^{2}\\
\bar{\Delta} & = & \frac{1}{16|k|}\left(\frac{r_+ - ir_-}{2G}\right)^{2}\end{aligned}$$ for an [*arbitrary*]{} state in the state space. Inserted in (\[density\]) this gives $$\label{entropy}
S = \frac{1}{\sqrt{32|k|}} \frac{A}{4G}$$ which in the semiclassical limit $|k|\rightarrow \infty$ is very far from the Bekenstein-Hawking expression. The partition function also contains an integration over the zero-modes, but it is straightforward to check that this gives corrections to (\[entropy\]) which are at most logarithmic in $\Delta$ and $\bar{\Delta}$.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Let us first give a short summary of the results. By using the Chern-Simons formulation of three-dimensional gravity we showed that on a manifold $\mathcal{M}\cong {\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma$ where ${\partial}{\Sigma}\neq\emptyset$, three-dimensional gravity with positive cosmological constant is canonically equivalent to two $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ currents of opposite chirality and related by complex conjugation. We furthermore determined the relation between the parameters of the vacuum (KdS$_3$) solutions, the mass and spin, and the Casimirs of unitary irreducible representations of $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$. All positive mass geometries were found to correspond to the principal unitary series. The eigenvalues of the holonomies of these solutions were then calculated in terms of the mass and spin. Existence of “ multi-center” KdS$_3$ solutions were established in analogy with the multi-center black hole solutions for ${\Lambda}<0$. In the latter case the existence of multi-center solutions served as motivation for introducing new sectors of solutions. We showed in section \[sec:sectors\], however, that similar new sectors do not appear for the present case ${\Lambda}>0$. We then proceeded by showing that with the choice of vacuum implied by the gravitational interpretation we are forced to introduce a new state, conjugate to the vacuum. The state space will in agreement with the ${\Lambda}<0$ case necessarily contain states of negative norm. Finally we determined the asymptotic density of states to show that the space of solutions is not degenerate enough to saturate the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy corresponding to the cosmological horizon.
Although, as we have shown, much of the formalism is readily transferred between the ${\Lambda}<0$ and ${\Lambda}>0$ cases, the spaces of solutions are quite different in structure. For negative cosmological constant we found a mapping from the space of classical solutions to the state space of the WZNW model such that the microcanonical density of states yields the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. Here we attempted the same construction for positive cosmological constant, and we found that such a mapping does not give the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy corresponding to the cosmological horizon. Although multi-center solutions exist in both cases, the relevance of these do not seem to be the same.
Let us finish with a brief discussion of the relation to other results. In [@MaldStr:98] a method parallell to that of Carlip [@Carlip:95] for the BTZ black hole was employed to calculate the dS$_{3}$ entropy. The Hamiltonian in [@MaldStr:98] reads using our conventions $$\label{MalStrHam}
lH = \frac{1}{2k-1}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:J^{a}_{n}J^{b}_{-n}:\eta_{ab} - \frac{1}{2k+1}\sum_{n\in
\mathbb{Z}}:\bar{J}^{a}_{n}\bar{J}^{b}_{-n}:$$ which we have seen corresponds to the choice ${\alpha}=-\bar{{\alpha}}$ and was argued not to be the correct choice for gravity. The terms $\pm 1$ in the denominators are renormalization constants, and should be removed to obtain the classical expression. To clarify the difference of this choice compared to (\[wzwH\]), insert (\[MJ1\]) and (\[MJ2\]) into (\[wzwH\]): $$\label{HKdS} H= \frac{1}{16} M,$$ which shows that the Hamiltonian, as expected, is proportional to the KdS$_3$ mass. The other possible choice of Hamiltonian (\[MalStrHam\]), involves a switch in sign in front of $\bar{L}_{0}$, and this yields $$\label{JKdS} H = -\frac{i}{16l}{{\cal J}},$$ i.e. the Hamiltonian in this case is proportional to the spin rather than the mass of the KdS$_3$ geometry.
Recently a conjectural correspondence [@Str:dSCFT] between quantum gravity on asymptotically de Sitter space and conformal field theory on the conformal (spacelike) boundary has received much attention. In the three-dimensional case analysis of asymptotic symmetries [@BaldeBMin:AsdS; @Str:dSCFT] yields, in analogy with the classic work [@Brown-Henneaux] concerning AdS$_3$, a Virasoro algebra with central charge $c=3l/2G$. Naively inserted in the Cardy formula for the asymptotic density of states in a modular invariant CFT it yields the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for the cosmological horizon [@BouMalStr:01; @Myung:01]. The CFT in question, however, is not identified. Not surprisingly, our Virasoro algebra has effective central charge $c=6$, and it should be interpreted as a CFT describing the gravitational sector of string theory in a KdS$_3$ background. Things are quite different in AdS$_3$ where we obtain a CFT description of the gravitational sector of string theory with central charge $c\sim\frac{3l}{2G}$, i.e. the entropy is obtained by calculating only gravitational degrees of freedom. Assuming validity of the dS/CFT correspondence it thus seems that string theory on a dS$_3$ background couples matter and gravity differently compared to AdS$_3$. This should perhaps not be considered surprising since there are great difficulties in describing string theory in a dS background. Hopefully further development of the dS/CFT correspondence will shed light on the nature of the differences between negative and positive cosmological constant.
[AA]{} G. Gibbons and S. Hawking [*Cosmological Event Horizons, Thermodynamics, and Particle Creation*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D15**]{} (1977) 2738-2751 S. Carlip, [*The Statistical Mechanics of the (2+1)-Dimensional Black Hole*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{} (1995) 632-637, [gr-qc/9409052]{} M. Banados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, [*The Black Hole in Three-Dimensional Spacetime*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 1849-1851, [hep-th/9204099]{} S. Carlip, [*What We Don’t Know About BTZ Black Hole Entropy*]{}, Class. Quant. Grav. [**15**]{} (1998) 3609-3625, [hep-th/9806026]{} J. Fjelstad and S. Hwang [*Sectors of Solutions in Three-Dimensional Gravity and Black Holes*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B628**]{} (2002) 331-360, [hep-th/0110235]{} J. Fjelstad and S. Hwang [*Equivalence of Chern-Simons Gauge Theory and WZNW Model Using a BRST Symmetry*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B466**]{} (1999) 227-233, [hep-th/9906123]{} T. M[å]{}nsson and B. Sundborg [*Multi-Black Hole Sectors of AdS$_{3}$ Gravity*]{} Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} 024025, (2002) [hep-th/0010083]{} J. Maldacena and A. Strominger [*Statistical Entropy of de Sitter Space*]{}, JHEP [**9802**]{}:014 (1998), [gr-qc/9801096]{} A. Strominger [*The dS/CFT Correspondence*]{}, JHEP [**0110**]{}:034 (2001), [hep-th/0106113]{} M.-I. Park [*Entropy of Three-dimensional Kerr-De Sitter space*]{}, Phys. Lett. [ **B440**]{} (1998) 275-282, [hep-th/9806119]{} E. Witten [*(2+1)-Dimensional Gravity as an Exactly Soluble System*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B311**]{} (1988) 46 E. Witten [*Quantization of Chern-Simons Gauge Theory With Complex Gauge Group*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**137**]{} 29-66, (1991) V. Bargmann [*Irreducible Unitary Representations of the Lorentz Group*]{}, Ann. Math. [**48**]{} 3 (1947) 568-640 M.A. Naimark [*Linear Representations of the Lorentz Group*]{}, Pergamon Press (1964) A. W. Knapp [*Representation Theory of Semisimple Groups, An Overview Based On Examples*]{}, Princeton University Press (1986) K. Gawedzki [*Noncompact WZW Conformal Field Theories*]{}, Published in NATO ASI: Cargese 1991:0247-274, [hep-th/9110076]{} J. Teschner [*On Structure Constants and Fusion Rules in the $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})/SU(2)$ WZNW Model*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B546**]{} (1999) 390-422,[hep-th/9712256]{} J. Teschner [*The Mini-Superspace Limit of the $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})/SU(2)$ WZNW Model*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B546**]{} (1999) 369-389, [hep-th/9712258]{} A. Giveon, D. Kutasov and N. Seiberg [*Comments on String Theory on AdS $_{3}$*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998) 733-780 [hep-th/9806194]{} J. Teschner [*Operator Product Expansion and Factorization in the $H_3^+$ WZNW Model*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B571**]{} (2000) 555-582, [hep-th/9906215]{} N. A. Brigham, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**1**]{} (1950) 182 V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer and D. Minic [*Mass, Entropy and Holography in Asymptotically de Sitter Spaces*]{}, (2001), [hep-th/0110108]{} E. Witten [*Quantum Gravity in de Sitter Space*]{}, (2001) [hep-th/0106109]{} R. Bousso, A. Maloney and A. Strominger [*Conformal Vacua and Entropy in de Sitter Space*]{}, (2001) [hep-th/0112218]{} Y. S. Myung [*Entropy of the Three Dimensional Schwarzschild-de Sitter Black Hole*]{}, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A16**]{} (2001) 2353, [hep-th/0110123]{} J. D. Brown and M. Henneaux, [*Central Charges in the Canonical Realization of Asymptotic Symmetries: an Example From Three-Dimensional Gravity*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. [**104**]{} (1986) 207-226
[^1]: Compared to the $SO(2,2)$ case in [@FjHw:01] the normalisation of the generators is chosen differently so that here $Tr(T_{a}T_{b}) = \eta_{ab}$. This explains the value of $k$ above.
[^2]: As explained in [@FjHw:01], the case ${\alpha}=-\bar{{\alpha}}$ yields a doubly chiral Hamiltonian. A symmetry argument shows that this is not the correct choice for gravity, and the argument works equally well in the present setting.
[^3]: The normalization factor of $4$ is due to the choice of representation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the manifold $Fl_n(\H)=Sp(n)/Sp(1)^n$ of all complete flags in $\H^n$, where $\H$ is the skew-field of quaternions. We study its equivariant complex $K$-theory rings with respect to the action of two groups: $Sp(1)^n$ and a certain canonical subgroup $T=(S^1)^n$ (a maximal torus). For the first group action we obtain a Goresky-Kottwitz-MacPherson type description. For the second one, we describe the ring $K_T(Fl_n(\H))$ as a subring of $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$. This ring is well known, since $Sp(n)/T$ is a complex flag variety.'
address:
- '[Augustin-Liviu Mare]{}, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Regina, College West 307.14, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2 Canada'
- '[Matthieu Willems]{}, Department of Mathematics, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, Québec, H3A 2K6 Canada'
author:
- 'Augustin-Liviu Mare'
- Matthieu Willems
title: 'Equivariant $K$-theory of quaternionic flag manifolds'
---
Introduction
============
The quaternionic flag manifold $Fl_n(\H)$ is the space of all nested sequences $$(V_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n}=V_1 \subset \ldots \subset V_n$$ where $V_{\nu}$ is a $\nu$-dimensional $\H$-vector subspace of $\H^n$, for all $1\le \nu \le n$, and $\H$ is the skew-field of quaternions (by an $\H$-vector subspace we mean a left $\H$-submodule). Let $Sp(n)$ denote the group of all $\H$-linear transformations of $\H^n$ (that is, $n\times n$ matrices with coefficients in $\H$) which preserve the canonical inner product on $\H^n$. This group acts naturally on $Fl_n(\H)$. In this paper we are particularly interested in the action on $Fl_n(\H)$ of the following two subgroups of $Sp(n)$: $$G=Sp(1)^n \ {\rm and } \ T=(S^1)^n.$$ To put matters otherwise, $G$ is the group of all diagonal matrices in $Sp(n)$ and $T\subset G$ consists of all such matrices with entries in $\bC$, where $\bC$ is canonically embedded in $\H$ (as the set of all $a+bi$, where $a,b\in \bR$). It is worth mentioning that $G$ is actually the $Sp(n)$ stabilizer of the flag $(\H e_1\oplus \ldots\oplus \H e_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n}$, and since the action of $Sp(n)$ on $Fl_n(\H)$ is transitive, we can identify $$Fl_n(\H) = Sp(n)/G.$$
We investigate the (complex, topological) equivariant $K$-theory rings corresponding to the $T$ and $G$ actions. In general, the $G$-equivariant $K$-theory ring of any $G$-space $\X$ is denoted by $K_G(\X)$ or $K_G^0(\X)$ (in this paper the first notation will be used in most cases). By definition (see, for instance, [@Se]), it is the Grothendieck group of $G$-equivariant topological complex vector bundles over $\X$. It is a module over the ring $K_G({\rm pt.})=R[G]$, which is the representation ring of $G$. We know that (see, for instance, [@Hu Chapter 14, Section 6]) $$R[T]=R[(S^1)^n] = \bZ[x_1,x_1^{-1}, \ldots, x_n,x_n^{-1}]$$ and $$R[G]=R[Sp(1)^n]
=\bZ[X_1,\ldots,X_n].$$ Here $X_{\nu}=x_{\nu}+x_{\nu}^{-1},$ $ 1\le \nu \le n$, are copies of the (character of the) canonical representation of $Sp(1)=SU(2)$ on $\H=\bC^2$.
The flag manifold $Fl_n(\H)$ carries $n$ canonical (complex) vector bundles $\V_1, \V_2, \ldots, \V_n$, of complex rank equal to 2, 4, $\ldots 2n$. The rank 2 quotient bundles $\L_{\nu}=\V_{\nu}/\V_{\nu-1},$ $1\le \nu \le n$ play an important role (by convention, $\V_0$ is the rank 0 vector bundle). Namely, we take into account that $T$ is a maximal torus in both $Sp(n)$ and $G$. Moreover, the Weyl group $W_G$ of $G$ is a normal subgroup of the Weyl group $W_{Sp(n)}$ and their quotient is $$W_{Sp(n)}/W_G \simeq \S_n,$$ the symmetric group (see, for instance, [@Hu Chapter 14, Section 4] or Section \[roots\], below). Results of [@Mc Section 4] (see also Proposition \[themap1\] of our paper), lead to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spin}
K_G(Fl_n(\H))
&\simeq K_{Sp(n)}(Fl_n(\H))\otimes_{R[Sp(n)]}R[G]\nonumber
\\
{}&\simeq R[G]\otimes_{R[Sp(n)]}R[G]
\\
{}&\simeq
\frac{ \bZ[[\L_1],\ldots,[\L_n], X_1,\ldots, X_n]}
{\langle \sigma_k([\L_1],\ldots,[\L_n]) -
\sigma_k(X_1,\ldots,X_n), 1\le k \le n\rangle}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma _k$ denotes the $k$-th symmetric polynomial in $n$ variables. The ring $K_T(Fl_n(\H))$ is isomorphic to $K_G(Fl_n(\H))\otimes_{R[G]}R[T]$ (see [@Mc Section 4] or Proposition \[thretwo\], below). Thus, we obtain $$K_T(Fl_n(\H))
\simeq
\frac{ \bZ[[\L_1],\ldots,[\L_n], x_1^{\pm1},\ldots, x_n^{\pm 1}]}
{\langle \sigma_k([\L_1],\ldots,[\L_n]) -
\sigma_k(x_1+x_1^{-1},\ldots,x_n+x_n^{-1}), 1\le k \le n\rangle}.$$ In this paper we give alternative descriptions of the two rings above. The approaches will be different for $G$ and $T$, as follows.
The first main result describes $K_T(Fl_n(\H))$ as a subring of the $T$-equivariant $K$-theory ring of the principal adjoint orbit $Sp(n)/T$. The $T$-equivariant $K$-theory of principal adjoint orbits (that is, complete complex flag varieties) is well understood, see, for instance, [@Gr-Ra], [@Ko-Ku], [@Le-Po], [@Mc], [@Li-Se], [@Pi-Ra], [@Wi1], [@Wi2]. If we identify $Sp(n)/T$ with the quotient of $Sp(2n,\bC)$ by a Borel subgroup, we deduce from the general theory (see, e.g., [@Ko-Ku Lemma 4.9]) that $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$ has a natural basis over $R[T]$, namely the Schubert basis $\{[\O_w] \ : \ w\in W_{Sp(n)}\}.$ Like for any flag variety, the Weyl group $W_{Sp(n)}=N_{Sp(n)}(T)/T$ acts on $Sp(n)/T$ via $$\label{weyl}(nT).(gT)=gn^{-1}T,$$ for any $n\in N_{Sp(n)}(T)$ and $g\in Sp(n)$. This action is $T$-equivariant. Therefore, by functoriality, it induces an action by ring homomorphisms on $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$. The canonical map $$\pi: Sp(n)/T\to Sp(n)/G=Fl_n(\H)$$ is $T$-equivariant too, hence it induces a homomorphism between the $K_T$-rings, which we denote by $\pi^*_T$. We can now state the theorem.
\[firstmain\] The map $\pi^*_T:K_T(Fl_n(\H)) \to K_T(Sp(n)/T)$ is injective. Its image consists of all $W_G$-invariant elements of $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$. In this way, $K_T(Fl_n(\H))$ is the $R[T]$-subalgebra of $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$ generated by all $[\O_w]$, where $w\in W_{Sp(n)}$ is a maximal length representative of the quotient $W_{Sp(n)}/W_G$.
[**Remark.**]{} A similar result holds for the general context of the ${\mathcal T}$-equivariant $K$-theories of ${\mathcal G}/{\mathcal P}$ and ${\mathcal G}/{\mathcal B}$, where ${\mathcal G}$ is a complex semisimple Lie group, ${\mathcal P}$ a parabolic subgroup which contains the Borel subgroup ${\mathcal B}$, and ${\mathcal T}$ a maximal torus of ${\mathcal G}$ such that ${\mathcal T}\subset {\mathcal G}$ (see, for instance, [@Ko-Ku Corollary 3.20]). However, Theorem \[firstmain\] does not fit into this context, as $Fl_n(\H)$ is not a complex flag variety.
For $K_G(Fl_n(\H))$ we will prove the following Goresky-Kottwitz-MacPherson (shortly GKM) type description. Before stating it, we just mention that the $G$ fixed point set of $Fl_n(\H)$ can be identified with the symmetric group $\S_n$, as follows (see, for instance, [@Ma Lemma 3.1]): $$\label{fix}Fl_n(\H)^G
=\{(\H e_{\tau(1)}\oplus \ldots \oplus \H e_{\tau(\nu)})_{1\le \nu \le n}
\ : \ \tau\in \S_n\} = \S_n.$$ And here is the theorem.
\[secondmain\] The ring homomorphism $K_G(Fl_n(\H)) \to \prod_{\tau\in \S_n}R[G]$ induced by the inclusion map $Fl_n(\H)^G\hookrightarrow Fl_n(\H)$ is injective. Its image is $$\{ (f_\tau) \in \!\!\! \prod_{\tau \in \S_n} \!\!\! \ \mathbb{Z}[X_1, \ldots, X_n ] \ : \ f_\tau-f_{{(\mu, \nu)}\tau} {\it \,\, is \,\, divisible \,\, by \,\,} X_\mu-X_\nu \,\,\, {\it
for \ all } \ 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \}.$$
Here ${(\mu, \nu)}$ denotes the transposition of $\mu$ and $\nu$, that is, the element of $\S_n$ which interchanges $\mu$ and $\nu$.
[**Remarks.**]{} 1. A description of the integral cohomology ring of $Fl_n(\H)$ in terms of generators and relations has been obtained in [@Bo] (see page 302). For the $G$-equivariant cohomology ring such a description has been obtained in [@Ma]. In both cases one obtains the same formulas as for the complex flag manifold $Fl_n(\bC)$ (in the equivariant case the group acting on $Fl_n(\bC)$ is the standard maximal torus $T$ of the unitary group $U(n)$). In the present paper we show that the same similarity can be noted for $K$-theory. Not only has the ring $K_G(Fl_n(\H))$ the same presentation as $K_T(Fl_n(\bC))$ (see equation (\[spin\])), but also the same GKM description holds true (see Theorem \[secondmain\] and compare with [@Mc Theorem 1.6] for $G=U(n)$). Another space for which we have the same analogy with the complex flag manifold at the level of equivariant cohomology and $K$-theory is the octonionic flag manifold $Fl(\o)$ (see the recent paper [@Ma-Wi]). It would be interesting to find more examples of spaces with group actions for which the equivariant $K$-theory has the same features as $Fl_n(\H)$ and $Fl(\o)$. What makes these two spaces special is as follows: First, they are homogeneous, of the form ${\mathcal G}/{\mathcal H}$ where ${\mathcal G}$ is a compact Lie group and ${\mathcal H}$ a closed subgroup of the same rank as ${\mathcal G}$; the group action is the one of ${\mathcal H}$, by multiplication from the left. Second, a maximal torus ${\mathcal T}$ of ${\mathcal H}$ has the same fixed point set as ${\mathcal H}$ itself. Third, ${\mathcal G}/{\mathcal H}$ admits a cell decomposition such that each cell is ${\mathcal T}$-invariant, homeomorphic to $\bC^m$ for some $m\ge 0$, and the action of ${\mathcal T}$ on it is complex linear.
2\. It is worth noticing that all the previously known GKM type descriptions of equivariant $K$-theory are for actions of tori (for instance, any subvariety of a complex projective space which is preserved by a linear torus action, see, for instance, [@Ro Appendix A]). Theorem \[secondmain\] is a non-abelian version of this general result.
3\. A GKM description exists for $K_T(Fl_n(\H))$ as well (see Proposition \[gkmc\], below). It can also be deduced from the fact that $Fl_n(\H)$ has a cell decomposition whose cells are complex vector spaces, the torus $T$ leaving them invariant and acting on them complex linearly in a very explicit way (see Section \[second\], below). Thus, one can apply the main result of [@Ha-He-Ho]: the main ingredient is the calculation of the Euler class in $K_T$ for any cell and the observation that this is not a zero-divisor in $K_T({\rm pt.})=R[T]$. We will not present the details. Our proof of Proposition \[gkmc\] goes along different lines, using the GKM description of $K_T(Sp(n)/T)$. Concerning $K_G(Fl_n(\H))$, we do not know if the GKM description given in Theorem \[secondmain\] is a direct consequence of [@Ha-He-Ho]. Even though the cells mentioned above are $G$-invariant and the action of $G$ on cells is also very explicit (see again Section \[second\]), this action is $\bR$-linear without being $\bC$-linear. It seems difficult to find a way to compute the corresponding Euler classes in the ring $K_G({\rm pt.})=R[G]$ of [*complex*]{} representations of $G$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We would like to thank the referees for several valuable suggestions.
The roots of $Sp(n)$ {#roots}
====================
In this section we collect some background material concerning the roots of $Sp(n)$ and other related objects. The details can be found for instance in [@Fu-Ha Section 16.1].
Let $\mathfrak{sp}(2n, \bC)$ be the complexified Lie algebra of $Sp(n)$. It consists of all complex square matrices of the form $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
c & -a^t
\end{array} \right),$$ where $a,b,c$ are $n\times n$ complex matrices with $b^t = b$, $c^t = c$. The elements of the complexified Lie algebra of $T$, call it $\h$, are block matrices as above with $a$ diagonal and $b=c=0$. A linear basis of $\h$ over $\bC$ consists of the matrices $e_{\nu,\nu}-e_{\nu+n,\nu+n},$ $1 \leq \nu \leq n$, where $\{ e_{\mu,\nu}\}_{1 \leq \mu,\nu \leq 2n}$ is the canonical basis of the space of complex $2n\times 2n$ matrices. We denote by $\{ L^{\nu} \ : \ 1\le \nu \le n\}$ the corresponding dual basis of $\mathfrak{h}^*$. We have as follows:
- The set of roots is $$\Delta = \{ \pm L^{\mu}\pm L^{\nu} \ : \ 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \} \cup \{ \pm 2L^{\nu}, 1 \leq \nu \leq n \}.$$
- The set of positive roots is $$\Delta^+ = \{ L^{\mu}\pm L^{\nu} , 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \} \cup \{ 2L^{\nu}, 1 \leq \nu \leq n \}.$$
- A simple root system is $$\Pi = \{ \alpha_1 = L^1 - L^2 , \alpha_2 = L^2 - L^3, \ldots, \alpha_{n-1} = L^{n-1} - L^{n}, \alpha_n = 2L^n\}.$$
- The weight lattice $\mathfrak{h}_{\mathbb{Z}}^*$ is the $\mathbb{Z}$-module generated by $L^1, L^2, \ldots, L^n$.
- The weight lattice $\mathfrak{h}_{\mathbb{Z}}^*$ is canonically isomorphic to $R[T] $, and $L^{\nu}$ corresponds to $x_{\nu}$ in this isomorphism, $1\le \nu \le n$. More generally, for any $ \lambda \in \mathfrak{h}_{\mathbb{Z}}^*$, we will denote the corresponding character in $R[T]$ by $e^{\lambda}$.
- The Weyl group $W_{Sp(n)}=N_{Sp(n)}(T)/T $ is generated by the simple reflections $s_{\nu}$ corresponding to $\alpha_{\nu}$, for $1 \leq \nu \leq n$ (as usual, we denote by $s_{\alpha}$ the reflection corresponding to the positive root $\alpha$). Concretely, $W_{Sp(n)}$ consists of all linear automorphisms $\eta$ of $\mathfrak{h}^*$ such that for any $1\leq \nu \leq n$, there exists $1\leq \mu \leq n$ such that $\eta(L^{\nu})=\pm L^{\mu}$. This means that $W_{Sp(n)}$ is the semi-direct product of the symmetric group $\S_n$ of permutations of the set $\{ L^{\nu} \ : \ 1 \leq \nu \leq n \}$ and the group $\{ -1,1 \}^n$ of sign changes (here $\S_n$ acts on $\{-1,1\}^n$ by permuting the entries of an $n$-tuple). For $1 \leq \nu \leq n-1$, the reflection $s_{\nu}$ is the transposition $(\nu,\nu+1)$. The reflection $s_n$ sends $L^n$ to $-L^n$, and $L^{\nu}$ to itself, for $1 \leq \nu < n$. More generally, for $1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n$, the reflection corresponding to the root $L^{\mu}-L^{\nu}$ is the transposition $(\mu,\nu)$, whereas the reflection corresponding to $L^{\mu}+L^{\nu}$ sends $L^{\mu}$ to $-L^{\nu}$, $L^{\nu}$ to $-L^{\mu}$, and leaves $L^{\kappa}$ unchanged, for $\kappa\notin
\{\mu,\nu\}$. The reflection corresponding to the root $2L^{\nu}$ sends $L^{\nu}$ to $-L^{\nu}$ and leaves $L^{\mu}$ unchanged for $\mu \neq \nu$.
- The Weyl group $W_{G}: = N_G(T)/T$ is the subgroup of $W_{Sp(n)}$ generated by $s_{2L^{\nu}}$, $1 \leq \nu \leq n$. It is isomorphic to $\{ -1,1 \}^n$.
- The quotient $ W_{Sp(n)} / W_{G}$ is isomorphic to the group of permutations of the set $\{ L^\nu \ : \ 1 \leq \nu \leq n \}$, which is the symmetric group $\S_n$. For any pair $\mu, \nu$ such that $1 \le \mu <\nu \le n$, the cosets $s_{L^\mu -L^\nu}W_G$ and $s_{L^\mu+L^\nu}W_G$ are equal and are mapped by the isomorphism above to the transposition $(\mu,\nu)$.
The cell decomposition {#second}
======================
In this section we describe the Schubert cell decomposition of $Fl_n(\H)$. We will be especially interested in the action of $G$ on the cells.
The group $GL_n(\H)$ of all invertible $n\times n$ matrices with entries in $\H$ acts linearly on $\H^n$. More precisely, $\H^n$ is regarded as a left $\H$-module and the action of $GL_n(\H)$ is given by: $$gh=h\cdot g^*$$ for any $g\in GL_n(\H)$ and any $h\in \H^n$. Here $\cdot$ denotes the matrix multiplication and $g^*$ the transposed conjugate of $g$. The group $GL_n(\H)$ acts on $Fl_n(\H)$ by $$g(V_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n}=(gV_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n},$$ for any $g\in GL_n(\H)$ and any $(V_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n}\in Fl_n(\H)$. This group action is transitive and the stabilizer of the flag $(\H e_1\oplus \ldots \oplus \H e_{\nu})_{1\le \nu \le n}$ is the group $B$ consisting of all upper triangular matrices with entries in $\H$. In this way we obtain the identification $$Fl_n(\H)=GL_n(\H)/B.$$ The following result is a direct consequence of the Bruhat decomposition of $GL_n(\H)$ (see [@Dr Section 19, Theorem 1]):
\[dec\] Any $g\in GL_n(\H)$ can be written as $g=up_\w b$, where:
- $\w\in {\mathcal S}_n$ and $p_\w$ denotes the matrix $(\delta_{\mu, \w(\nu)})_{1\le \nu,\mu\le n}$, where $\delta$ is the Kroenecker delta.
- $b\in B$
- both $u$ and $(p_\w up_\w^{-1})^t$ are upper triangular with all entries on the diagonal equal to 1 (the superscript $t$ indicates the matrix transposed).
Moreover, the matrices $p_\w$ and $u$ with properties 1 and 3 above are uniquely determined by $g$.
We deduce that $$\label{cell}GL_n(\H)/B=\bigsqcup_{\w\in {\mathcal S}_n} {\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B/B,$$ where ${\mathfrak U}_\w$ denotes the set of all $n\times n$ matrices $u$ with entries in $\H$ such that both $u$ and $(p_\w up_\w^{-1})^t$ are upper triangular with all entries on the diagonal equal to 1. The canonical map ${\mathfrak U}_\w
\to {\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B/B$ is a homeomorphism. Indeed, this map is continuous and bijective, by Proposition \[dec\]. Its inverse is continuous too, because the map ${\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B\to {\mathfrak U}_\w$ which assigns to $g=up_\w b$ the first factor $u$ is continuous, as we can see from its explicit description in the proof of [@Dr Section 19, Theorem 1]. Now it is an easy exercise to see that an $n\times n$ matrix $u=(u_{\mu\nu})_{1\le \mu,\nu\le n}$ is in ${\mathfrak U}_\w$ if and only if the diagonal entries are equal to 1 and the others are equal to 0, except for those $u_{\mu\nu}$ with $\mu<\nu$ and $\w (\mu)>\w (\nu)$ (the key point is the formula $p_\w up_\w^{-1}=(u_{\w(\mu)\w(\nu)})_{1\le \mu,\nu\le n}$). This implies that ${\mathfrak U}_\w$ can be identified with $\H^{\ell(\w)}$, where $\ell(\w)$ denotes the number of inversions of the permutation $\w$. Consequently, for any $\w\in \S_n$ the element $$C_\w={\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B/B$$ of the decomposition (\[cell\]) is homeomorphic to a cell of (real) dimension $4\ell(\w)$. We call it a [*Bruhat cell*]{}.
The group $G$ acts on $GL_n(\H)/B$ by left multiplication. We claim that this action leaves any Bruhat cell $C_\w={\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B/B$ invariant. To justify this, take $\gamma={\rm Diag}(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n)$ in $G$. We have $$\gamma p_\w=
{\rm Diag}(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n)p_\w= p_\w{\rm Diag}(\gamma_{\w^{-1}(1)},\ldots,\gamma_{\w^{-1}(n)}).$$ This implies that if $u\in {\mathfrak U}_\w$, then $$\gamma u p_\w B=\gamma u \gamma^{-1} \gamma p_\w B
=\gamma u \gamma^{-1} p_\w B.$$ We notice that if $u=(u_{\mu\nu})_{1\le \mu,\nu\le n}$, then $\gamma u \gamma^{-1}
=(\gamma_{\mu}u_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{\nu}^{-1})_{1\le \mu,\nu\le n}$. Thus, if $u$ is in $ {\mathfrak U}_\w$, then $\gamma u\gamma^{-1}$ is in ${\mathfrak U}_\w$ as well.
We summarize our previous discussion as follows:
\[cells\] The Bruhat cell decomposition of the quaternionic flag manifold $Fl_n(\H)$ is $ Fl_n(\H) =\bigsqcup_{\w\in \S_n} C_\w.$ The cell $C_\w$ has real dimension $4\ell(\w)$ and is $G$-invariant, being in fact $G$-equivariantly homeomorphic to $\bigoplus_{(\mu,\nu)} \H_{\mu\nu}$. Here the sum runs over all pairs $(\mu,\nu)$ with $1\le \mu <\nu\le n$ such that $\w(\mu)>\w(\nu)$, and $\H_{\mu\nu}$ is a copy of $\H$. The action of $G$ on $\H_{\mu\nu}$ is $$\label{ga}(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n).h
=\gamma_\mu h\gamma_\nu^{-1},$$ for all $(\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n)\in G$ and $h\in \H$.
[**Remark.**]{} Let us identify $$\H=\bC \oplus j\bC=\bC^2.$$ It is an easy exercise to see that if in equation (\[ga\]) we take $(\gamma_1,\ldots, \gamma_n)\in T$, the resulting transformation of $\H$ is $\bC$-linear. In other words, $T$ acts complex linearly on each cell $C_\w$. However, if $ (\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n)$ is in $G$ but not in $T$, the transformation is in general not $\bC$-linear.
There are two alternative presentations of the cell $C_\tau$, which are given in what follows.
\[albe\] We have $$C_\tau = Bp_\tau B/B.$$
We have $$GL_n(\H)=\bigsqcup_{\w\in {\mathcal S}_n} {\mathfrak U}_\w p_\w B$$ and ${\mathfrak U}_\w \subset B$ for all $\tau \in \S_n$. Thus, it is sufficient to prove that if $\tau_1,\tau_2\in \S_n$, $\tau_1 \neq \tau_2$, then $(Bp_{\tau_1} B)\cap (Bp_{\tau_2}B) =\emptyset$. This can be proved by using the same arguments as in the proof of [@Hi Chapter III, Proposition 4.6].
We can also describe $C_\tau$ by using the actual definition of $Fl_n(\H)$, as the set of all flags in $\H^n$. Our model is the presentation of the Bruhat cells in $Fl_n(\bC)$, as given, for instance, in [@Hi Chapter III, Section 4]. First, to each $r$-dimensional linear subspace $V$ of $\H^n$ we assign the set $s(V)=\{m_1,\ldots,m_r\}$ where $m_1<\ldots <m_r$ are determined by $V\cap \H^{m_t-1}\neq V\cap \H^{m_t}$, $1\le t \le r$ (here $\H^m$ denotes $\H e_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \H e_m$, for all $1\le m \le n$, and $\H^0=\{0\}$). Note that if $V$ and $V'$ are subspaces such that $V\subset V'$, then $s(V)\subset s(V')$. To the flag $V_\bullet=(V_\nu)_{1\le \nu\le n}$ we assign the permutation $\tau=\tau^{V_\bullet}$ which is defined recursively as follows:
- $\{\tau(1)\}=s(V_1)$.
- if $\tau(1),\ldots,\tau(k)$ are known, we set $\{\tau(k+1)\}=s(V_{k+1})\setminus s(V_k)$
We have $$C_\tau=\{V_\bullet \in Fl_n(\H)\ : \
\tau^{V_\bullet}=\tau\}.$$
We are using the identification $GL_n(\H)/B=Fl_n(\H)$ given by $$gB = g \H_\bullet,$$ for any $g\in GL_n(\H)$. Here $\H_\bullet$ denotes the flag $(\H e_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \H e_\nu)_{1\le \nu \le n}$. In this way, $p_\tau B$ is the same as the flag $(\H e_{\tau(1)} \oplus \ldots \oplus \H e_{\tau(\nu)})_{1\le \nu \le n}$, which we denote by $\tau \H_\bullet$. The $B$-orbit of this flag is just $C_\tau$ (see Lemma \[albe\]). The lemma is a straightforward consequence of the following two facts: $$\begin{aligned}
{}& \tau^{\tau \H_\bullet}=\tau\\
{}& \tau^{b V_\bullet}=\tau^{V_\bullet} {\rm \ for \ all \ } b\in B
\ {\rm and \ all \ }V_\bullet \in Fl_n(\H).\end{aligned}$$
In the same way as in [@Hi p. 122], we see that the closure of $C_\w$ in $Fl_n(\H)$ consists of all flags $V_\bullet$ such that $\tau^{V_\bullet}\preceq \tau$. Here $\preceq$ denotes the Bruhat ordering on the symmetric group $\S_n$ (see [@Hi Chapter I, Section 6]). Note that if $\tau_1\preceq \tau_2$ then $\ell (\tau_1)\le \ell(\tau_2)$.
\[closure\] The closure of $C_\w$ in $Fl_n(\H)$ can be expressed as follows: $$\overline{C_\tau}=\bigsqcup_{\tau'\preceq \tau} C_{\tau'}.$$ Any of the cells $C_{\tau'}$ above, with $\tau'\neq \tau$, has dimension strictly less than the dimension of $C_\tau$.
$T$-equivariant $K$-theory {#prev}
==========================
Throughout this section we will use the notations $$\X=Fl_n(\H)=Sp(n)/G\ {\rm and } \ \Y=Sp(n)/T.$$
Our main goal here is to prove Theorem \[firstmain\]. We will use the injectivity of the restriction to fixed points, which is the content of the next proposition. We first note that the $T$ and $G$ fixed points of $Fl_n(\H)$ are the same (see [@Ma Lemma 3.1]). By equation (\[fix\]) we have $$\X^G =\X^T=\S_n.$$ Let $i : \S_n \rightarrow \X$ be the inclusion map and $i^*_T : K_T(\X) \rightarrow
\prod_{\w \in \S_n} R[T]$ the corresponding ring homomorphism.
\[inject\]
\(a) The $T$-equivariant $K$-theory of $\X$ is a free $R[T]$-module of rank $n!$.
\(b) The restriction to fixed points $i^*_T : K_T(\X) \rightarrow \prod_{\w \in \S_n} R[T]$ is injective.
\(a) Let $\X=\bigsqcup_{\w \in \mathcal{S}_n} C_\w$ be the cell decomposition of $\X$ (see Proposition \[cells\]). Each cell $C_\w$ is $T$-equivariantly homeomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^{2\ell(\w)}$. Notice that $$\ell (\w)\le \frac{n(n-1)}{2},$$ for all $\w\in \S_n$. For any integer number $\nu$ with $0 \leq \nu \leq \frac{n(n-1)}{2}$, we set $$\X_{\nu}=\bigsqcup_{\w \in \mathcal{S}_n, \ell (\w) \leq \nu} C_\w.$$ By Proposition \[closure\], this is a closed subspace of $\X$. We prove by induction that for all $0 \leq \nu \leq \frac{n(n-1)}{2}$ we have:
- $K_T(\X_{\nu})=K_T^0(\X_{\nu})$ is a free $R[T]$-module of rank equal to the number of cells in $\X_{\nu}$
- $K_T^{-1}(\X_\nu)=\{0\}$.
The definition of the functors $K_T^{-1}$ and $K_T^1$ can be found for instance in [@Se]. We have $$\label{pont}K_T^{-1}({\rm pt.})=K_T^1({\rm pt.})=\{0\}.$$ This implies our claim for $\nu=0$, since $\X_0$ consists of only one point (of course we have $K_T({\rm pt.})=R[T]$).
Let us assume that the claim is true for $\nu$. We will prove it for $\nu+1$. We consider the space $$\label{xnu} \X_{\nu+1}\setminus \X_\nu =\bigsqcup_{\w\in \S_n, \ell(\w)=\nu+1}C_\w.$$ We consider now the exact sequence of the pair $(\X_{\nu+1},\X_\nu)$. Since $\X_\nu$ is closed in $\X_{\nu+1}$, we deduce that $K^*_T(\X_{\nu+1},\X_\nu)=K^*_T(\X_{\nu+1}\setminus\X_\nu)$ and obtain the following sequence (see [@Se Section 2]): $$\begin{aligned}
{}& K_T^{-1}(\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_\nu) \rightarrow K_T^{-1}(\X_{\nu+1}) \rightarrow K_T^{-1}(\X_{\nu}) \rightarrow
\\
{}& \rightarrow K_T^{0}(\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_{\nu}) \rightarrow
K_T^{0}(\X_{\nu+1}) \rightarrow K_T^{0}(\X_{\nu}) \rightarrow
K_T^{1}(\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_{\nu}).\end{aligned}$$ By the induction hypothesis, $K_T^{-1}(\X_{\nu})=0$, and $K_T^0(\X_{\nu})$ is a free $R[T]$-module of rank equal to the number of cells in $\X_{\nu}$. Each of the cells $C_\w$ in the union given by equation (\[xnu\]) is a connected component of $\X_{\nu+1}\setminus \X_\nu$: indeed, by Proposition \[closure\], any such $C_\w$ is a closed subspace of $ \X_{\nu+1}\setminus \X_\nu$, hence it is open as well (as its complement is closed). We obtain $$K_T^{1}(\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_{\nu}) = K_T^{-1}(\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_{\nu})=\{0\},$$ where we have used the Thom isomorphism for each of the cells $C_\w$ in the union given by (\[xnu\]) (recall that $C_\w$ is $T$-equivariantly homeomorphic to $\bC^{2\ell(\w)}$, the action of $T$ being complex linear, as mentioned in the remark following Proposition \[cells\]). We also have $$K_T^0(\X_{\nu +1} \setminus \X_{\nu}) \simeq \bigoplus_{\w \in \S_n, \ell(\w) = \nu +1} K_T^0(C_\w)=
\bigoplus_{\w \in \S_n, \ell(\w) = \nu +1}R[T] .$$ In other words, $K_T^0(\X_{\nu +1} \setminus \X_{\nu}) $ is a free $R[T]$-module of rank equal to the number of cells in $\X_{\nu+1} \setminus \X_{\nu}$. The desired conclusion follows.
Finally, for $\nu=\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$, we obtain point (a) of the proposition.
Point (b) is a consequence of point (a). Indeed, let $Q[T]$ denote the fraction field of $R[T]$. According to the localization theorem (see [@Se]), the homomorphism $K_T(\X)\otimes_{R[T]}Q[T]
\rightarrow \prod_{\w \in \mathcal{S}_n}Q[T]$ induced by $i_T^*$ is an isomorphism. Moreover, since $K_T(\X)$ is a free $R[T]$-module, the canonical map $K_{T}(\X) \rightarrow K_{T}(\X)\otimes_{R[T]}Q[T]
$ is an embedding. Since the following diagram is commutative, we deduce that $i_{T}^*$ is injective. $$\xymatrix{
K_{T}(\X)\ar[dd]^{i_T^*} \ar@{^{(}->}[rr] & &
K_{T}(\X)\otimes_{R[T]}Q[T]\ar[dd]^{\simeq} \\
\\
\prod_{ \mathcal{S}_n} R[T] \ar[rr] & &
\prod_{ \mathcal{S}_n} Q[T] }
\\$$
[**Remark.**]{} The arguments used in the proof are standard: see [@Mc proof of Lemma 2.2] or [@Ko-Ku proof of Theorem 3.13].
Let $\rho : G\times \bC^m \to \bC^m$ be a complex representation of $G$. The quotient space $$\label{vro}V_{\rho}=Sp(n)\times \bC^m/((k,v)\sim (kg,\rho(g^{-1})v)
{\rm \ for \ all \ } k\in Sp(n), g\in G, v\in \bC^m)$$ has a natural structure of a vector bundle over $Sp(n)/G=Fl_n(\H)$. Moreover, there is a natural action of $G$ (consequently, also of $T$) on $V_{\rho}$ given by $$\label{gkv}g(k,v)=(gk,v), \, {\rm \ for \ all \ } g \in G, k \in Sp(n), { \rm and \, } v \in \mathbb{C}^m.$$ The $R[T]$-linear extension of the assignment $\rho \mapsto V_{\rho}$ gives the homomorphism $ \kappa_T : R[T] \otimes R[G] \rightarrow K_T(\X).$ It is easy to check that if $\rho$ is a representation of $Sp(n)$, then $V_{\rho}$ is isomorphic to the trivial bundle $(Sp(n)/G) \times \bC^m$. In other words, if $\chi \in R[Sp(n)]$, then we have $\kappa_T(\chi\otimes 1-1 \otimes \chi)=0$. Consequently, we obtain a homomorphism $$\overline{\kappa}_T : R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G] \rightarrow K_T(\X).$$
We are now ready to prove the first part of Theorem \[firstmain\], concerning the image of the map $$\pi^*_T:K_T(\X)\to K_T(\Y).$$
\[thretwo\]
The homomorphism $\pi_T^*$ in Theorem \[firstmain\] is injective and its image is equal to $K_T(\Y)^{W_{G}}$. Moreover, $\overline{\kappa}_T$ is a ring isomorphism.
We first note that $$\label{pistar}\pi^*_T(K_T(\X))\subset K_T(\Y)^{W_G}.$$ This is because for any $w\in W_G=N_G(T)/T$ we have $\pi\circ w =\pi$ (here $w$ is regarded as an automorphism of $\Y=Sp(n)/T$, see equation (\[weyl\])).
As mentioned in the introduction, the space $\Y=Sp(n)/T$ is a complete complex flag variety. Thus, the fixed point set of the $T$ action is $$(Sp(n)/T)^T=W_{Sp(n)}.$$ The image of this set under $\pi$ is $Fl_n(\H)^T=\S_n$. In fact, the restriction of $\pi$ to the fixed point set is the canonical projection $W_{Sp(n)}\to W_{Sp(n)}/W_G =\S_n$ (see Section \[roots\]). The homomorphism between the $T$-equivariant $K$-theories induced by this map is the obvious map $$p:\prod_{\S_n}R[T] \to \prod_{W_{Sp(n)}}R[T],$$ which is injective. This homomorphism is the bottom arrow in the following commutative diagram (where $\imath_T^*$ is the restriction homomorphism).
$$\xymatrix{
K_T(\X) \ar[rr]^{\pi^*_T} \ar@{->}[dd]^{i^*_T} & &
\ar@{->}[dd]^{\imath_T^*} K_T(\Y) \\
\\
\ar[rr]^{{p}} \prod_{\S_n}R[T] & &
\prod_{W_{Sp(n)}}R[T] }$$
The maps $i^*_T$ and $\imath^*_T$ are also injective, by Proposition \[inject\], respectively the fact that $\Y$ is a complex flag variety (for such spaces, injectivity is proved for instance in [@Mc Lemma 2.2]). We deduce that $\pi^*_T$ is injective.
We now prove that the image of $\pi^*_T$ is the whole $K_T(\Y)^{W_G}$ and that $\overline{\kappa}_T$ is an isomorphism. Since $\Y=Sp(n)/T$ we deduce that $$\label{isomo}K_T(\Y) = R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[T].$$ More precisely, by [@Mc The Main Theorem], we have an isomorphism $$\label{isomor} R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[T] \to K_T(\Y)$$ which is the $R[T]$-linear extension of the map $\sigma \mapsto V'_\sigma$, for any complex representation $\sigma : T\times \bC^m \to \bC^m$. Here we define $$\label{gkvp}V'_\sigma=Sp(n)\times \bC^m/((k,v)\sim (kg,\sigma(g^{-1})v), \
{\rm for \ all} \ k\in Sp(n), g\in T, v\in \bC^m),$$ which is a complex vector bundle over $\Y=Sp(n)/T$, with an obvious $T$ action. We claim that the composed homomorphism $$\pi_T^* \circ \overline{\kappa}_T:R[T]\otimes_{R[Sp(n)]}R[G]
\to R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[T]$$ is induced by the canonical embedding $R[G] \rightarrow R[T]$: this follows from equations (\[gkv\]) and (\[gkvp\]) and the fact that $\pi_T^*$ maps a vector bundle to its pull-back via $\pi_T$. Consequently, $\pi^*_T\circ \overline{\kappa}_T$ is an isomorphism between its domain and $R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G]$. This space is just $K_T(\Y)^{W_G}$ (as we will see below). Thus, the image of $\pi^*_T$ is $K_T(\Y)^{W_G}$ (see also equation (\[pistar\])). We also deduce that $\overline{\kappa}_T$ is an isomorphism.
It only remains to show that, via the identification (\[isomo\]), we have $$K_T(\Y)^{W_G}=R[T]\otimes_{R[Sp(n)]}R[G].$$ Indeed, this is a consequence of the fact that the isomorphism given by equation (\[isomor\]) is $W_{Sp(n)}$-equivariant with respect to the action given by $$w.(\chi_1\otimes \chi_2) =\chi_1\otimes (w\chi_2),$$ for all $w\in W_{Sp(n)}$, $\chi_1,\chi_2\in R[T]$ (see [@Mc Section 1.4] for a proof); we deduce that $$K_T(\Y)^{W_G} = R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[T]^{W_G}
=R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G],$$ as required. The proposition is now proved.
We now focus on the last statement in Theorem \[firstmain\]. Since $\Y$ is a complex flag variety, $K_T(\Y)$ can be identified with the Grothendieck group of the $T$-equivariant coherent sheaves on $\Y$, and the Bruhat decomposition gives an $R[T]$-basis of $K_T(\Y)$. More precisely, this is the set of all classes $[\mathcal{O}_w]$ of the structure sheaves of the Schubert varieties $\Y_w$, for $w \in W_{Sp(n)}$ (cf. e.g. [@Ko-Ku Section 4]).
The following lemma will be needed later.
\[mus\]
Let $w \in W_{Sp(n)}$ and let $s_\nu$ be a simple reflection of $W_{Sp(n)}$. If $ws_{\nu} \le w$ in the Bruhat order, then $s_{\nu}[\mathcal{O}_w] = [\mathcal{O}_w]$.
The multiplication by $s_{\nu}$ from the right (see equation (\[weyl\])) induces a smooth map from $\Y$ to $\Y$. Consequently, since $\Y$ is a smooth variety, for any (not necessarily smooth) subvariety $Z$ of $Sp(n)/T$, we have $s_{\nu} [\mathcal{O}_Z] =
[\mathcal{O}_{s_{\nu}(Z)}]$ (note that $s_{\nu}^{-1} = s_{\nu}$). In particular, for $w \in W_{Sp(n)}$ we have $s_{\nu} [\mathcal{O}_{w}] = [\mathcal{O}_{s_{\nu}(\Y_w)}]$. Since $ws_{\nu} \le w$, we have $s_{\nu}(\Y_w)=\Y_w$ (as we will see below), hence $s_{\nu} [\mathcal{O}_{w}]=[\mathcal{O}_{w}]$, as needed.
We still need to prove that $s_\nu(\Y_w)=\Y_w$. Since $s_\nu^{-1} = s_\nu$, it is enough to show that $s_\nu(\Y_w) \subset \Y_w$. We have $$\Y=Sp(n)/T=Sp(2n,\bC)/\B,$$ where $\B$ is a Borel subgroup of $Sp(2n,\bC)$ with $T\subset \B$. By definition, $\Y_w=\overline{\B w\B /\B}$. Hence we have $$s_\nu(\Y_w)= s_\nu(\overline{\B w\B /\B}) \subset
\overline{s_\nu(\B w\B /\B)}\subset
\overline{(\B w\B \B s_\nu \B)/\B}.$$ From the general theory of Tits systems (see for example [@Bo]), we know that $\B w\B\B s_\nu \B \subset \B w\B \cup \B ws_\nu \B$. This union is contained in $\Y_w$, since $ws_\nu\le w$ in the Bruhat order. The conclusion follows.
From here we deduce the desired result (see again Theorem \[firstmain\]), namely:
\[maxl\] The set $$\{ [\mathcal{O}_{w}] \ : \ w \in W_{Sp(n)} {\it \ is \ a \ maximal \ length \ representative \ in \, } W_{Sp(n)}/W_G \}$$ is a $R[T]$-basis of $\pi^*_T(K_T(\X))$.
Let us denote by $W$ the subset of $W_{Sp(n)}$ consisting of all maximal length representatives of $W_{Sp(n)}/W_G$. The previous lemma implies that if $v\in W_G$ and $w\in W$, then $$v[\O_w]=[\O_w].$$ More precisely, we write $v=s_{1}\ldots s_{k}$, where $s_{1},\ldots, s_{k}\in \{s_{2L^1},\ldots,s_{2L^n}\}$, which is the generating set of $W_G$ (see Section \[roots\]); by Lemma \[mus\] we have $s_\nu [\O_w]=[\O_w],$ for all $\nu\in \{1,2, \ldots, k\}$. We deduce from Proposition \[thretwo\] that $\pi^*_T(K_T(\X))$ contains all $[\O_w]$ with $w\in W$.
To prove the converse inclusion, let us suppose that there exists $ \xi \in K_T(\X)$ such that $\xi \notin \bigoplus_{w \in W} R[T][\mathcal{O}_w]$. Since $K_T(\Y) = \bigoplus_{w \in W_{Sp(n)}} R[T][\mathcal{O}_w]$, we can write $$\xi= \sum_{w \in W_{Sp(n)}} a_w [\mathcal{O}_w],$$ where $a_w \in R[T].$ We deduce $$\xi': = \xi - \sum_{w \in W} a_w [\mathcal{O}_w] \in K_T(\X) \setminus \{ 0\}.$$ Consequently, the set $\{ \xi'\}\cup \{[\mathcal{O}_w] \ : \ w \in W \}$ is an $R[T]$-free family of $n! + 1$ elements in $K_T(\X)$. This is not possible, since, by Proposition \[inject\], $K_T(\X)$ is a free $R[T]$-module of rank $n!$. The contradiction finishes the proof.
[**Remark.**]{} We would like to point out that a result similar to Proposition \[maxl\] holds true for the usual (that is, non-equivariant) $K$-theory group of $Fl_n(\H)$. Namely, from Pittie’s theorem [@Pi], we have $K(\X)=R[G]/R[Sp(n)]$ and $K(\Y)=R[T]/R[Sp(n)]$. In terms of these identifications, the homomorphism $\pi^*: K(\X)\to K(\Y)$ induced by $\pi:\Y\to \X$ is the inclusion induced by the (injective) map $R[G]\to R[T]$ which assigns to a representation of $G$ its restriction to $T$. We deduce that $$K(\X)=K(\Y)^{W_G}.$$ Consequently, $K(\X)$ is the subring of $K(\Y)$ generated by the elements of the Schubert basis induced by $w\in W_{Sp(n)}$ which are maximal length representatives of $W_{Sp(n)}/W_G$: this can be proved by using the non-equivariant analogue of Proposition \[maxl\].
We conclude the section with a GKM description of $K_T(\X)$. We will deduce it from the GKM description of $K_T(\Y)$ (recall that $\Y$ is a complete complex flag variety) and the fact that $K_T(\X)=K_T(\Y)^{W_G}$ (see Proposition \[thretwo\]). The notations established in Section \[roots\] are used in what follows.
First, we identify $\Y^T=W_{Sp(n)}$. By [@Mc Theorem 1.6], the ring homomorphism $K_T(\Y)\to K_T(W_{Sp(n)})$ induced by the inclusion map is injective and its image is $$\{ (f_{{w}}) \in \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\! \prod_{{w} \in W_{Sp(n)}/W_G} \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\! R[T] \ : \ e^{\alpha}-1 {\rm \,\, divides \,\, } f_{{w}}-f_{{s_{\alpha}w}} \,\,\,
{\rm for \ all \ } \alpha \in \Delta^+ \}.$$ The isomorphism is $W_{Sp(n)}$-equivariant if we let the Weyl group $W_{Sp(n)}$ act on the space in the right-hand side of the previous equation by $$v.(f_w) = (f_{wv^{-1}})$$ for all $v\in W_{Sp(n)}$. This can be proved as follows: take $v,w\in W_{Sp(n)}$ and consider the ring automorphism $v^*$ of $K_T(\Y)$ induced by $v$ (see equation (\[weyl\])), as well as the map $i_w^*:K_T(\Y)\to K_T(\{w\})$ induced by the inclusion $\{w\}\hookrightarrow \Y$; for any $x\in K_T(\Y)$ we have $$i_w^*(v^*(x)) =(v\circ i_w)^*(x)=i_{v(w)}^*(x)
=i_{wv^{-1}}^*(x).$$ Consequently, $K_T(\Y)^{W_{G}}$ can be identified with $$\{ (f_{\overline{w}}) \in \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\! \prod_{\overline{w} \in W_{Sp(n)}/W_G} \!\!\!\!\! \!\!\! R[T] \ : \ e^{\alpha}-1 {\rm \,\, divides \,\, } f_{\overline{w}}-f_{\overline{s_{\alpha}w}} \,\,\,
{\rm for \ all \ } \alpha \in \Delta^+ {\rm \,\, such \,\, that \,\,} s_{\alpha} \notin W_{G} \}.$$ Here $ W_{Sp(n)}/W_G$ denotes the set of right cosets $\overline{w}=wW_G$ with $w\in W_{Sp(n)}$. The reason why in the previous equation we only need to consider roots $\alpha \in \Delta^+$ such that $s_{\alpha} \notin W_{G}$ is that if $s_\alpha$ does belong to $W_G$ then $$\overline{s_{\alpha}w} = \overline{w w^{-1}s_{\alpha}w}=\overline{w},$$ for any $w\in W_{Sp(n)}$ (because $W_G$ is a normal subgroup of $W_{Sp(n)}$). The roots $\alpha \in \Delta^+$ such that $s_\alpha \notin W_G$ are $L^\mu-L^\nu$ and $L^\mu+L^\nu$, where $1\le \mu <\nu \le n$. We saw in Section \[roots\] that via the identification $ W_{Sp(n)}/W_G=\S_n$, we have $s_{L^\mu-L^\nu}W_G=s_{L^\mu+L^\nu}W_G=(\mu,\nu)$. Let us denote $$e^{L_{\nu}}=x_{\nu}, \ 1\le \nu \le n.$$ This implies that $e^{L^\mu-L^\nu}-1=x_\mu x_\nu^{-1}-1$ and $e^{L^\mu+L^\nu}-1=x_\mu
x_\nu-1.$ Since these two polynomials are relatively prime in $\mathbb{Z}[x_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots,
x_n^{\pm 1} ]$, we deduce the following proposition.
\[gkmc\] The homomorphism $K_T(Fl_n(\H))\to K_T(Fl_n(\H)^T)$ induced by the inclusion $Fl_n(\H)^T\to Fl_n(\H)$ is injective. Its image is equal to $$\{ (f_\tau) \in \!\!\! \prod_{\tau \in \S_n} \!\!\! \mathbb{Z}[x_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots,
x_n^{\pm 1} ] \ : \
(x_\mu x_\nu^{-1}-1)(x_\mu x_\nu -1) \ {\it divides } \ f_\tau-f_{(\mu,\nu)\tau} \,\,\, {\it for \ all} \ 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \}.$$
$G$-equivariant $K$-theory {#lasts}
==========================
In this section we will prove Theorem \[secondmain\]. Like in the previous section, we denote $\X=Fl_n(\H)$, which is the same as the homogeneous space $Sp(n)/G$. We consider the following commutative diagram: $$\xymatrix{
K_G(\X) \ar[rr]^{j^*} \ar@{->}[dd]^{i_{G}^*} & &
\ar@{->}[dd]^{i_{T}^*} K_T(\X) \\
\\
\ar[rr]^{\tilde{p}} \prod_{\S_n}R[G] & &
\prod_{\S_n}R[T] }$$ Here $j^*$ and $\tilde{p}$ are induced by the restriction of the $G$ action to $T$. The maps $i_T^*$, $\tilde{p}$, and $j^*$ are injective: the first by Proposition \[gkmc\], the second by e.g. [@Hu Chapter 13, Section 8], and the last by [@Mc Theorem 4.4]. We deduce that $i^*_G$ is injective too.
We are interested in the image of $i^*_G$. Let us consider the action of $W_G$ on $R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G]$ given by $$w.(\chi_1\otimes \chi_2)=(w\chi_1) \otimes \chi_2,$$ for any $\chi_1\in R[T], \chi_2\in R[G], w\in W_{G}$, as well as the diagonal action of $W_G$ on $\prod_{\S_n}R[T]$. We need the following lemma.
\[themap\] The map $$i^*_T\circ \overline{\kappa}_T :
R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G]\to \prod_{\S_n}R[T]$$ is a $W_G$-equivariant homomorphism.
We take $w\in \X^T$ and show that the map $ R[T] \times R[G]\to R[T]$ given by $$\label{chi} (\chi_1,\chi_2)\mapsto i^*_T(
\kappa_T(\chi_1\otimes\chi_2))_w$$ is $W_G$-equivariant (the map $\kappa_T$ was defined in Section \[prev\]). We identify $\X=Sp(n)/G$ and write $w=kG$, where $k\in N_{Sp(n)}(G)$. Assume that $\chi_1,\chi_2$ in equation (\[chi\]) are the characters of the representations $(V_1,\rho_1)$, respectively $(V_2,\rho_2)$. An easy exercise shows that $\kappa_T(\chi_1\otimes \chi_2)_w$ is the $T$-representation on $V_1\otimes V_2$ given by $$t.(v_1\otimes v_2) = v_1 \otimes \rho_2(k^{-1}tk)(v_2),$$ for all $v_1\in V_1, v_2\in V_2$ and $t\in T$. This is the tensor product of two $T$-representations, the first one being trivial and the second one lying in $R[G]$, which is the same as $R[T]^{W_G}$. The $W_G$-equivariance of our map is now clear.
From now on we will identify $$K_T(\X)=R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G],$$ by using Proposition \[thretwo\]. In this way, $W_G$ acts on $K_T(\X)$. From the previous lemma we deduce that the map $i^*_T$ is a $W_G$-equivariant homomorphism. Since $R[G] = R[T]^{W_{G}}$, the image of the map $$\tilde{p} \circ i_{G}^*=i_T^*\circ j^*$$ is included in $(i_T^*(K_T(\X)))^{W_{G}}$. Since $i^*_T$ is injective, we deduce that the image of $j^*$ is contained in $K_T(\X)^{W_G}$.
Like in the $T$-equivariant case (see the previous section), we consider the homomorphism $$\overline{\kappa}_G : R[G] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G] \rightarrow K_G(\X),$$ which is $R[G]$-linear and satisfies $$\overline{\kappa}_G(1\otimes \chi)=[V_\rho]$$ for any representation $\rho: G\times V \to V$ of character $\chi$. For the definition of $V_\rho$, see equation (\[vro\]). The composition $$j^* \circ \overline{\kappa}_G : R[G] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G] \rightarrow K_T(\X) = R[T] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G]$$ is induced by the restriction map from $G$ to $T$. Since $R[G] = R[T]^{W_{G}}$, the map $j^* \circ \overline{\kappa}_G$ is an isomorphism between $R[G] \otimes_{R[Sp(n)]} R[G]$ and its image in $K_T(\X)$. The image is actually equal to $K_T(\X)^{W_{G}}$. Consequently, the image of $j^*$ is $K_T(\X)^{W_{G}}$. Since $j^*$ is injective (as we saw above), we deduce that it is an isomorphism between $K_G(\X)$ and $K_T(\X)^{W_G}$. Incidentally, we have also proved the following result:
\[themap1\] The map $\overline{\kappa}_G$ defined above is a ring isomorphism.
From the commutative diagram at the beginning of the section we deduce that the image of $i^*_G$ consists of all $W_G$-invariants in the image of $i^*_T$. By Proposition \[gkmc\], the image of $i^*_T$ is $$\{ (f_\tau) \in \!\!\! \prod_{\tau \in \S_n} \!\!\! \mathbb{Z}[x_1^{\pm 1}, \ldots,
x_n^{\pm 1} ] ^{W_{G}} \ : \
(x_\mu x_\nu^{-1}-1)(x_\mu x_\nu -1) \ {\rm divides } \ f_\tau-f_{(\mu,\nu)\tau} \,\,\, {\rm for \ all} \ 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \}.$$ By Lemma \[last\], below, this is the same as $$\{ (f_\tau) \in \!\!\! \prod_{\tau \in \S_n} \!\!\! \mathbb{Z}[X_1, \ldots, X_n ] \ : \
f_\tau-f_{ {(\mu,\nu)}\tau} {\rm \,\, is \,\, divisible \,\, by \,\,} X_\mu-X_\nu \,\,\, {\rm for \ all} \ 1 \leq \mu < \nu \leq n \}.$$ Theorem \[secondmain\] is now completely proved. The following lemma has been used above.
\[last\] Let $x_1,\ldots, x_n$ be some variables and set $$X_\nu=x_\nu+x_\nu^{-1},$$ $1 \le \nu \le n$. An element of $\bZ[X_1,\ldots, X_n]$ is divisible by $(x_\mu x_\nu^{-1} -1)(x_\mu x_\nu -1)$ in the ring $\bZ[x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$ if and only if it is divisible by $X_\mu -X_\nu$ in $\bZ[X_1,\ldots,X_n]$.
We first prove the following claim.
[*Claim.*]{} The ring $\bZ[x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$ is a free module over $\bZ[X_1,\ldots, X_n]$ of basis $x_1^{\epsilon_1}\ldots x_n^{\epsilon_n}$, where $\epsilon_\nu\in \{-1,0\}$, $1\le \nu \le n$.
We first notice that if $x$ is a variable, ${ X}=x+x^{-1}$, and $R$ is an arbitrary unit ring, then $R[x, x^{-1}]$ is a free module over $R[{ X}]$ of basis $1, x^{-1}$. This implies the claim by a recursive argument. Namely, we take successively $R=\bZ[x_{\mu}^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$ for $\mu=2, \ldots, n$, which gives $R[x_{\mu-1}^{\pm 1}]=\bZ[x_{\mu-1}^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$.
We now turn to the proof of the lemma. For sake of simplicity let us make $\mu=1$ and $\nu=2$. We note that $$X_1-X_2= x_1^{-1} (x_1x_2^{-1}-1)(x_1x_2-1).$$ Thus, if $f$ is divisible by $X_1-X_2$ then it is divisible by $(x_1 x_2^{-1} -1)(x_1x_2 -1)$. We will now prove the converse. Assume that $f\in \bZ[X_1,\ldots, X_n]$ is divisible by $(x_1x_2^{-1}-1)(x_1x_2-1)$. We deduce that $$\label{laste}f=(X_1-X_2)g,$$ where $g\in \bZ[ x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$. We consider the expansion of $g$ with respect to the basis indicated in the claim and denote by $g_0\in \bZ[X_1,\ldots, X_n]$ the coefficient of 1. Equation (\[laste\]) implies $$f=(X_1-X_2)g_0.$$ This finishes the proof.
[F]{}
A. Borel [*Sur la cohomologie des espaces fibrés principaux et des espaces homogènes des groupes de Lie compacts*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2), [**57**]{} (1953), 115–207
N. Bourbaki, [ *Groupes et algèbres de [L]{}ie, chap. 4-6*]{}, Hermann, Paris, 1968
P. K. Draxl, [*Skew Fields*]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1983
W. Fulton and J. Harris, [*Representation Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 2004
S. Griffeth and A. Ram, [*Affine [H]{}ecke algebras and the [S]{}chubert calculus*]{}, [European J. Combin.]{} [**25**]{} [(2004)]{}, [1263–1283]{}
H. Hiller, [*Geometry of Coxeter Groups*]{}, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, Boston, 1982
D. Husemoller, [*Fibre Bundles (Third Edition)*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1994
M. Harada, A. Henriques and T. Holm, [*Computation of generalized equivariant cohomologies of Kac-Moody flag varieties*]{}, Adv. Math. [**197**]{} (2005), 198–221
R. R. Kocherlakota, [*Integral homology of real flag manifolds and loop spaces of symmetric spaces*]{}, Adv. Math. [**110**]{} (1995), 1–46
, [*[$T$]{}-equivariant [$K$]{}-theory of generalized flag varieties*]{}, [J. Differential Geom.]{}, [**32**]{} [(1990)]{}, [549–603]{}
C. Lenart and A. Postnikov, [*Affine [W]{}eyl groups in [$K$]{}-theory and representation theory*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2007, no. 12
, [*A [P]{}ieri-[C]{}hevalley type formula for [$K(G/B)$]{} and standard monomial theory*]{}, [Studies in memory of Issai Schur (Chevaleret/Rehovot, 2000)]{}, [Progr. Math.]{}, [vol. 210]{}, [pp. 155–176]{}, [Birkhäuser Boston]{}, [2003]{}
A.-L. Mare, [*Equivariant cohomology of quaternionic flag manifolds*]{}, J. Algebra [**319**]{} (2008), 2830-2844
A.-L. Mare and M. Willems, [*Topology of the octonionic flag manifold*]{}, preprint 2008
J. McLeod, [*The [K]{}ünneth formula in equivariant [$K$]{}-theory*]{}, [Algebraic Topology, Waterloo, 1978 (Proc. Conf., Univ. Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., 1978)]{}, [Lecture Notes in Math.]{}, [vol. 741]{}, pp. 316-333, Springer-Verlag, 1979
H. Pittie, [*Homogeneous vector bundles on homogeneous spaces*]{}, Topology [**11**]{} (1972), 199–203
, [*A [P]{}ieri-[C]{}hevalley formula in the [$K$]{}-theory of a [$G/B$]{}-bundle*]{}, [Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc.]{} [**5**]{} [(1999)]{}, [102–107 (electronic)]{}
, [*Equivariant [$K$]{}-theory and equivariant cohomology (With an appendix by A. Knutson and I. Rosu)*]{}, [Math. Z.]{} [**243**]{} [(2003)]{}, [423–448]{}
G. Segal, [*Equivariant [$K$]{}-theory*]{}, [Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.]{} [**34**]{} [(1968)]{}, [129–151]{}
M. Willems, [*$K$-théorie équivariante des tours de Bott. Application à la structure multiplicative de la $K$-théorie équivariante des variétés de drapeaux*]{}, [Duke Math. J.]{} [**132**]{} (2006), 271–309
M. Willems, [*A Chevalley formula in equivariant $K$-theory*]{}, J. Algebra [**308**]{} (2007), 764 –779
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Manuel Güdel
- 'Stephen L. Skinner'
- Marc Audard
- 'Kevin R. Briggs'
- Sylvie Cabrit
date: 'Received 2007; accepted 2007'
title: 'Discovery of a bipolar X-ray jet from the T Tauri star DG Tau'
---
[We have obtained and analyzed [[*Chandra*]{}]{} ACIS-S observations of the strongly accreting classical T Tauri star DG Tau. Our principal goals are to map the immediate environment of the star to characterize possible extended X-rays formed in the jet, and to re-visit the anomalous, doubly absorbed X-ray spectrum of DG Tau itself. ]{} [We combine our new ACIS-S data with a data set previously obtained. The data are superimposed to obtain flux and hardness images. Separate X-ray spectra are extracted for DG Tau and areas outside its point spread function. ]{} [We detect a prominent X-ray jet at a position angle of PA $\approx 225$ deg (tentatively suggested by @guedel05), coincident with the optical jet axis. We also identify a counter jet at PA = 45 deg. The X-ray jets are detected out to a distance of $\approx 5\arcsec$ from the star, their sources being extended at the ACIS-S resolution. The jet spectra are soft, with a best-fit electron temperature of 3.4 MK. We find evidence for excess absorption of the counter jet. The spectrum of the DG Tau point source shows two components with largely different temperatures and absorption column densities. ]{} [The similar temperatures and small absorbing gas columns of the jet sources and the soft component of the “stellar” source suggest that these sources are related, produced either by shocks or by magnetic heating in the jets. Cooling estimates suggest that the pressure in the hot gas contributes to jet expansion. The hard “stellar” component, on the other hand, is associated with a stellar corona or magnetosphere. The excessive photoelectric absorption of this component suggests the presence of dust-depleted accretion streams above coronal magnetic fields. ]{}
Introduction
============
Pre-main sequence stars show various signs of accretion and outflow, such as stellar winds inducing high mass-loss rates (e.g., @dupree05 [@johns07; @kwan07]), molecular outflows observed in molecular lines (e.g., @bachiller96), and accompanying optical (e.g., @hirth97 [@eisloeffel98]) and radio jets (e.g., @anglada95). The most evident manifestation of outflows are the optically visible jets and their associated Herbig-Haro (HH) objects at distances up to several arcminutes from the star. These structures are excited by internal shocks or in regions where the fast mass stream encounters the interstellar medium and shock-ionizes the gas (for a review of Herbig-Haro flows, see @reipurth01). Under ideal circumstances (low extinction, strong ionization), optical jets can be identified at distances as close as 0$\farcs$1 to the star [@bacciotti02]. The same compact jets are also routinely detected at radio wavelengths, where the emission mechanism is thought to be bremsstrahlung from the shock-heated gas [@rodriguez95; @anglada95]. Radio brightness temperatures suggest overall gas temperatures of order $10^4$ K. This picture is ambiguous, however, as a number of non-thermal jets have been suggested from radio polarization or synchrotron-like spectral shapes (e.g., @curiel93 [@ray97]). Magnetic fields may thus play a role not only in launching the jets, but in their propagation as well.
Outflow processes are prone to producing X-rays, given that shocks with shock jump velocities of order several hundred km s$^{-1}$ are possible. The relevant theory and a simple model have been discussed by @raga02. The strong-shock temperature can be expressed as $T\approx 1.5\times 10^5v_{\rm 100}^2$ K (for fully ionized gas) where $v_{100}$ is the shock speed relative to a target in units of 100 km s$^{-1}$. Jet speeds are typically of order $v = 300$–$500$ km s$^{-1}$ [@eisloeffel98; @anglada95; @bally03], in principle allowing for shock speeds of similar magnitude. If a flow shocks a standing medium at 400 km s$^{-1}$, then $T \approx 2.4$ MK.
[llll]{}\
Instrument & [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S & [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC &\
ObsID & 4487 & 0203540201 &\
Start time (UT) & 2004-01-11 02:58:51 & 2004-08-17 06:08:10 &\
End time (UT) & 2004-01-11 11:52:21 & 2004-08-17 17:32:46 &\
Exposure time (s) & 29717 & 41076 &\
\
Instrument & [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S & [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S & [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S\
ObsID & 6409 & 7247 & 7246\
Start time (UT) & 2005-12-15 11:03:14 & 2005-12-17 09:37:05 & 2006-04-12 17:13:23\
End time (UT) & 2005-12-15 16:17:01 & 2005-12-17 14:34:37 & 2006-04-13 01:37:19\
Exposure time (s) & 16252 & 15946 & 27811\
Faint, soft X-ray emission has been detected from a few protostellar HH objects [@pravdo01; @pravdo04; @pravdo05; @favata02; @bally03; @tsujimoto04; @grosso06]. @bally03 used a [*Chandra*]{} observation to show that X-rays form within an arcsecond of the protostar L1551 IRS-5 while the star itself is too heavily obscured to be detected. As this example illustrates, the jet-launching region of powerful protostellar jets is often inaccessible to optical, near-infrared or X-ray studies due to excessive absorption. However, a class of strongly accreting, optically revealed classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) also exhibits so-called micro-jets visible in optical lines [@hirth97], with flow speeds similar to protostellar jets. CTTS micro-jets have the unique advantage that they can - in principle - be followed down to the acceleration region close to the star both in the optical and in X-rays. For example, @bacciotti00 [@bacciotti02] used the HST to trace the jet of the CTTS DG Tau to within 0$\farcs 1$ of the star.
DG Tau is a most outstanding T Tauri star for X-ray studies. A [*Chandra*]{} high-resolution X-ray image has shown tentative evidence for the presence of faint X-rays along the optical jet. Both [*XMM-Newton*]{} [@guedel07b] and [*Chandra*]{} [@guedel05] low-resolution CCD spectra of DG Tau are anomalous, showing a “two-absorber X-ray” (TAX) spectrum in which two independent X-ray components are each subject to different absorption column densities.
To study DG Tau’s X-ray emission further, we obtained new [*Chandra*]{} observations that, together with the previous observations, result in three times more [*Chandra*]{} exposure than analyzed before. The present paper describes the new observations, puts them into a context of the previous results, and discusses some tentative models for the jet X-ray emission.
The target: DG Tau and its jets
===============================
An accreting, jet-driving T Tauri star
--------------------------------------
DG Tau is a single classical T Tau star [@leinert91], surrounded by a disk of dust [@dutrey96; @testi02] and gas (@dutrey96 [@kitamura96a; @kitamura96b] = K96a,b; @testi02). The dust disk as detected in the millimeter continuum is relatively compact (due to limited sensitivity of present-day instrumentation to optically thin emission of the outer disk), with a size of $1\farcs 1\times 0\farcs 6$ (@dutrey96, also K96b). Dust is also present at larger distances as inferred from extinction of the counter jet (see below). CO gas remains easier to detect at large distances from the star; K96a,b find a $^{13}$CO disk size of about $40^{\prime\prime}\times 30^{\prime\prime}$ although we note that this structure is not a Keplerian disk but more akin to a residual, flattened envelope. Interestingly, line shifts as a function of position indicate that the outer parts of the disk are [*expanding*]{}, perhaps driven by interactions between the stellar wind and the disk surface. This latter wind would also be responsible for blowing off residual envelope gas; a spherical gas envelope is indeed not present anymore, as inferred from modeling of the $^{13}$CO line (K96a).
DG Tau is a strongly accreting CTTS, with an observed accretion rate of $\dot{M} = (10^{-7.34}-10^{-6.13})M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@white01; @white04]. It also ejects a well studied collimated jet with knots and bow shocks out to at least 11$^{\prime\prime}$, with velocities of several 100 km s$^{-1}$ (e.g., @lavalley97 [@eisloeffel98; @dougados00]). Optical evidence for a counter jet has been reported [@lavalley97; @pyo03].
Previous X-ray observations
---------------------------
We have previously obtained two short X-ray observations of DG Tau (Table \[obslog\]). Our previous [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S observation [@guedel05] showed tentative indications of very faint, soft emission along the optical forward jet out to a distance of about 5 to the SW. A total of 17 excess counts were collected (including the area around the faint counter jet) in the energy range of 0.4–2.4 keV.
The X-ray spectrum of DG Tau itself revealed two independent X-ray components in both the [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations [@guedel05; @guedel07b]; a soft, little absorbed component is emitted by cool ($\approx$3–4 MK) plasma; and a hard, strongly absorbed component originates from hot, occasionally flaring ($\approx 20$–70 MK) plasma. The soft component was attributed to emission from the base of the jets.
New Chandra observations {#obs}
========================
We have obtained new observations of DG Tau with [*Chandra*]{} ACIS-S (Table \[obslog\]), for a total of $\approx$60 ks of exposure time. We have merged these data with the previously obtained [*Chandra*]{} data to produce images with an equivalent exposure time of approximately 90 ks, i.e., three times as much as reported in @guedel05. The new observations were collected in three segments, two shorter ones in December 2005 (ObsID 6409 and 7247) and a longer one in April 2006 (ObsID 7246). The data reduction followed standard [*Chandra*]{} CIAO analysis threads[^1] as described in @guedel05. We used the “Very Faint” mode to efficiently reduce background radiation. DG Tau’s optical sky coordinates for Epoch 2005.0 are RA(2000.0) = 04h 27m 04.697s, dec(2000.0) = $+26\deg\ 06\arcmin\ 16\farcs 10$ [@ducourant05].
We extracted stellar X-ray spectra individually for each observation using counts within $1\farcs 4-1\farcs 7$ (depending on the shape of the stellar image) of the centroid position of the DG Tau stellar source. This extraction radius contains approximately 95% of the power in the PSF (see [*Chandra*]{} Proposers’ Observatory Guide \[POG\] v.9).[^2] Counts from regions attributed to the jets were extracted from circles with radii of 1.75 and 2.6, offset by a few arcseconds to the NE and SW, respectively (see @guedel05 for an illustration).
Spectra were produced for DG Tau, the SW (forward) jet, and the NE (counter) jet for each observation (using the CIAO specextract task). We fitted the spectra with simple thermal, collisional-ionization equilibrium models (vapec) in the XSPEC software package (version 11.3.1; @arnaud96), complemented with photoelectric absorption models. DG Tau required two thermal models that were each subject to different amounts of absorption. The two jet sources were fitted jointly (see below). We fixed all element abundances at values that are typical for T Tauri stars, as used in the XEST project (@guedel07a [@telleschi07a], and references therein).[^3]
Because the ACIS-S background level is negligible for our small sources (see below), we took advantage of the C statistic [@cash79] for the spectral fits in XSPEC, applied to unbinned spectra in the energy range of 0.2–7 keV for DG Tau and 0.2-2.2 keV for the jet sources.
The X-ray jets of DG Tau
========================
Our X-ray images (Fig. \[jetim\]) provide clear evidence for both a forward (to the SW) and a counter-jet (to the NE), symmetrically arranged outside the stellar point-spread function (PSF) out to distances of about 5. This is the first and so far only young-stellar double X-ray jet that can be followed essentially down to the star. We now discuss the spatial and spectral results in detail.
Jet morphology {#morph}
--------------
An X-ray image of the DG Tau environment is shown in Fig. \[jetim\]a, with a pixel size of 0$\farcs$492. This image was produced by combining counts from all four [*Chandra*]{} observations. The jet proper motion amounts to about $0\farcs 15$–$0\farcs 3$ per year (@eisloeffel98 for the 1983–1990 time interval; @dougados00 for 1994–1997). If the proper motion was similar during the time interval of our [*Chandra*]{} observations (2004–2006), then the jet features would shift by about one ACIS-S pixel between the earliest and the latest observation; such a shift is not critical given the size of the jet source (see below). To minimize the extension of the combined image of the DG Tau stellar PSF due to slight systematic offsets between the attitude solutions of the observations, we determined the stellar centroid coordinates in each exposure using the CIAO wavdetect task, and then shifted the centroids to a common coordinate (the maximum shift applied to one of the exposures was $0\farcs 42$, or less than one pixel). Also, the standard “pixel randomization” procedure was turned off (but was left on for the data sets used for spectral extraction). Because the boresight coordinates are slightly different for the different exposures, the data were reprojected to a common tangent point, using the reproject\_events task in CIAO.
To suppress background and to emphasize the soft jet sources, only counts falling within the 0.6–1.7 keV range are plotted in the figure. There is clear evidence for a jet-like extension to the SW along a position angle of $\approx$225 deg, but we also find a significant excess of counts in the NE direction (PA $\approx$45 deg). This is coincident with the jet optical axis, which for the SW jet has been given as 222 deg [@lavalley97], 226 deg [@solf93], or, depending on individual knots, 217-237 deg [@eisloeffel98]. We are not aware of any background sources in this region that could produce additional X-ray emission.
Only very few counts from the jet regions fall outside the $\approx$0.6–1.7 keV energy range; we therefore use this range for our statistics (somewhat different from the energy range 0.4–2.4 keV used by @guedel05). The SW jet contains, within the extraction circle defined here, 7 and 11 counts for the 2004 and the combined 2005/06 observations, respectively (including one count in the SW jet at 0.58 keV in ObsID 6409). For the NE jet, the numbers are 4 and 5 counts, respectively. Based on the 2004 observation, we would have expected to detect, in the 2005/06 observations, a total of 14 counts in the SW jet and 8 counts in the NE jet, but the differences to the actually observed counts are within about 1$\sigma$ of the uncertainties due to counting statistics, and are therefore not significant. The combined [*Chandra*]{} exposures thus collected a total of 18 and 9 counts in the SW and the NE jet, respectively (the nearest counts outside this energy range were: one count at 0.43 keV in the SW jet of ObsID 4487; and one count at 2.1 keV in the SW jet of ObsID 6409).
We then estimated potential contamination from the diffuse (sky and detector) background and from the PSF of the bright stellar DG Tau X-ray source. The diffuse background was estimated by extracting counts from a large area in the vicinity of the DG Tau system and scaling them to the jet extraction areas. We found the background contribution to be, statistically, 0.6 and 0.3 cts for the SW and the NE jet area, respectively. We modeled the DG Tau PSF using the MARX software.[^4] Boresight coordinates and roll angles were identical to those of the observations, and the simulated source was put at the sky coordinates of DG Tau (the simulations were done separately for the 2004 and the 2005/06 observations, but the results agreed with each other). The simulation used the best-fit spectrum of DG Tau except that the flux (or the exposure time) was much higher. We then extracted counts in the PSF wings using the identical extraction regions used for the jets, in the 0.6–1.7 keV range, and found a statistical contribution of 0.9 and 0.7 cts of the PSF wings to the SW and NE jet source, respectively. We conclude that one count per jet area is likely to be due to contamination. This is considerably less than the Poisson uncertainty in our count numbers. These X-ray jet sources are highly significant (see discussion in @guedel05 for the first exposure only). A linear feature pointing from the stellar PSF to the south, however, appears to be due to a coincidental arrangement of only four counts.
To characterize the jet morphology further, we smoothed the image using CIAO task aconvolve, treating the jets and the stellar PSF separately. In Fig. \[jetim\]b we used a Gaussian sigma of 0.75 pixels for the area outside the star, and 0.5 pixels for the stellar image. The smoothed image clearly shows the extended morphology of the two jet sources, reminiscent of the optical image at least for the SW jet [@dougados00].
Figure \[sim\] shows simulations of two different jet source shapes, based on the MARX software. In the left figure, the SW and NE jets are composed of a Gaussian with sigma = $1\arcsec$, and the SW jet additionally contains a 1-D linear source of $2\arcsec$ length, positioned radially outside the stellar PSF at a position angle of 225 deg. The linear feature contains $\approx 1.4$ times as many counts as the Gaussian source. The right figure shows a simulation in which both jet sources are point sources. [^5]
The total number of counts in each simulated jet feature is similar to the numbers in the real 90 ks observation. The observation resembles the simulation of extended sources; it is not compatible with one point source per jet. A more quantitative comparison will need longer exposures of these features.
We next generated “hardness” images, using two complementary procedures. In the first case, each individual [*count*]{} was attributed a color as a function of its energy. Energies in the 0.55–0.7 keV range are represented in red, energies in the 1.5–1.75 keV range in blue. In the 0.7–1.5 keV range, colors change continuously from red to yellow to blue. The resulting image was smoothed, using a Gaussian with sigma = 0.85 pixels - see Fig. \[jetim\]c.
For an alternative representation, we extracted three [*pixel*]{} images smoothed as before (Gaussian smoothing with sigma = 0.75 pixels), a “red”, “green”, and “blue” image for the 0.55–0.85 keV, 0.85–1.2 keV, and 1.2–1.75 keV ranges, respectively. The combined false-color image is shown in Fig. \[jetim\]d.
Both hardness images show that the counter jet is harder, with photon energies mostly above 1 keV, while the forward jet shows a mixture of softer and harder counts.
SW Jet: NE Jet:
---------------------------- --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
$N_{\rm H}^{a,b}$ $3.0^{+3.0}_{-3.0}\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ 5.7$\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$
$\Delta N_{\rm H}$
$T^b$
EM$^b$
$L_{\rm X}$ \[0.1-10 keV\]
: Results from spectral fit to jet sources. Errors give $1\sigma$ confidence ranges, and EM and $L_{\rm X}$ values are for one jet each[]{data-label="jet"}
[The two $N_{\rm H}$ values are coupled through the fit parameter $\Delta N_{\rm H}$. Therefore, no independent errors are given for the NE jet.]{}
[$N_{\rm H, forward}$ and EM are, within $1\sigma$, poorly constrained to low values and $T$ is poorly constrained to high values because there is a second (probably unphysical) minimum in the statistic, with $N_{\rm H, forward} \approx 0$, $T = 6.8$ MK, and very small EM. See text for details.]{}
Spectral analysis of the jet sources
------------------------------------
Only simplistic models can be fitted to the spectra of the jets, given the small number of counts in the two jet sources. We experimented with isothermal plasma components (using the vapec model in XSPEC, with the abundances mentioned above) subject to photoelectric absorption (using the wabs model in XSPEC). Some plausible assumptions were made to keep the number of fit parameters low: Because the jet morphologies and the lengths of the two jets are similar, we adopted equal emission measures and (for similar heating mechanisms, e.g., shocks with similar velocity) equal temperatures. The absorption column densities, $N_{\rm H}$, remained different for each source because different gas components (e.g., the star’s extended circumstellar disk) may absorb the jets differently, as also suggested by the hardness images discussed above. The initial fit parameters were therefore the emission measure (per jet), a single electron temperature (for both jets), and two $N_{\rm H}$ values. We found, however, that the absolute values of $N_{\rm H}$ are poorly constrained due to numerical cross-talk with the temperature (lower $N_{\rm H}$ can be compensated by higher temperatures), while the [*difference*]{} $\Delta N_{\rm H} = N_{\rm H, counter}-N_{\rm H, forward}$ between the absorption of the the counter jet and the forward jet is sufficiently well confined. This is illustrated in Fig. \[contours\] where the confidence regions are shown on the $N_{\rm H, counter}$ vs. $N_{\rm H, forward}$ plane. The region of optimum $N_{\rm H}$ values shows a strong and nearly linear correlation between the two values, in such a way that their difference is well constrained. We have therefore chosen to fit $N_{\rm H, forward}$ and $\Delta N_{\rm H}$, while the value of $N_{\rm H, counter}$ can be derived from any pair of these two parameters.
The best-fit $\Delta N_{\rm H}$ is $2.7\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, with a $1\sigma$ range of $(1.6 - 4.2)\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a 90% range of $(0.9 - 5.2)\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. A differential absorption column between the two jets is thus very likely, and is in fact expected as discussed below. The plot shows two minima, the slightly deeper one located at $N_{\rm H, forward}
\approx 0.02\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $N_{\rm H, counter} \approx 0.29\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, and a slightly shallower one at $N_{\rm H, forward}
\approx 0.30\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and $N_{\rm H, counter} \approx 0.57\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. The two solutions agree at the 1$\sigma$ level; however, the former solution requires a high best-fit temperature (0.59 keV) which, together with an $N_{\rm H}$ value that is unusually low for Taurus pre-main sequence stars [@guedel07a], suggests that the solution is unphysical. We adopt the second solution as the more reasonable “best-fit” in the following although we repeat that only $\Delta N_{\rm H}$ can be sufficiently well constrained.
Despite the large errors of the fit parameters, three features are noteworthy. First, the absorption column density toward the forward (SW) jet is small ($\approx 3\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$), agreeing with $N_{\rm H}$ of the soft but not the hard stellar component (see below). Second, the absorption toward the counter jet is higher, compatible with the increased hardness discussed in Sect. \[morph\]. And third, the electron temperature of the jet sources is low ($\approx$3.4 MK) compared with coronal temperatures of T Tauri stars (e.g., @telleschi07b).
We do not give errors for $L_{\rm X}$ as these depend very sensitively but non-trivially on the rather uncertain absorption column densities (see @guedel07a for estimates of lower limits to the uncertainties of $L_{\rm X}$ of many X-ray sources in the Taurus star-forming region). Based on the best-fit values, the total X-ray output from the jets outside the stellar PSF (radius of $1\farcs 4-1\farcs 7$) would amount to a few times $10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ or 10–20% of the [*stellar*]{} soft component (see below).
--------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
[*XMM-Newton:*]{}
ObsID 4487 6409 7247 7246 all [*Chandra*]{} 0203540201$^a$
Epoch Jan. 2004 Dec. 2005 Dec. 2005 Apr. 2006 2004-2006 Aug. 2004
counts \[0.2-7 keV\] 388 204 142 349 – 634
count rate \[ct s$^{-1}$, 0.2-7 keV\]$^b$ 0.0131(7) 0.0126(9) 0.0089(7) 0.0125(7) – 0.0206(10)
[**Soft component:**]{}
count rate \[ct s$^{-1}$, 0.2-1.1 keV\]$^b$ 0.0046(4) 0.0041(5) 0.0041(5) 0.0046(4) – 0.0083(6)
$N_{\rm H, 1}$ \[$10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$\] 1.4$^{+1.8}_{-1.0}$ 0.95$^{+2.3}_{-0.93}$ 4.5$^{+4.1}_{-1.9}$ 2.0$^{+2.6}_{-1.7}$ 1.3$^{+1.1}_{-0.6}$ 1.1$^{+1.4}_{-0.8}$
$T_1$ \[MK\] 4.6$^{+2.3}_{-1.3}$ 6.0$^{+1.7}_{-2.7}$ 3.2$^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$ 3.6$^{+2.3}_{-1.0}$ 4.5$^{+0.7}_{-0.9}$ 3.7$^{+0.9}_{-0.5}$
$L_{\rm X, 1}$ \[erg s$^{-1}$, 0.1-10 keV\] $1.1\times 10^{29}$ $8.2\times 10^{28}$ $4.5\times 10^{29}$ $1.7\times 10^{29}$ $1.0\times 10^{29}$ $0.96\times 10^{29}$
[**Hard component:**]{}
count rate \[ct s$^{-1}$, 1.7-7 keV\]$^b$ 0.0063(5) 0.0068(6) 0.0031(4) 0.0066(5) – 0.0099(7)
$N_{\rm H, 2}$ \[$10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$\] 21$^{+8}_{-6}$ 32$^{+16}_{-11}$ 15$^{+14}_{-10}$ 33$^{+11}_{-12}$ – 18$^{+6}_{-6}$
$T_2$ \[MK\] 31$^{+21}_{-9}$ 27$^{+25}_{-10}$ 34$^{+77}_{-16}$ 23$^{+23}_{-6}$ – 69$^{+119}_{-25}$
$L_{\rm X, 2}$ \[erg s$^{-1}$, 0.1-10 keV\] $6.9\times 10^{29}$ $1.0\times 10^{30}$ $2.8\times 10^{29}$ $1.1\times 10^{30}$ – $9.6\times 10^{29}$
--------------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
Average properties for the hard component during [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC PN observations (including flares); counts for 24932 s of low-background data
parentheses give errors in last digit
The DG Tau X-ray source
=======================
The two-component spectral phenomenology of TAX sources [@guedel07b] is present in each of the new [*Chandra*]{} observations. The spectral-fit results are reported in Table \[spec\], together with the results from the [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation taken from @guedel07b. The rather short exposures obtained in 2005-2006 led to considerable uncertainties in the derived parameters. This is particularly evident in the absorption column density, $N_{\rm H, 1}$, the electron temperature, $kT_1$, and consequently the X-ray luminosity, $L_{\rm X, 1}$, of the softer spectral component for the shortest observation, ObsID 7247, comprising only 142 cts. On the other hand, the count rates of the soft component agree within the error bars for all [*Chandra*]{} observations (Table \[spec\]), and no variability was recorded in the soft component during the individual exposures. Because the 90% error bars of $N_{\rm H, 1}$ and $kT_1$ also strongly overlap for the four [*Chandra*]{} exposures, we performed a joint fit of these spectra in the energy range of 0.2-1.1 keV, reported in the penultimate column in the table. The resulting parameters of the soft component compare very favorably with the [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC PN results (last column).
Because the hard component is variable (Table \[spec\]; slow, non-periodic modulations by a factor of $\approx$2 were present in ObsID 7246 although larger flares were absent), agreement between the fit parameters is not expected, but we notice that the hydrogen absorption column density, $N_{\rm H, 2}$, agrees in all observations within the 90% error ranges. It is remarkable that $N_{\rm H, 2}$ is approximately 20 times higher than $N_{\rm H, 1}$.
For illustration purposes, we show the combined [*Chandra*]{} spectrum in Fig. \[specfigure\] but again emphasize that spectral fits were performed for the individual, unbinned spectra (illustrations of spectral fits to binned data are shown in @guedel05 for [*Chandra*]{} and in @guedel07b for [*XMM-Newton*]{}).
Discussion
==========
Our [*Chandra*]{} observations add unprecedented information to the X-ray emission model of DG Tau. In particular, we report the detection of an extended, bipolar X-ray jet down to the stellar PSF and out to a distance of about 5. This is the first double-sided X-ray jet reported from a pre-main sequence star.
The ACIS-S images reveal the presence of jets in the SW and NE directions, coincident with the direction of the optical jets. The NE jets appears to be slightly harder and also shows fewer photons in a similar extraction region. Further, the spectra of the DG Tau point source reveal a TAX spectral morphology. The DG Tau system thus hosts at least four distinct X-ray sources of different origin and subject to different gas absorption columns, as illustrated in the sketch shown in Fig. \[model\]. These components are:
1. a weakly absorbed, diffuse, soft component along the forward-jet axis;\
2. an more strongly absorbed, diffuse, soft component along the counter-jet axis;\
3. a weakly absorbed, compact, non-variable, soft component (within the stellar PSF);\
4. a strongly absorbed, compact, flaring, hard component (within the stellar PSF).\
We now discuss the various features seen in the X-ray spectra and images, and propose a model consistent with all observed features.
-0.2truecm![Sketch of the proposed model of the DG Tau environment. Features are not drawn to scale. The observer is located toward the upper left. Four X-ray source regions are shown in red (the stellar coronal source, and asterisks symbolically marking emission regions in the jet) and their absorbing media are schematically shown. X-rays seen by the observer are sketched by the wavy lines, described on the left, from top to bottom: X-rays from the weakly absorbed, spatially resolved X-ray source of the forward jet; from the spatially unresolved but spectrally identified soft X-ray source closer to the base of the jet; from the hard, stellar coronal emission absorbed by the infalling accretion streams; and from the spatially resolved X-ray emission from the counter jet, slightly absorbed by the intervening disk gas. The dashed circle denotes the observing PSF of the star; features inside the PSF are unresolved from the stellar X-ray source.[]{data-label="model"}](8141fig5.ps "fig:"){width="9.0cm"}
The X-ray jets: Physical properties
-----------------------------------
In this section, we will be interested as to how the jet cools, and why no X-ray emission is seen at distances beyond 5 from the star. There are further prominent bow shocks outside the regions discussed here, in particular a structure that was located at 107 from DG Tau in observations obtained in 1986 December [@eisloeffel98] and still within $a\approx 12$ a decade later [@stapelfeldt97]. Using a proper motion of 015–03 per year [@eisloeffel98; @dougados00], this bow shock should now have expanded to about 15. Obviously, the DG Tau jet consists of a series of knots that are frequently ejected from the star [@eisloeffel98]. If the more distant knots were similar to those now seen in X-rays when at similar distances from the star, then the heated gas must have cooled, or the emission measure have decreased below our detection limit because we have found no significant X-ray source at those distances. Given the time to travel from $\approx 5$ to $\approx 11$(the region behind the outer bow shock, in the “X-ray free” lower right corner of Fig. \[jetim\]), we adopt an X-ray decay time (with respect to the range of sensitivity of the X-ray detectors) of $\approx 20-40$ yrs.
To explore the potential cooling mechanism(s), we first discuss two extreme cases of cooling: cooling by expansion, i.e., adiabatic cooling; and radiative cooling without expansion. We will then discuss cooling if contributions from both cooling mechanisms contribute.
### Cooling by expansion {#expansion}
The DG Tau jet significantly expands with increasing distance from the star. Transverse expansion has been measured; various features within a few arcsec of the star show an unusually large opening angle in the range of $\beta \approx 11-27$ degrees (based on full width at half maximum, after @dougados00, see also @eisloeffel98). In contrast, radial expansion (i.e., stretching of volumes in radial direction, along the linear flow) is unlikely to be important as this would require strong jet acceleration at distances of several arcseconds, or selective deceleration of regions closer to the star, for which no evidence has been reported.
There are two consequences of transverse expansion: a decrease of the EM and adiabatic cooling (in the absence of radiation), both leading to a decay of the X-ray emission in time.
The cross-section area of the jet at distance $r$ from the star is $$\label{cross}
A(r) = \pi r^2\tan^2{\beta\over 2}.$$ or for small changes in $A(r)$, $${dA\over A} = 2{dr\over r}.$$ For the time span of 2 years, $dr = 0\farcs 3$–$0\farcs 6$, and therefore $dA/A \approx $0.12–0.24 at a distance of 5. The electron density decreases by the same factor as the volume increases, and therefore the emission measure, EM $= n_{\rm e}^2V$, decreases by 12–24% at a distance of $\approx$5 within 2 years. Such a decrease is too small to be significantly measured in our 2004–2006 data.
However, for a distance of, say, 8–11 (the lower-right area in Fig.\[jetim\]), $A(r)/A(r_0) = \left(r/r_0\right)^2 \approx$ 2.6–4.8. The emission measure for a given mass element in the jet thus decreases by a factor of 2.6–4.8 from a distance of 5 to 8–11 from the star due to expansion alone. Because the gas is optically thin to X-ray emission, the X-ray surface brightness decreases by a factor of 2.6$^2$–4.8$^2$ = 6.8–23, making its detection at this distance against the background level very difficult in our exposures.
At the same time, the plasma cools by expansion. In the limiting case, we neglect radiative losses, i.e., the gas cools adiabatically. Then, $$\label{adiabat}
TV^{\gamma-1} = {\rm constant}$$ with $\gamma = 5/3$ for monatomic gas, and for small changes in $T$, $$\label{adiabat2}
{dT\over T} = (1-\gamma) {dV\over V} = -{2\over 3}{dA\over A} = -{4\over 3}{dr\over r}.$$ Using $dA/A \approx 0.12-0.24$ for a two-year interval, we find $|dT/T| \approx 0.08-0.16$. Again, this temperature decrease is too small to be measured during our observing interval.
For long intervals, however, $${T(r)\over T(r_0)} = \left({A(r)\over A(r_0)}\right)^{-2/3} = \left( {r\over r_0}\right)^{-4/3}$$ which, for $r= $8–11, the above projected jet velocities and $r_0 = 5$ yields $T(r)/T(r_0) \approx$ 0.35–0.53, i.e. $T(r) \approx $1.2–1.8 MK.
A temperature decrease will also affect the count statistics in the detector, because the effective area decreases toward the softer energy range. We simulated the spectrum of the forward jet in XSPEC, adopting a much higher flux for better statistics and further changing its temperature. We then measured the simulated count rate in the 0.6–1.7 keV range. Lowering $kT$ to 0.249–0.272 keV ($T$ = 2.9–3.2 MK), which corresponds to $|dT/T| \approx$ 0.08–0.16, reduces the count rate by 11–26%. Together with the count rate drop from the decrease of the EM (see above), the total drop of the detected count rate would thus be $\approx$ 23–50%. It is possible that this decrease affected our measured count rates, but we cannot prove such cooling effects as the count-rate decrease was not statistically significant during the two years covered by our observations. Furthermore, as some of the material in the detected jet structure may cool, new hot material is likely to be replenished from closer to the star, as we have found the X-ray structure to be extended toward the stellar PSF.
On the other hand, considering a longer time span of 20 years, i.e., and expansion from 5 to 8–11, therefore lowering the plasma temperature to 1.8 MK, the count rate decreases by 83%. This, together with the strong decrease of the EM, reinforces our finding that a cooling, expanding X-ray jet starting under presently observed conditions at 5 distance will be difficult to detect at distances of 8–11, i.e., the region just behind a bow shock described by @eisloeffel98.
In summary, adiabatic expansion alone should lead to the disappearance of the X-ray jet at distances significantly beyond 5 in [*Chandra*]{} exposures such as ours. Our exposures are not sufficient, on the other hand, to verify a cooling effect during the two-year time span.
### Cooling by radiation {#radiation}
Radiative cooling may be significant as well. We cannot estimate the radiative cooling time because the plasma density is unknown, or in other words, it is not clear whether the observed X-ray radiation extracts a significant fraction of the thermal energy of the hot plasma within the 2–20 yrs of interest here. We will, on the other hand, study consequences for the X-ray jet [*if*]{} radiative cooling is the dominant loss mechanism. The volume of the X-ray detected source of the forward jet is approximately (see Sect. \[morph\]) $$V = {3\arcsec * (0\farcs 5)^2\pi\over \sin(38~{\rm deg})} * \left(2.1\times 10^{15}\right)^3~{\rm cm}^{3},$$ where 38 deg is the jet inclination [@eisloeffel98], we have adopted a length outside the PSF and a cross-sectional radius of the X-ray jet of 3 and 05, respectively (Sect. \[morph\]), and the final constant gives the conversion from arcseconds to cm at the distance of Taurus. We thus find $V = 3.6\times 10^{46}$ cm$^{-3}$ but note that the X-ray gas may occupy only a fraction of this volume, defined by the volume filling factor $f$.
With the best-fit EM from Table \[jet\], the density of the X-ray emitting jet gas is $$\label{density}
n_{\rm e} = \left({{\rm EM}\over fV}\right)^{1/2} \approx {170\over f^{1/2}}~{\rm [cm}^{-3}].$$ The thermal energy decay time then is, assuming that energy is lost by radiative cooling (i.e., decrease of $T$) only, $$\label{radloss}
\tau = {3kT\over n_{\rm e}\Lambda(T)} \approx 1.4\times 10^5 T f^{1/2}~ {\rm [s]} \approx 15400 f^{1/2}~ {\rm [yr]}$$ where $\Lambda(T) \approx 1.7\times 10^{-23}$ erg cm$^3$s$^{-1}$ is the cooling function (evaluated at 3.4 MK for our model, derived from apec for the 0.001-100 keV interval), and in the last equation we have adopted the X-ray measured jet temperature of 3.4 MK.
Here, the energy decay reflects exclusively in a decrease of the temperature, $T$, while the emission measure remains constant. As before, we model the count rate reduction for decreasing temperatures for the ACIS-S detector. Given that we detected 18 cts in the forward jet, we now seek the temperature for which the same emission measure results in a detection limit of only 5–6 detected counts, i.e., a count rate reduced to 25–30%. For fewer counts, the source will be difficult to detect, depending also on the spatial distribution of the counts (we recall that approximately one count will be due to contamination from background radiation and the stellar PSF). Using the detector response, we found that a count rate reduction to 25–30% corresponds to a temperature reduction to 50–61% of the initial value, i.e., a time interval of 0.49–0.56 e-folding decay times of the energy (Eq. \[radloss\]).
If the jet should become undetectable in an observation like ours after 20–40 yr, i.e., for an energy e-folding decay time of 10–22 yr, we require $f = 4\times 10^{-7}$–$2\times 10^{-6}$, or densities of $(1.2-2.6)\times 10^5$ cm$^{-3}$.
### Cooling by expansion and radiation
If radiative losses are significant during the time span of interest here, then the adiabatic approximation in Sect. \[expansion\] breaks down. On the other hand, if we accept that the hot plasma is subject to expansion as observed for the cooler optical jet, then the treatment of radiative losses in Sect. \[radiation\] is also not sufficient. Both cooling terms must be combined.
We consider the first law of thermodynamics, $$\label{law}
dU + \delta W = \delta Q.$$ Here, $dU$ is the change of the internal energy, $U = 2\alpha N_{\rm e}kT$, where $N_{\rm e}$ is the total number of electrons and $\alpha = 1/(\gamma -1) = 3/2$ for monatomic gas (for simplicity, we adopt a hydrogen plasma with a total number of particles $N = N_{\rm p} + N_{\rm e} = 2N_{\rm e}$; the difference to a realistic plasma is not significant, the electron density in the latter being only about 10% larger than the ion density). Further, $\delta W = pdV$ is the pressure work done by the gas, with a pressure of $p = 2n_{\rm e}kT$. If radiative losses are present, we set $$\delta Q = - n_{\rm e}(t)^2V(t)\Lambda(T) dt$$ where $\Lambda(T)$ is the temperature-dependent cooling function (in erg cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$) and $n_{\rm e}$ is the electron density. Substituting these expressions into Eq. (\[law\]), we find $$\label{energy}
\alpha {dT\over T(t)} + {dV\over V(t)} = -{n_{\rm e}(t)\Lambda(T)\over 2kT(t)}dt.$$ Note that in the absence of radiative losses, Eq. (\[energy\]) is equivalent to equations \[adiabat\] and \[adiabat2\] for an adiabatic process. Radiation makes the problem explicitly time-dependent; the initial electron density, $n_{\rm 0} = n_{\rm e}(t=0)$, is introduced as a free parameter.
-0.2truecm![Cooling behavior of the jet plasma, assuming transverse expansion as observed in the optical jet, and radiative losses for various initial electron densities, $n_0 = n_{\rm e}(t=0)$ at a stellar distance of $r_0 = 5$. The curves are color-coded for initial densities given in the plot. The two curves for $n_0 = 10$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_0 = 100$ cm$^{-3}$ are nearly coincident.[]{data-label="cool"}](8141fig6.ps "fig:"){width="9.0cm"}
We define the observed expansion of a given volume element by the radial distance along the jet axis, $r(t) = r_0 + vt$. Then, $V \propto r^2$ (in the absence of expansion along the jet axis), and $n_{\rm e} \propto V^{-1} \propto r^{-2}$. Substituting these expressions, we find $$\alpha {dT\over T(t)} = -\left[ {2v\over r(t)} + \left({r_0\over r(t)}\right)^2 {n_0\Lambda(T)\over 2kT(t)} \right] dt.$$ We have determined the run of $T$ numerically, starting with $T_0 = 3.4$ MK and with various $n_0$ values, taken to be the initial electron density at $r_0$ = 5 (not yet considering a strict lower limit to $n_0$ - see below). The cooling function was approximated by $\Lambda(T) = 4.83\times 10^{-23} - 9.75\times 10^{-24}~T$ erg cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ ($T$ in MK) for the range of $T = $1–3.5 MK, as found from an integration of the spectral energy distribution for an isothermal plasma in XSPEC, using the vapec code with our adopted element abundances (Sect. \[obs\]). For $T < 1$ MK, we kept $\Lambda$ constant at $4\times 10^{-23}$ erg cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$. We used an average projected jet velocity of 0.225 yr$^{-1}$. The results are shown in Fig. \[cool\]. We see that - in agreement with the estimates for pure radiative losses - the cooling process is dominated by expansion up to densities of several times $10^3$ cm$^{-3}$, i.e., cooling is adiabatic. Only for densities $\ga 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ does radiation matter on time scales of tens of years.
### Implications from jet cooling
Because the electron density in the jet X-ray source is unknown, the importance of radiative cooling cannot be directly assessed. We will, however, discuss the limiting case of low densities. Equation (\[density\]) gives the lowest density for the maximum volume filling factor, $f = 1$, namely $n_{\rm e} = 170$ cm$^{-3}$. This implies an upper limit for the thermal energy of the hot gas of $3n_{\rm e}kTV \approx 8.6\times 10^{39}$ erg in the forward jet alone or $\approx 1.7\times 10^{40}$ erg in both jets together.
The mass outflow rate in the DG Tau jets is $6\times 10^{-8}~M_{\odot}~$yr$^{-1}$ (twice the value given by @lavalley00 for the forward jet) with a characteristic flow velocity of 300 km s$^{-1}$ (e.g., @eisloeffel98 [@dougados00]). The kinetic energy rate is therefore $\dot{M}_{\rm jet}v_{\rm jet}^2/2 \approx 1.7\times 10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The total jet X-ray luminosity is, according to Table \[jet\], $2.4\times 10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$, i.e., a fraction of $1.4\times 10^{-5}$ of the kinetic energy dissipates in X-rays after transformation to thermal energy of the hot plasma.
The jet out to a distance of 5 forms within $\approx 20$ yrs based on the measured proper motion. The mass outflow rate then indicates that $\approx 1.2\times 10^{-6}~M_{\odot}$ are contained in the jets, with a total kinetic energy of $1.1\times 10^{42}$ erg. Therefore, a maximum of 1.6% of the kinetic energy is transformed into thermal energy in the hot plasma.
We can now investigate whether the pressure in the hot gas contributes to the expansion of the jet. The bulk gas observed in optical lines has a density of $10^3$ cm$^{-3} -10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ at distances of a few arcsec from the star, with an ionization fraction approaching unity [@lavalley00]. The temperature is of order $10^4$ K [@hamann94]. The gas pressure is therefore of order $P_{\rm bulk} \approx (3\times 10^{-9}-3\times 10^{-8})$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. For the X-ray emitting gas, we estimate, from the above values, a [*minimum*]{} pressure for $f = 1$, namely $P_{\rm hot} \approx (1.6\times 10^{-7})$ dyn cm$^{-2}$. A filling factor of unity is impossible because only a small fraction of the energy heats the hot plasma while cooler gas predominates. It thus appears that the hot gas pressure is grossly out of equilibrium with its environment, [*contributing to the transverse jet expansion discussed in this section.*]{}
We emphasize that this argumentation holds regardless of the exact filling factor or of the relevance of radiative cooling. It is a minimum-density estimate related to the energy decay in Eq. (\[radloss\]).
Heating the X-ray jets
----------------------
How are the jets heated to the observed temperatures? Most of the conventionally detected emission from jets of pre-main sequence stars comes from low-ionization transitions such as \[O[i]{}\], \[N[ii]{}\], or \[S[ii]{}\], indicating temperatures of no more than a few thousand K. Hotter gas has been identified, e.g., in emission from He[i]{}, \[O[iii]{}\], C[iii]{}, and O[iv]{}, giving evidence for hot winds [@cohen85; @takami02; @dupree05] although some of these claims have been questioned, and maximum wind temperatures of only $2\times 10^4$ K have been derived [@johns07; @kwan07]. Measured shock velocities in the jets of DG Tau are of order 50–100 km s$^{-1}$ [@lavalley00], sufficient to heat gas to a few $10^5$ K but not to the observed 3–5 MK.
A possibility is that a fraction of the jet gas collides directly with the interstellar medium, in which case the shock velocity would be several 100 km s$^{-1}$ and therefore in principle sufficient to heat a fraction of the gas to X-ray emitting temperatures. Alternatively, magnetic heating may be in operation. Magnetic fields are commonly invoked to explain jet acceleration near the star and the disk, and also to collimate jets during their propagation [@blandford82; @uchida85; @koenigl00; @shu00].
Ambipolar diffusion heating results from the separation of charged particles from neutrals across magnetic fields. The process has been described in detail by @safier92, @garcia01a, and @garcia01b. It is most efficient as long as the gas is weakly ionized and therefore not relevant for our hot plasma. Self-consistent jet models converge to jet temperatures of $\approx 10^4$ K due to ambipolar diffusion heating.
Ohmic dissipation of currents operates in highly ionized gas. Initially jet-aligned magnetic fields are wound up due to rotation, producing helical fields which drive currents. Depending on $\nabla\times \mathbf{B}$, sufficient dissipation may be achieved to heat the gas to high temperatures. In order for Ohmic dissipation to become effective, the gas should be pre-heated, which could be achieved by shocks. Direct magnetic-field measurements in the jets of DG Tau would be important to quantitatively assess the heating mechanism, e.g., based on radio synchrotron emission from accelerated electrons [@curiel93; @ray97].
The gas-to-dust ratio in the outer disk of DG Tau
-------------------------------------------------
The hardness difference between the forward and the counter jet is easily explained by the presence of a gas disk that absorbs the softest photons from the counter jet (see Fig. \[model\]). This observation therefore in principle offers the opportunity to measure the gas-to-dust ratio in a circumstellar disk (at distances of a few hundred AU) from [*differential*]{} absorption and extinction measurements. The spectral-fit results summarized in Table \[jet\] show a difference between the gas column densities of the two jets of $\Delta N_{\rm H} \approx 2.7\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, albeit with large errors. For standard assumptions pertaining to the interstellar medium (e.g., dust grain size distribution, atomic gas absorption with “solar” elemental composition), $N_{\rm H} \approx 2\times 10^{21}~A_{\rm V}$ \[cm$^{-2}]$ [@vuong03]. Therefore, $\Delta N_{\rm H}$ corresponds to a visual extinction difference of $\Delta A_{\rm V} \approx 1.4$ mag (with a 1$\sigma$ range of $\approx$ 0.8–2.1 mag). The difference between the visual extinctions of the two jets is also not precisely known; @lavalley97 estimate a difference of about 3 mag at a distance of 1 from the star, which would suggest nearly standard gas-to-dust ratios when combined with $\Delta N_{\rm H}$, while @pyo03 propose a difference of as much as 14.2 mag at the same position. Better determinations of differential gas absorption and visual extinction are needed; we also note that most of the jet-related X-ray counts were collected from larger stellar distances (2–5) than the distances to which the $\Delta A_{\rm V}$ values refer.
The hard stellar source
-----------------------
Because the hard component occasionally flares, in one case being preceded by U band emission as in solar and stellar flares [@guedel07b], it is most straightforwardly interpreted as coronal or “magnetospheric”. The high temperatures are also not consistent with shock heating given gas flow velocities of no more than a few 100 km s$^{-1}$ (as observed in the jets, or inferred from free-fall onto the stellar surface).
The hard component of the DG Tau point source is unusually strongly absorbed, with $N_{\rm H} \approx 2\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$. From the stellar extinction, $A_{\rm V} = 1.5-3$ mag (@guedel07b and references therein), we expect $N_{\rm H} \approx (3-6)\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. We therefore find from Table \[spec\], that the dust content in the accretion streams is depleted by factors of 3–6.
The excess photoelectric absorption requires the presence of gas that is depleted of dust in order to suppress optical extinction. One possibility are relatively cool stellar or disk winds. However, as they expand to large stellar distances, they would also affect the jet components and the soft “stellar” component unless these were placed very far from the star. Also, it is not clear why such winds would be dust-depleted, or if they initially are, why they would not form dust.
Dust is destroyed at several stellar radii due to stellar irradiation; for DG Tau in particular, @guedel07b estimated the dust sublimation radius at (7–10)$R_*$, similar to the corotation radius (see below). The region inside the corotation radius is thought to be dominated by magnetic accretion. The excess absorption is thus most easily explained by the infalling, dust-depleted massive accretion streams. These observations therefore provide indirect evidence for dust-depleted accretion streams that absorb the X-ray emission from the underlying corona.
We now show that the amount of photoelectric absorption is plausible. Estimating the gas column density along the line of sight through the accretion streams to the stellar corona requires knowledge of the accretion geometry, which is not available. As a conservative limit, we assume spherically symmetric infall. The corotation radius, at which the mass begins to accelerate toward the star, can be derived from Kepler’s law: $$a_{\rm corot} = \left( {GM_*P^2\over 4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3} = 9.2\times 10^{11}~{\rm cm} = 5.6R_*$$ where $M_* = 0.91M_{\odot}$ is the stellar mass [@briceno02], $R = 2.46R_{\odot}$ is the stellar radius [@guedel07a], $P = 6.3$ d is the rotation period [@bouvier93], and $G = 6.673\times 10^{-8}$ dyn cm$^2$ g$^{-2}$ is the constant of gravitation. For a semi-circular funnel stream guided by magnetic fields, the highest elevation is reached midway between the corotation radius and the stellar surface, at $r = 3.3R_*$. There, the stream’s velocity, $v_{\rm in} = 1.3\times 10^7$ cm s$^{-1}$ if free-fall acceleration is assumed (as an upper limit) starting from the corotation radius, is about 40% of the fall velocity at the stellar surface, and the ionization degree of the gas may still be moderate. We note that the jet-axis inclination and by inference the most likely stellar rotation-axis inclination is $\approx$38 deg [@eisloeffel98]. For an order-of-magnitude estimate, we assume spherical infall at this radius, over a radial distance of 1$R_*$. The mass accretion rate in this case is, for spherical symmetry $$\dot{M} \approx 4\pi r^2 n_{\rm H}m_{\rm p}v_{\rm in} \approx 8.9\times 10^7 n_{\rm H}$$ where $n_{\rm H}$ is the hydrogen number density, and $m_{\rm p}$ is the proton mass; we assume a mean mass per particle of $m_{\rm p}$. The observed accretion rate is $\dot{M} = (10^{-7.34}-10^{-6.13})M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@white01; @white04]. We thus find $n_{\rm H} \approx 3.3\times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}-5.3\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. Integrated over one stellar radius, the absorption column density is $N_{\rm H} \approx 5.7\times 10^{21} - 9.1\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, in agreement with the measured values of order $2\times 10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$.
More confined or slower accretion streams will produce higher densities, while ionized gas will reduce photoelectric absorption. We emphasize that the high accretion rate is crucial to obtain high $N_{\rm H}$ in the above estimates. All TAX sources reported before [@guedel07b] are indeed very strongly accreting T Tauri stars.
The soft “stellar” source
-------------------------
The soft emission commonly seen in X-ray spectra from other T Tauri stars, formed at a few MK as part of a wide distribution of plasma in the magnetic corona (e.g., @preibisch05), is not detected here but is absorbed, leaving only a “hard” coronal component above 1.5 keV in our spectra. In contrast, we see a very strong, separate soft component that is not related to the coronal spectrum as judged from its very different absorption and the absence of variability during flares seen in the coronal component at higher photon energies [@guedel07b]. The strong absorption of the coronal X-ray component makes an origin of the soft [*spectral*]{} emission from a location close to the stellar surface unlikely. In fact, our new observations suggest that the gas absorption of the soft X-ray component, $N_{\rm H} = 1.3~(0.7-2.4)\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (90% error range; Table \[spec\]), is [*lower*]{} than the absorption suggested from the visual extinction to the star, $N_{\rm H}(A_{\rm V})
\approx (3-6)\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (based on $A_{\rm V} \approx 1.5-3$ mag, see @white01, @white04, @muzerolle98, and @hartigan95). A likely origin of these X-rays is the base of the forward jet. Such an origin is suggested by i) the unusually soft emission not usually seen in T Tauri stars [@guedel07a], ii) the low $N_{\rm H,1}$, and iii) the explicit evidence for jets in the [*Chandra*]{} image. Further, $N_{\rm H,1}$ and $kT_1$ agree with the corresponding values of the forward jet (Table \[jet\]). We therefore suggest that the jets continue to be X-ray sources to smaller stellar distances, producing an order of magnitude more soft X-rays within the [*Chandra*]{} point-spread function of $\approx 2\arcsec$ radius than outside this radius.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We have unambiguously detected a bipolar X-ray jet associated with the strongly accreting classical T Tauri star DG Tau. This is the first bipolar X-ray jet reported from a pre-main sequence star. The jet is extended at [*Chandra’s*]{} spatial resolution and can be followed down into the PSF of DG Tau itself. The jets are roughly symmetric as far as length and structure are concerned, reaching out to about 5 from the star.
The X-ray emitting gas of the jet is relatively cool, $T \approx 3.4$ MK, which however still poses a problem for our understanding of the heating mechanism. Shock velocities in this jet are too small to heat gas to such temperatures. Ohmic heating by magnetic-field driven, dissipating currents may be an alternative.
We find various gas absorption columns toward the four X-ray components detected in the DG Tau system. The soft stellar component shows $N_{\rm H}$ smaller than the value derived from the stellar visual extinction assuming standard gas-to-dust ratios. This suggests that the soft spectral emission originates from a region “in front” of the star, i.e., we identify the soft component with X-ray emission similar to that from the forward jet but produced too close to the star to be resolved in the [*Chandra*]{} images.
In contrast, the counter jet suggests stronger absorption, which is expected because its X-rays traverse the extended outer gas disk. A determination of the gas-to-dust ratio is therefore in principle possible by measuring the [*differential*]{} absorption and extinction of the two jets. We have succeeded in determining the difference in $N_{\rm H}$ although not the absolute values of each column density. The gas column of the intervening extended disk structure is relatively small ($2.7\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$), corresponding to 1.5–2 magnitudes of visual extinction for standard gas-to-dust ratios. An extinction difference of 3 mag has been reported in a previous paper [@lavalley97], i.e., the outer-disk composition is nearly compatible with interstellar gas-to-dust ratios. However, more accurate determination both of the absorption difference and the visual extinction difference is needed.
Finally, the hard component in the stellar spectrum is attributed to a (flaring) corona. The excess photoelectric absorption is ascribed to accretion gas streams that are dust depleted because the dust destruction radius is similar to the radius of the inner disk edge, thought to be close to the corotation radius.
Why is the detection of X-ray jets important? The combined power of the resolved jets and the unresolved soft spectral component is of order $10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$ or similar to the X-ray output of a relatively X-ray faint T Tauri star. This emission is distributed above the inner accretion disk. It is therefore an important contributor to X-ray heating and ionization of gaseous disk surfaces [@glassgold04], a role that has been studied earlier in the case of active galactic nuclei (in the context of the “lamppost model”, see, e.g., @nayakshin01). We speculate that protostellar jets in general develop the same kind of jet X-ray emission, but these sources remain undetected close to the star because of strong photoelectric absorption. In those cases, jet X-rays may act as a dispersed ionization source to affect a larger volume of gas than the stellar coronal source alone.
M. A. acknowledges support from a Swiss National Science Foundation Professorship (PP002–110504). M. A. and S. S. acknowledge support by NASA through CXC award SAO GO6-7003. The CXC X-ray Observatory Center is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
Anders, E., & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 53, 197 Anglada, G. 1995, RevMexAA, 1, 67 Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in ASP Conf. Ser. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. G. Jacoby & J. Barnes (San Francisco: ASP), 17 Bacciotti, F., Mundt, R., Ray, T. P., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, L49 Bacciotti, F., Ray, T. P., Mundt, R., Eislöffel, J., & Solf, J. 2002, ApJ, 576, 222 Bachiller, R. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 111 Bally, J., Feigelson, E., & Reipurth, B. 2003, ApJ, 584, 843 Blandford, R. D., & Payne, D. G. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 883 Bouvier, J., Cabrit, S., Fernandez, M., Martín, E. L., & Matthews, J. M. 1993, A&A, 272, 176 Briceño, C., Luhman, K. L., Hartmann, L., Stauffer, J. R., Kirkpatrick, J. D. 2002, ApJ, 580, 317 Carter, C., Karovska, M., Jerius, D., Glotfelty, K., & Beikman, S. 2003, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII; eds. H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook, 477 Cash, W. 1979, ApJ, 228, 939 Cohen, M., & Fuller, G. A. 1985, ApJ, 296, 620 Curiel, S., Rodríguez, L. F., Moran, J. M., & Cantó, J. 1993, ApJ, 415, 191 Dougados, C., Cabrit, S., Lavalley, C., & Ménard, F. 2000, A&A, 357, L61 Ducourant, C., Teixeira, R., Périé, J. P., et al. 2005, A&A, 438, 769 Dupree, A. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Smith, G. H., & Strader, J. 2005, ApJ, 625, L131 Dutrey, A., Guilloteau, S., Duvert, G., et al. 1996, A&A, 309, 493 Eislöffel, J., & Mundt, R. 1998, AJ, 115, 1554 Favata, F., Fridlund, C. V. M., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., & Kaas, A. A. 2002, A&A, 386, 204 Garcia, P. J. V., Ferreira, J., Cabrit, S., & Binette, L. 2001a, A&A, 377, 589 Garcia, P. J. V., Cabrit, S.m Ferreira, J., & Binette, L. 2001b, A&A, 377, 609 Glassgold, A. E., Najita, J., & Igea, J. 2004, ApJ, 615, 972 Grosso, N., Feigelson, E. D., Getman, K. V., et al. 2006, A&A, 448, L29 Güdel, M., Skinner, S. L., Briggs, K. R., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, L53 Güdel, M., Briggs, K. R., Arzner, K., et al. 2007a, A&A, 468, 343 Güdel, M., Telleschi, A., Audard, M., et al. 2007b, A&A, 468, 515 Hamann, F. 1994, ApJS, 93, 485 Hartigan, P., Edwards, S., & Ghandour, L. 1995, ApJ, 452, 736 Johns-Krull, C. J., & Herczeg, G. J. 2007, ApJ, 655, 345 Hirth, G. A., Mundt, R., & Solf, J. 1997, A&AS, 126, 437 Kitamura, Y., Kawabe, R., & Saito, M. 1996a, ApJ, 457, 277 Kitamura, Y., Kawabe, R., & Saito, M. 1996b, ApJ, 465, L137 Königl, A., & Pudritz, R. E. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 759 Kwan, J., Edwards, S., & Fischer, W. 2007, ApJ, 657, 897 Lavalley, C., Cabrit, S., Dougados, C., Ferruit, P., & Bacon, R. 1997, A&A, 327, 671 Lavalley-Fouquet, C., Cabrit, S., & Dougados, C. 2000, A&A, 356, L41 Leinert, C., Haas, M., Mundt, R., Richichi, A., & Zinnecker, H. 1991, A&A, 250, 407 Muzerolle, J., Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N., 1998, AJ, 116, 2965 Nayakshin, S., & Kallman, T. R. 2001, ApJ, 546, 406 Pravdo, S. H., Feigelson, E. D., Garmire, G., et al. 2001, Nature, 413, 708 Pravdo, S. H., Tsuboi, Y., & Maeda, Y. 2004, ApJ, 605, 259 Pravdo, S. H., & Tsuboi, Y. 2005, ApJ, 626, 272 Preibisch, T., Kim, Y.-C., Favata, F., et al. 2005, ApJS, 160, 401 Pyo, T-S.,Kobayashi, N., Hayashi, M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 590, 340 Raga, A. C., Noriega-Crespo, A., & Velázquez, P. 2002, ApJ, 576, L149 Ray, T. P., Muxlow, T. W. B., Axon, D. J., et al. 1997, Nature, 385, 415 Reipurth, B., & Bally, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 403 Rodríguez, L. F. 1995, RevMexAA, 1, 10 Safier, P. N. 1992, ApJ, 392, 492 Shu, F. H., Najita, J. R., Shang, H., Li, Z.-Y. 2000, Protostars and Planets IV (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 789 Solf, J., & Böhm, K. H. 1993, ApJ, 430, L31 Stapelfeldt, K., Burrows, C. J., Krist, J. E., & the WFPC2 Science Team. 1997, in Herbig-Haro Flows and the Birth of Stars, IAU Symposium No. 182, Ed. B. Reipurth & C. Bertout (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 355 Takami, M., Chrysostomou, A., Bailey, J., et al. 2002, ApJ, 568, L53 Telleschi, A., Güdel, M., Briggs, K. R., Audard, M., & Scelsi, L.2007a, A&A, 468, 443 Telleschi, A., Güdel, M., Briggs, K. R., Audard, M., & Palla, F. 2007b, A&A, 468, 425 Testi, L., Bacciotti, F., Sargent, A. I., Ray, T. P., & Eislöffel, J. 2002, A&A, 349, L31 Tsujimoto, M., Koyama, K., Kobayashi, N., et al. 2004, PASJ, 56, 341 Uchida, Y., & Shibata, K. 1985, PSAJ, 37, 515 Vuong, M. H., Montmerle, T., Grosso, N., et al. 2003, A&A, 408, 581 White, R. J., & Ghez, A. M. 2001, ApJ, 556, 265 White, R. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, ApJ, 616, 998
[^1]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/guides/acis\_data.html; CIAO version 3.3.0.1 was used
[^2]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/proposer/POG/html/
[^3]: The adopted abundances are, with respect to the solar photospheric abundances given by @anders89: C = 0.45, N = 0.788, O = 0.426, Ne = 0.832, Mg = 0.263, Al = 0.5, Si = 0.309, S = 0.417, Ar = 0.55, Ca = 0.195, Fe = 0.195, Ni =0.195.
[^4]: http://space.mit.edu/CXC/MARX: version 4.2.0 was used
[^5]: The half-energy radius of the point response function of an ACIS-S on-axis source is about 0$\farcs$41 or $\approx$ 1 pixel, and the 80% encircled-power radius is $\approx 0\farcs 7$ or nearly 2 pixels (see [*Chandra*]{} Proposers’ Observatory Guide v.9). We also simulated the PSF in the [*Chandra Ray Tracer*]{} (ChART; @carter03) software (http://cxc.harvard.edu/soft/ChaRT/cgi-bin/www-saosac.cgi) for the position of DG Tau and the boresight parameters of ObsID 4487 and 7246. The PSF was found to be compact, its core being very slightly elongated along a SE-NW axis, as can also be seen in Figs. \[jetim\] and \[sim\]. There is no extension in the directions of the jets (SW-NE).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that, in the first Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}$, an entire locally Lipschitz intrinsic graph admitting vanishing first variation of its sub-Riemannian area and non-negative second variation must be an intrinsic plane, i.e., a coset of a two dimensional subgroup of ${{\mathbb{H}}}$. Moreover two examples are given for stressing result’s sharpness.'
address:
- |
School of Mathematics\
University of Birmingham\
B152TT Birmingham\
United Kingdom
- 'Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Trento, Via Sommarive 14, 38123 Trento, Italy'
author:
- Sebastiano Nicolussi
- Francesco Serra Cassano
bibliography:
- './2018-09-06-BernsteinLip-BIB.bib'
title: The Bernstein problem for Lipschitz intrinsic graphs in the Heisenberg group
---
Introduction
============
Geometric Measure Theory on sub-Riemannian Carnot groups is a thriving research area where, despite many deep results, fundamental questions still remain open [@TesiPansu; @MR979599; @MR676380; @MR1312686; @MR1404326; @MR1823840; @MR1871966; @MR2312336; @MR3642646; @MR3587666]. In this paper we deal with the Bernstein problem in the sub-Riemannian first Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ [@MR2333095; @MR2455341; @MR2584184; @MR2472175; @MR2648078; @MR2609016; @MR3406514]. We characterize minimal entire intrinsic graphs of Lipschitz functions. We also discuss examples with Sobolev and $C^1$-intrinsic regularity.
The Lie algebra of the Heisenberg group is spanned by three vector fields $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, whose only non-trivial bracket relation is $[X,Y]=Z$. The vector fields $X$ and $Y$ are called *horizontal* and they have a special role in the geometry and analysis on ${{\mathbb{H}}}$.
Suitable notions of sub-Riemannian perimeter and area have been introduced on ${{\mathbb{H}}}$, see [@TesiPansu; @MR1312686; @MR1404326; @MR1871966] and Section \[sec06152116\] below for details. In the theory of perimeter that has been developed, regular surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ play the same role as $C^1$-hyersurfaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. A *regular surface* in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ is the level set of a function $F:{{\mathbb{H}}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ with distributional derivatives $XF$ and $YF$ that are continuous and not vanishing simultaneously. As an example of the difficulties encountered in the sub-Riemannian setting, we remark that there are regular surfaces in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ with Euclidean Hausdorff dimension strictly exceeding the topological dimension [@MR2124590].
The Bernstein problem asks to characterize area-minimizing hypersurfaces that are the graph of a function. Two types of graphs in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ have been studied so far: *$T$-graphs* and *intrinsic graphs*. The former are graphs along the vector field $Z$ (also called $T$ in the literature): if $f:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$, then $\Gamma_f^T=\{(x,y,f(x,y)):(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$ is the $T$-graph of $f$ in coordinates. The latter are graphs along a linear combination of $X$ and $Y$, which can be chosen to be $X$ up to isomorphism: if $f:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$, then $\Gamma_f=\{(0,y,t)*(f(y,t),0,0):(y,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$ is the $X$-graph of $f$ in exponential coordinates, where $*$ denotes the group operation of ${{\mathbb{H}}}$.
We say that a function, or its graph, is *stationary* if the first variation of the area functional vanishes. We call them *stable* if they are stationary and the second variation of the area functional is non-negative. See Section \[sec06152116\] for details in the case of intrinsic graphs.
The area functional for $T$-graphs is convex [@TesiPansu; @MR1312686; @MR2043961; @MR2225631; @MR2262784; @MR2481053; @MR3276118]. Hence, stationary $T$-graphs are local minima. Moreover, any function whose $T$-graph has finite sub-Riemannian area has (Euclidean) bounded variation [@MR3276118].
The Bernstein problem for $T$ graphs of functions in $C^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ has been intensively studied [@2002math......9065G; @MR2165405; @MR2584184; @MR2609016]. Under this regularity assumption, a complete characterization has been given [@MR2584184]: $\Gamma_f^T$ is area-minimizing if and only if there are $a$, $b$ and $c$ real such that
- $f(x,y) = ax+by+c$, or
- $f(x,y)= xy +ax+b$ (up to a rotation around the $Z$-axis).
Beyond $C^2$-regularity, there are plenty of examples of minimal graphs that are not $C^2$ [@MR2448649]. We also recall that there are examples of *discontinuous* functions defined on a half plane whose $T$-subgraph is perimeter minimizing, see [@MR3276118 §3.4].
The regular (but Euclidean fractal) surface constructed in [@MR2124590] is not a $T$-graph, but it is an intrinsic graph. In fact, all regular surfaces are locally intrinsic graphs [@MR1871966]. When the intrinsic graph of a function $f:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is a regular surface, we write $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and we say that $f$ is $C^1$-intrinsic, or of class ${\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}$. An important class of intrinsic graphs are *intrinsic planes*, i.e., cosets of two-dimensional Lie subgroups of ${{\mathbb{H}}}$. Their Lie algebra contains $Z$ and for this reason they are sometimes called vertical planes. The tangents (as blow-ups at one point) of regular surfaces are intrinsic planes [@MR1871966]. Intrinsic planes are area minimizers [@MR2333095].
The Bernstein problem for intrinsic graphs has been also intensively studied [@MR2333095; @MR2455341; @MR2584184; @MR2472175; @MR2648078; @MR3406514]. In this case, the area functional is not convex and there are stationary graphs that are not area minimizers [@MR2472175]. So, any characterization of area minimizers uses both first and second variations of the area functional. The scheme of a Bernstein conjecture for intrinsic graphs is: “If $f\in{\mathcal{X}}$ and $\Gamma_f$ is area minimizer, then $\Gamma_f$ is an intrinsic plane”, where $\mathcal X$ is a class of functions ${\mathbb{R}}^2\to {\mathbb{R}}$. If $\mathcal X=C^0({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap W^{1,1}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, the conjecture is false [@MR2455341]. To our knowledge, the most general positive result is for $\mathcal X=C^1({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ in [@MR3406514]. We improve this result by showing that the conjecture is true for $\mathcal X=\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
\[thm06110146\] If $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is stable, then $\Gamma_f$ is an intrinsic plane.
Our proof follows the strategy of [@MR2333095]: We will make a change of variables in the formulas for the first and second variation using so-called Lagrangian coordinates. With this in mind, we have to show that Lagrangian coordinates exist in the first place, see Theorem \[existLpLip\], and then take care of all regularity issues involved in the change of variables. As an intermediate step in the proof of Theorem \[thm06110146\], we obtain a regularity result for stationary intrinsic graphs with Lipschitz regularity [@MR2481053; @MR2583494; @MR2774306]. We denote by $\nabla^f$ the vector field ${\partial}_y+f(y,t){\partial}_t$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, see Section \[sec06152116\].
\[thm09012208\] Let $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ open. If $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)$ is stationary, then $\nabla^ff\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)$ and $\nabla^ff$ is constant along the integral curves of $\nabla^f$. In particular, $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}(\omega)$.
This theorem is an extension of [@MR2583494 Theorem 1.3] because we are not assuming $f$ to be a viscosity solution of the minimal surface equation, but just a distributional solution. The example that proves Theorem \[thm09022205\] below will also show that there are distributional solutions that are not viscosity solutions in the sense of [@MR2583494 Definition 1.1], see Remark \[rem09042024\]. Once the proof for the Lipschitz case is understood, we investigate the sharpness of Theorem \[thm06110146\] with respect to the Lipschitz regularity of $f$ in two examples. The first example is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ except for one point, it is stable but $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane. See Figure \[fig09030019\] at page for a picture of $\Gamma_f$.
\[thm09022205\] There is $f\in Lip_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\{0\})\cap W^{1,p}_{\rm loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ with $1\le\,p<\,3$ that is stable, but $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane.
The second example fails to be Lipschitz on a Cantor set, but it is $C^1$-intrinsic. See Figure \[fig09030022\] at page for a picture of $\Gamma_f$.
\[thm06102321\] There is $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus(\{0\}\times C))$, where $C\subset[0,1]$ is the Cantor set, that is stable, but $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane.
For both examples of Theorem \[thm09022205\] and \[thm06102321\], we don’t know whether their intrinsic graphs are area minimizing.
We conclude by recalling some open problems in geometric measure theory on ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ and higher Heisenberg groups. First, the Bernstein conjecture with $\mathcal X={\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is still open. Second, a regularity theorem for perimeter minimizers is still missing [@MR3363670; @MR3388885; @MR3682744; @MR3397002]. Third, if we don’t assume that the intrinsic graph has locally finite Euclidean area, then the variational formulas we used are not valid anymore and known alternative variations haven’t found useful applications yet [@MR3558526; @MR3753176; @MR3276118].
Plan of the paper {#plan-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
-----------------
In Section \[sec06152116\] we present a few preliminaries notions and notations. In Section \[sec09022311\], we prove that Lagrangian parametrizations exist for locally Lipschitz functions. Section \[sec09022316\] is devoted to the characterization of stationary locally Lipschitz intrinsic graphs and the proof of Theorem \[thm09012208\] is presented. Section \[sec09022317\] concerns the consequences of stability, and thus the proof of Theorem \[thm06110146\]. In Section \[sec09022318\] we study a class of stationary surfaces, called graphical strips, with low regularity. Sections \[sec11241414\] and \[sec09011226\] are devoted to the examples of Theorems \[thm09022205\] and \[thm06102321\], respectively.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
This paper benefited from fruitful discussions with M. Ritoré: The authors want to thank him.
Preliminaries and notation {#sec06152116}
==========================
The Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ is represented in this paper as ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ endowed with the group operation $$(x,y,z)(x',y',z') = \left(x+x',y+y',z+z'+\frac12(xy'-x'y) \right) .$$ In this coordinates, an orthonormal frame of the horizontal distribution is $$X = {\partial}_x - \frac{y}{2} {\partial}_z,
\qquad
Y = {\partial}_y + \frac{x}{2} {\partial}_z .$$ The *sub-Riemannian perimeter* of a measurable set $G\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ in an open set $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ is $$P_{sR}(G;\Omega) = \sup\left\{ \int_G (X\psi_1+Y\psi_2) {\,\mathrm{d}}L^3 : \psi_1,\psi_2\in C^\infty_c(\Omega),\ \psi_1^2+\psi_2^2\le 1 \right\} ,$$ where $X\psi_1+Y\psi_2$ is the divergence of the vector field $\psi_1X+\psi_2Y$. A set $G$ is a *perimeter minimizer* in $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ if for every $F\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ measurable with $(G\setminus F)\cup (F\setminus G){\Subset}\Omega$, it holds $P_{sR}(G;\Omega) \le P_{sR}(F;\Omega)$. A set $G$ is a *locally perimeter minimizer* in $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ if every $p\in\Omega$ has a neighborhood $\Omega'\subset\Omega$ such that $G$ is perimeter minimizer in $\Omega'$.
Given a function $f:\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$, its intrinsic graph $\Gamma_f\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ is the set of points $$(0,y,t)(f(y,t),0,0) = \left( f(y,t) , y , t-\frac12 y f(y,t) \right),$$ for $(y,t)\in\omega$. The *intrinsic gradient* of $f$ is $\nabla^ff$, where $\nabla^f={\partial}_y+f{\partial}_t$ is a vector field on $\omega$. The function $\nabla^ff:\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is well defined when $f\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\omega)$. We say that $f$ is *$C^1$-intrinsic*, or $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}(\omega)$, if $f\in C^0(\omega)$ and ${\nabla}^ff\in C^0(\omega)$. We say that $f$ is a *weak Lagrangian solution of $\Delta^ff=0$* on $\omega$ if for every $p\in\omega$ there is at least one integral curve of ${\nabla}^f$ passing through $p$ along which ${\nabla}^ff$ is constant. See [@MR3753176] for further discussion about this definition.
The *graph area functional* is defined, for every $E\subset \omega$ measurable, by $${\mathscr{A}}_f(E) := \int_E \sqrt{1+(\nabla^ff)^2} {\,\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal{L}}^2 .$$ Such area functional descends from the perimeter measure of the graph, that is, ${\mathscr{A}}_f(E) = P_{sR}(G_f\cap (E\cdot{\mathbb{R}}))$, where $G_f:=\{(0,y,t)\cdot(\xi,0,0):\xi\le f(y,t)\}$ is the subgraph of $f$, and $E\cdot{\mathbb{R}}=\{(0,y,t)\cdot(\xi,0,0):\xi\in{\mathbb{R}},\ (y,t)\in E\}$. A function $f\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\omega)$ is *(locally) area minimizing* if $G_f$ is (locally) perimeter minimizing in $\omega\cdot{\mathbb{R}}$.
We say that $f\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\omega)$ is *stationary* if for all $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\omega)$ $$I_f(\varphi) := \left.\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}}{{\,\mathrm{d}}\epsilon}{\mathscr{A}}_{f+\epsilon\varphi}({{\rm spt}}(\varphi))\right|_{\epsilon=0} = 0 .$$ We say that $f\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\omega)$ is *stable* if it is stationary and for all $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\omega)$ $$II_f(\varphi) := \left.\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}^2}{{\,\mathrm{d}}\epsilon^2}{\mathscr{A}}_{f+\epsilon\varphi}({{\rm spt}}(\varphi))\right|_{\epsilon=0} \ge 0 .$$ The functionals $I_f$ and $II_f$ are called *first* and *second variation* of $f$, respectively. It is clear that, if $f$ is a local area minimizer, then it is stable.
By [@MR2455341 Remark 3.9], if $f\in W^{1,1}_{loc}(\omega)$, for some $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ open, then $$\begin{aligned}
I_f(\varphi) &= - \int_{\omega} \frac{{\nabla}^ff}{\sqrt{1+({\nabla}^ff)^2}} ({\nabla}^f\varphi+{\partial}_tf\,\varphi) {\,\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal L}^2 , \\
II_f(\varphi) &=\int_{\omega}
\left[ \frac{({\nabla}^f\varphi+{\partial}_tf\,\varphi)^2}{\left( 1+({\nabla}^ff)^2 \right)^{3/2}}
+ \frac{{\nabla}^ff}{\sqrt{1+({\nabla}^ff)^2}} {\partial}_t(\varphi^2)\right]
{\,\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal L}^2\end{aligned}$$ for all $\varphi\in C^\infty_c(\omega)$. Notice that the formal adjoint of ${\nabla}^f$ is $({\nabla}^f)^*\varphi=-{\nabla}^f\varphi-{\partial}_tf\,\varphi$. By means of the triangle and the Hölder inequalities, one can easily show the following lemma.
\[lem08261641\] Let $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ open, then $I_f(\varphi)$ and $II_f(\varphi)$ are continuous in the $W^{1,2}_{loc}$ topology for $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}(\omega)$ or $\varphi\in W^{1,2}_{0}(\omega)$ fixed, that is,
- If $f_n\to f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}(\omega)$ and $\varphi\in W^{1,2}_{0}(\omega)$ with ${{\rm spt}}(\varphi)\Subset\omega$, then $\lim_{n\to\infty} I_{f_n}(\varphi)=I_f(\varphi)$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty} II_{f_n}(\varphi)=II_f(\varphi)$.
- If $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}(\omega)$, $\varphi_n\to \varphi$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}(\omega)$ and there exists $\omega'{\Subset}\omega$ with $\varphi_n\in C^\infty_c(\omega')$ for each $n$, then $\lim_{n\to\infty} I_{f}(\varphi_n)=I_f(\varphi)$ and $\lim_{n\to\infty} II_{f}(\varphi_n)=II_f(\varphi)$.
Existence and regularity of Lagrangian homeomorphisms {#sec09022311}
=====================================================
Definition of Lagrangian parametrization
----------------------------------------
Roughly speaking, a Lagrangian parametrization of $\nabla^f$ is a continuous ordered selection of integral curves of the vector field $\nabla^f$ on $\omega$ with respect to a parameter $\tau$, which covers all of $\omega$. For $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we set $$\omega_{1,r}:=\left\{y\in{\mathbb{R}}:\, (y,r)\in \omega\right\}
\qquad\text{ and }\qquad
\omega_{2,r}:=\left\{t\in{\mathbb{R}}:\, (r,t)\in \omega\right\} .$$
\[Lagrpar\] Let $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be an open set and $f:\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$ a continuous function. A *Lagrangian parameterization* associated with the vector field $\nabla^f$ is a continuous map $\Psi:\,\tilde\omega\to\omega$, with $\tilde\omega$ open, that satisfies
- $\Psi(\tilde\omega)=\,\omega$;
- $\Psi(s,\tau)= (s,\chi(s,\tau))$ for a suitable continuous function $\chi:\,\tilde\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and, for every $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, the function $\tilde\omega_{2,s}\ni \tau\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)$ is nondecreasing;
- for every $ \tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$, for every $(s_1,s_2)\subset\tilde\omega_{1,\tau}$, the curve $(s_1,s_2)\ni s\mapsto\Psi(s,\tau)$ is absolutely continuous and it is an integral curve of $\nabla^f$, that is $$ \partial_s\Psi(s,\tau)=\nabla^f(\Psi(s,\tau))\quad{\rm a.e.\ }s\in(s_1,s_2).$$
Equivalently, condition (L.3) can be rephrased as: for every $ \tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$, for every $(s_1,s_2)\subset\tilde\omega_{1,\tau}$, we have ${\partial}_s\chi(s,\tau)=f(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, for almost every $s\in(s_1,s_2)$.
A Lagrangian parameterization $\Psi:\,\tilde\omega\to\omega$, is said to be [*absolutely continuous*]{} if it satisfies the Lusin (N) condition, that is, for every $E\subset\tilde\omega$, if ${\mathcal{L}}^2(E)=\,0$ then ${\mathcal{L}}^2(\Psi(E))=\,0$. A [*Lagrangian homeomorphism*]{} $\Psi:\,\tilde\omega\to\omega$, is an injective Lagrangian parameterization. By the Invariance of Domain Theorem, the injectivity implies that a Lagrangian homeomorphism is indeed a homeomorphism.
Definition \[Lagrpar\] is an equivalent version of the definition of [*Lagrangian parameterization to function $f:\,\omega\to{\mathbb{R}}$*]{}, introduced in [@MR3400438] and then extended in [@MR3537830], for studying different notions of continuous weak solutions for balance laws.
\[Ncondequiv\] Observe that, by Fubini’s theorem, a Lagrangian parameterization $\Psi:\,\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,\tau)= (s,\chi(s,\tau))$ (associated with a vector field $\nabla^f$) is absolutely continuous if and only if for each $\mathcal L^2$-negligible set $E\subset\tilde\omega$, we have that $$\mathcal L^1(\chi(s,E_{2,s}))=\,0\quad\mathcal L^1\text{-a.e.~}s\in{\mathbb{R}}\,. \qedhere$$
\[rem05122131\] Lagrangian parametrizations are not unique: If $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ is a (absolutely continuous) Lagrangian parametrization and $\rho:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is an absolutely continuous homeomorphism with $\rho'>0$, then $(s,\tau)\mapsto (s,\chi(s,\rho(\tau)))$ is again a (absolutely continuous) Lagrangian parametrization.
Rules for the change of variables
---------------------------------
A relevant feature of an absolutely continuous Lagrangian parameterization associated with the vector field $\nabla^f$ is that we can use it for a change of variables. This is the essential tool of the Lagrangian approach to the equation of minimal surfaces equation.
When a homeomorphism $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$ is fixed, we will denote by $\tilde u$ or $(u)^{\widetilde{ }}$ the composition $u\circ\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\bar{\mathbb{R}}$ with a function $u:\omega\to\bar{\mathbb{R}}$.
One can prove the following area formula for absolutely continuous Lagrangian parameterizations:
\[lemafLp\] Let $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,{\tau})=\,(s,\chi(s,{\tau}))$, be an absolutely continuous Lagrangian parameterisation associated with a vector field $\nabla^f$. Let $\eta:\omega\to\bar{\mathbb{R}}$ be a Borel summable function. Then $$\int_{\tilde\omega}\tilde\eta(s,\tau) \,{\partial}_{\tau}\chi(s,\tau)\,{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}{\tau}=\,\int_\omega\eta(y,t)\,{\,\mathrm{d}}y{\,\mathrm{d}}t\,.$$
Let us begin to observe that $$\label{chiinW11}
\chi\in W^{1,1}_{\rm loc}(\tilde\omega)\,,$$ and $$\label{dertauchinonneg}
\partial_{\tau}\chi(s,{\tau})\ge\,0\quad \mathcal L^2\text{-a.e.~}(s,{\tau})\in\tilde\omega\,.$$ Indeed, by Definiton \[Lagrpar\] (L.3), it follows that, for each ${\tau}\in{\mathbb{R}}$, for every $(s_1,s_2)\subset\tilde\omega_{1,\tau}$, $$\label{chi_tauac}
(s_1,s_2)\ni s\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)\text{ is absolutely continuous.}$$ On the other hand, by Remark \[Ncondequiv\], it follows that for a.e. $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, for every $({\tau}_1,{\tau}_2)\subset\tilde\omega_{2,s}$, $({\tau}_1,{\tau}_2)\ni \tau\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)$ satisfies the Lusin (N) condition, being also continuous and non decreasing, we can also infer (see, for instance, [@gariepy1995modern Theorem 7.45] or [@MR3729481]) $$\label{chi_sac}
({\tau}_1,{\tau}_2)\ni \tau\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)\text{ is absolutely continuous and non decreasing.}$$ By and and applying a well-known result about Sobolev spaces (see [@MR3409135 §4.9.2]), and follow. By and since $\Psi$ satisfies the Lusin (N)-condition, we can the area formula for Sobolev mappings (see, for instance, [@MR3184742 Theorem A.35]), that is $$\label{areaformula}
\int_{\tilde\omega}\eta(\Psi(s,{\tau}))\,|J_\Psi(s,{\tau})|\,dsd{\tau}=\,\int_{\Psi(\tilde\omega)}\eta(y,t)\,N(\Psi,\tilde\omega,(y,t))\,dydt$$ where the multiplicity function $N(\Psi,\tilde\omega,(y,t))$ of $\Psi$ is defined as the number of preimages of $(y,t)$ under $\Psi$ in $\tilde\omega$ and $$\begin{split}
J_\Psi(s,{\tau})&:=\,\det D\Psi(s,{\tau})=\det \left [
\begin{matrix}
1&0\\
{\partial}_s\chi(s,{\tau})&\displaystyle{{{\partial}_{\tau}\chi(s,{\tau})}}
\end{matrix}
\right]\\
&=\,\partial_{\tau}\chi(s,{\tau})\quad \mathcal L^2\text{-a.e.~}(s,{\tau})\in\tilde\omega\,.
\end{split}\,$$ The left-hand side of is thus $\int_{\tilde\omega}\tilde\eta(s,\tau) \,{\partial}_{\tau}\chi(s,\tau)\,{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}{\tau}$.
Let us show that $N=1$ for almost every $(y,t)\in\omega$. First, observe that, $$N(\Psi,\tilde\omega,(y,t))=\,N(\chi(y,\cdot),\tilde\omega_{2,y},t)\quad\forall\,(y,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\,.$$ Second, if $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, then the set $\left\{t\in{\mathbb{R}}:\, N(\chi(y,\cdot),\tilde\omega_{2,y},t)\ge\,2\right\}$ is at most countable, because $\tau\mapsto\chi(y,\tau)$ is continuous and non-decreasing. We conclude that $N=1$ for almost every $(y,t)\in\omega$ as claimed.\
Therefore, the right hand side of is $\int_{\Psi(\tilde\omega)}\eta(y,t) dydt$.
However, in order to perform the change of variables also on derivatives, we need additional assumptions on $\Psi$. For our purposes, we will consider the case when $\Psi$ is locally biLipschitz.
\[chainlip\]Let $g\in Lip_{\rm loc}(\omega)$ and $\Psi:\,\tilde\omega\to\omega$ be a locally biLipschitz homeomorphism. Then it is easy to see that the following chain rule holds: $$\label{CR}
\tilde g\in Lip_{\rm loc}(\tilde\omega)\text{ and } D\tilde g(s,{\tau})=\,Dg(\Psi(s,{\tau}))\,D\Psi(s,{\tau})\quad\mathcal L^2\text{a.e.-}(s,{\tau})\in\tilde\omega\,,$$ where $D\tilde g$ and $Dg$ respectively denote the gradient of $\tilde g$ and $g$ understood as a $1\times 2$ matrix and $D\Psi$ denotes the Jacobian $2\times 2$ matrix of $\Psi$. Indeed it is trivial that $ \tilde g\in Lip_{\rm loc}(\tilde\omega)$ being the composition of Lipschitz functions. Thus, by Radamecher’s theorem, there exist $D\tilde g$, $Dg$ and $D\Psi$ either from the pointwise point of view and in sense of distribution on their domain. Moreover, since both $\Psi$ and $\Psi^{-1}$ satisfy the Lusin (N) condition, if $\omega_g$ and $\tilde\omega_\Psi$ respectively denote the points of differentiability of $g$ in $\omega$ and of $\Psi$ in $\tilde\omega$, then $$\mathcal L^2(\omega\setminus (\Psi(\tilde\omega_\Psi)\cap\omega_g))= \mathcal L^2(\tilde\omega\setminus (\tilde\omega_\Psi\cap\Psi^{-1}(\omega_g))=\,0\,.$$ Thus, for each $(s,{\tau})\in\tilde\omega_\Psi\cap\Psi^{-1}(\omega_g)$, $\tilde g$ is differentiable in classical sense at $(s,{\tau})$ and holds.
\[thm05112336super\] Let $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,{\tau})=\,(s,\chi(s,{\tau}))$, be a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism associated with a vector field $\nabla^f$ and assume that $f\in \operatorname{Lip}(\omega)$. Then we have $$\label{eq05121214}
{\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi = {\partial}_\tau{\partial}_s\chi = ({\partial}_tf)^{\widetilde{}}\, {\partial}_\tau\chi = {\partial}_\tau\tilde f ,$$ and for every compact $K\subset\tilde\omega$ there is $C>0$ such that ${\partial}_\tau\chi(s,\tau)>C$ for almost all $(s,\tau)\in K$. Furthermore, for each $\varphi\in Lip(\omega)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq08261555}
({\partial}_t\varphi)^{\widetilde{}} &= \frac{{\partial}_\tau\tilde\varphi}{{\partial}_\tau\chi} , &
({\partial}_y\varphi)^{\widetilde{}} &= {\partial}_s\tilde\varphi - \frac{\tilde f}{{\partial}_\tau\chi} {\partial}_\tau\tilde\varphi \qquad\text{ and } &
({\nabla}^f\varphi)^{\widetilde{}} &= {\partial}_s\tilde\varphi .
\end{aligned}$$
The first equality in has to be considered as an equality of distributions, being ${\partial}_s$ and ${\partial}_\tau$ distributional derivations. Next, if $f\in \operatorname{Lip}(\omega)$, then we are allowed to differentiate with respect to $\tau$ the identities $$ \partial_s\chi(s,{\tau}) = f(s,\chi(s,{\tau})) = \tilde f(s,\tau) \quad\mathcal L^2{-a.e.~}(s,{\tau})\in\tilde\omega .$$ Thus we obtain the other two identities in .
The Jacobian matrix of $\Psi^{-1}$ at $\Psi(s,\tau)$ is $$D\Psi^{-1}(\Psi(s,{\tau}))=\frac1{{\partial}_\tau\chi(s,\tau)}
\begin{pmatrix} {\partial}_\tau\chi(s,\tau) & 0 \\ -{\partial}_s\chi(s,\tau) & 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Since $\Psi$ is biLipschitz, the determinant of this matrix is locally bounded from above, hence ${\partial}_\tau\chi$ is locally bounded away from zero.
Finally, the equalities in follow directly from Remark \[chainlip\].
Existence of biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphisms
--------------------------------------------------
\[existLpLip\] Let $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be an open set and $f\in\operatorname{Lip}(\omega)\cap L^\infty(\omega)$. Then there exists a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, associated with $\nabla^f$. Moreover, if $\omega={\mathbb{R}}^2$, then $\tilde\omega={\mathbb{R}}^2$ and such Lagrangian parametrization $\Psi$ is unique if we require $\chi(0,\tau)=\tau$ for all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
We can assume that $\omega={\mathbb{R}}^2$. Indeed, by McShane’s Extension Theorem of Lipschitz functions (see [@MR2039660]), if $f\in\operatorname{Lip}(\omega)\cap L^\infty(\omega)$, then there is an extension $f^*\in\operatorname{Lip}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ with $\operatorname{Lip}(f^*)=\operatorname{Lip}(f)$ and $\|f^*\|_{L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)} = \|f\|_{L^\infty(\omega)}$. Moreover, if $\Phi^*:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a Lagrangian homeomorphism associated with $\nabla^{f^*}$ with the properties stated in the Theorem, then its restriction $\Phi:=\Phi^*|_{\tilde\omega}$ to $\tilde\omega=\Phi^{-1}(\omega)$ still have all the stated properties. So, we assume $\omega={\mathbb{R}}^2$.
Since $f\in\operatorname{Lip}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and it is bounded, and by standard results from ODE’s Theory (see [@MR1929104]), it is well-known that for every $(s_1,\tau_1)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ there is a unique $C^1$ function $\gamma:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{eq06220926}
\begin{cases}
\gamma'(s)=f(s,\gamma(s)) \qquad\text{for a.e.~}s\in{\mathbb{R}}, \\
\gamma(s_1)=\tau_1 .
\end{cases}$$ Such $\gamma$ is in fact of class $C^{1,1}$. For $s_1,s_2,\tau_1\in{\mathbb{R}}$, define $${\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau_1 ; s_2 \big) := \gamma(s_2) ,$$ where $\gamma$ is the solution of the system above, depending on the initial conditions $(s_1,\tau_1)$. Using Grönwall’s lemma, one can easily prove that, for every $s_1,s_2\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and every $\tau,\tau'\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have $|{\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau ; s_2 \big)-{\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau' ; s_2 \big)| \le |\tau-\tau'| \exp(L|s_2-s_1|)$. Hence, the map $\tau\mapsto{\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau ; s_2 \big)$ is locally Lipschitz, with a Lipschitz constant that is locally uniform in $s_1$ and $s_2$. By the uniqueness of solutions, for all $s_1,s_2,s_3,\tau_1\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the following identity holds: $${\mathcal{X}}\big( s_2 , {\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau_1 ; s_2\big) ; s_3 \big) = {\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau_1 ; s_3 \big) .$$ In particular, the map $\tau\mapsto{\mathcal{X}}\big( s_2,\tau ; s_1 \big)$ is the inverse of $\tau\mapsto{\mathcal{X}}\big( s_1,\tau ; s_2 \big)$, and thus they are locally biLipschitz homeomorphisms.
Define $\chi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $$\chi(s,\tau) := {\mathcal{X}}\big( 0,\tau ; s \big) .$$ By the previous discussion, $\tau\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)$ is a locally biLipschitz homeomorphism ${\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, for all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Since $|f|$ is bounded, then, for all $s,s',\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $$ |\chi(s,\tau)-\chi(s',\tau)| \le \|f\|_{L^\infty} |s-s'| .$$ So, since $\chi$ is locally Lipschitz in $s$ and in $\tau$ with uniform constants, then $\chi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is locally Lipschitz.
Define $\Psi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ as $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, which is locally Lipschitz. Notice that, by the uniqueness of solution to the above ODE, $\Psi$ is injective. Moreover, by the existence of a global solution to the above ODE for every initial conditions, $\Psi$ is surjective. By the Invariance of Domain Theorem, $\Psi$ is a homeomorphism.
Moreover, $\Psi$ is locally biLipschitz. Indeed, its inverse is $\Psi^{-1}(y,t)=(y,\rho(y,t))$ with $$\rho(y,t) = {\mathcal{X}}\big( y,t ; 0 \big) .$$ As before, we can prove that $\rho$ is locally Lipschitz in each variable independently. Indeed, on the one hand we already showed that $\rho$ is locally Lipschitz in $t$, with the Lipschitz constant that is locally uniform in $y$. On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\rho(y,t)-\rho(y',t)|
&= \left| {\mathcal{X}}\big( y',{\mathcal{X}}\big(y,t;y'\big) ; 0\big) - {\mathcal{X}}\big( y',t ;0\big) \right| \\
&\le C \left| {\mathcal{X}}\big( y,t ;y' \big) - t \right| \\
&\le C \|f\|_{L^\infty} |y-y'| .
\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $\Psi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism.
Finally, notice that $\chi(0,\tau)=\tau$ for all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and that the uniqueness of such $\chi$ follows from the uniqueness of solutions to .
Consequences of the first variation {#sec09022316}
===================================
If $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)$ is a local area minimizer, then the first variation formula vanishes, i.e., see [@MR2455341]: $$\label{eq06221238}\tag{$1^{st}$VF}
\forall \varphi\in C^\infty_c(\omega)
\qquad\qquad
I_f(\varphi)=0 .$$ By Lemma \[lem08261641\], the condition can be extended to $\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c(\omega)$.
The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem.
\[thm05111605\] Suppose that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\Omega)$ satisfies , where $\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is open. Then ${\nabla}^ff$ is locally Lipschitz, thus $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}(\Omega)$, and $f$ is a weak Lagrangian solution of $\Delta^ff=0$ on $\Omega$.
More in details, let $\omega{\Subset}\Omega$, so that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}(\omega)\cap L^\infty(\omega)$, and let $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, be a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism associated with ${\nabla}^f$. Such a function exists by Theorem \[existLpLip\]. Let $s_1,s_2,\tau_1,\tau_2\in{\mathbb{R}}\cup\{+\infty,-\infty\}$ be such that $(s_1,s_2)\times(\tau_1,\tau_2)\subset\tilde\omega$ and let $\hat s\in(s_1,s_2)$. Then, for all $(s,\tau)\in(s_1,s_2)\times(\tau_1,\tau_2)$, $$\label{eq05122152}
\chi(s,\tau) = a(\tau)\frac{(s-\hat s)^2}{2} + b(\tau) (s-\hat s) + c(\tau)$$ where $c:(\tau_1,\tau_2)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is locally biLipschitz on its image, $a(\tau)={\nabla}^ff(\hat s,c(\tau))$ and $b(\tau)=f(\hat s,c(\tau))$. Moreover, both $a$ and $b$ are locally Lipschitz.
Up to an further locally biLipschitz change of variables, one can also assume $c(\tau)=\tau$ for all $\tau\in(\tau_1,\tau_2)$.
The proof is postponed after a lemma, which highlights a crucial step, that is, the change of variables in the integral via a Lagrangian homeomorphism for ${\nabla}^f$. Once we can make this step, the conclusion follows quite directly.
\[lem05122135\] Suppose that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)\cap L^\infty(\omega)$ satisfies on $\omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ open. Let $\Psi:\tilde\omega\to\omega$, $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, be a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism associated with ${\nabla}^f$. Then $$\label{1stvfhcchi}
\int_{\tilde\omega} \frac{{\partial}_s^2\chi}{\sqrt{1+({\partial}_s^2\chi)^2}}\, {\partial}_s\theta \, {\,\mathrm{d}}\mathcal L^2 = 0\qquad\text{ for all }\theta\in \operatorname{Lip}_c(\tilde\omega).$$
By Lemma \[lemafLp\] and Theorem \[thm05112336super\], we can perform the change of variables $(y,t)=\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ in to obtain $$\label{chvarminsurfeq}
\begin{split}
0&=\int_{\omega} \frac{{\nabla}^ff}{\sqrt{1+({\nabla}^ff)^2}} ({\nabla}^f\varphi+{\partial}_tf\,\varphi) \,d\mathcal L^2\\
&=\int_{\tilde\omega} \frac{\partial_s^2\chi}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_s^2\chi)^2}}\left( \partial_s\tilde{\varphi}\,\partial_\tau\chi+\partial_\tau\tilde f\,\tilde{\varphi}\right) \,d\mathcal L^2 \\
\end{split}$$ for each $\varphi \in Lip_c(\omega)$.
Fix $\theta\in\operatorname{Lip}_c(\tilde\omega)$. We would like to substitute $\tilde\varphi$ with $\frac{\theta}{{\partial}_\tau\chi}$ in , but ${\partial}_\tau\chi$ does not need to be Lipschitz. Let $K:=\,{{\rm spt}}(\theta)$ and, if ${\varepsilon}>\,0$, let $$K_{\varepsilon}:=\left\{(s,{\tau})\in{\mathbb{R}}^2:\,{\rm dist}((s,{\tau}),K)<\,{\varepsilon}\right\}\,.$$ Then $(K_{\varepsilon})_{\varepsilon}$ is a family of bounded open sets containing $K$ and there exists ${\varepsilon}_0>\,0$ such that $K_{{\varepsilon}_0}\Subset\tilde\omega$. Since $\Psi$ is locally biLipschitz, there are $C>c>0$ with $$\label{dertaichipos}
C>{\partial}_\tau\chi>c \text{ a.e.~in } K_{{\varepsilon}_0}\,,$$ we can successfully apply an argument by smooth approximation.
Let $\rho_\epsilon\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ be a family of mollifiers and define $\chi_\epsilon:=\chi*\rho_\epsilon \in C^\infty(K_\epsilon)$. By and the properties of convolution with mollifiers, we have the following facts for ${\varepsilon}\in (0,{\varepsilon}_0/2)$:
1. $c\le{\partial}_{\tau}\chi_\epsilon\le C$ on $K$ and $\chi_\epsilon\to\chi$ a.e. on $K$;
2. ${\nabla}\chi_\epsilon\to{\nabla}\chi$ a.e. on $K$ and $\|{\nabla}\chi_\epsilon\|_{L^\infty(K)} \le \|{\nabla}\chi\|_{L^\infty(K_{{\varepsilon}_0})}$;
3. ${\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon = ({\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi)*\rho_\epsilon = ({\partial}_\tau\tilde f)*\rho_\epsilon$, therefore ${\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon\to{\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi$ a.e. on $K$ and $\|{\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon\|_{L^\infty(K)} \le \|{\partial}_\tau\tilde f\|_{L^\infty(K_{{\varepsilon}_0})}$.
For every $\epsilon>0$ small enough, the function $(s,\tau)\mapsto \frac{\theta(s,\tau)}{{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)}$ is well defined and belongs to $\operatorname{Lip}_c(\tilde\omega)$. Since $\Psi$ is locally biLipschitz, there exists $\varphi_\epsilon\in\operatorname{Lip}(\omega)$ such that $\tilde\varphi_\epsilon=\frac{\theta}{{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon}$. Moreover, we have $$\partial_s\tilde\varphi_\epsilon \, {\partial}_\tau\chi + {\partial}_\tau \tilde f \, \tilde\varphi_\epsilon
= {\partial}_s\theta \frac{{\partial}_\tau\chi}{{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon}
+ \theta \frac{-{\partial}_s{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon\,{\partial}_\tau\chi + {\partial}_\tau{\partial}_s\chi\,{\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon}{({\partial}_\tau\chi_\epsilon)^2}$$ Since ${\partial}_s^2\chi={\partial}_s\tilde f\in L^\infty_{loc}(\tilde\omega)$, then $ \frac{\partial_s^2\chi}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_s^2\chi)^2}} \in L^\infty_{loc}(\tilde\omega)$. From the facts (i)–(iii) above and the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \lim_{\epsilon\to0} \int_{\tilde\omega} \frac{\partial_s^2\chi}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_s^2\chi)^2}}\left( \partial_s\tilde{\varphi}_\epsilon\,\partial_\tau\chi+\partial_\tau\tilde f\,\tilde{\varphi}_\epsilon\right) \,d\mathcal L^2 \\
&= \int_{\tilde\omega} \frac{\partial_s^2\chi}{\sqrt{1+(\partial_s^2\chi)^2}} {\partial}_s\theta
\,d\mathcal L^2 .
\end{aligned}$$ We have so proven .
By Lemma \[lem05122135\], $\chi$ satisfies . Therefore, ${\partial}_s^2\chi$ is a constant function in $s$, that is, for almost every $\tau\in(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ the function $s\mapsto\chi(s,\tau)$ is a polynomial of degree two. Thus, there are measurable functions $a,b,c:(\tau_1,\tau_2)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ such that holds.
First, notice that $c(\tau) = \chi(\hat s,\tau)$ for a.e. $\tau\in(\tau_1,\tau_2)$. Therefore, the map $c$ is a locally biLipschitz homeomorphism from $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ onto its image in ${\mathbb{R}}$, with $c'>0$ almost everywhere.
Second, since $f(\hat s,\chi(\hat s,\tau)) = {\partial}_s\chi(\hat s,\tau) = b(\tau)$, the function $b$ is in fact locally Lipschitz.
Third, if $\delta>0$ is such that $\hat s+\delta<s_2$, then we have $$\chi(\hat s+\delta,\tau) = a(\tau) \delta^2 + b(\tau) \delta + c(\tau)$$ for a.e. $\tau\in(\tau_1,\tau_2)$, and thus the function $a$ is also locally Lipschitz. Moreover, from Theorem \[thm05112336super\] we have ${\nabla}^ff(s,\chi(s,\tau)) = {\partial}_s\tilde f(s,\tau) = {\partial}_s^2\chi(s,\tau)$ for a.e. $(s,\tau)\in(s_1,s_2)\times(\tau_1,\tau_2)$. Since ${\partial}_s^2\chi(s,\tau)=a(\tau)$, then we obtain $a(\tau)={\nabla}^ff(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ for a.e. $(s,\tau)\in(s_1,s_2)\times(\tau_1,\tau_2)$.
Finally, notice that ${\nabla}^ff(y,t)=a(\tau(\Psi^{-1}(y,t)))$ is locally Lipschitz on $\Phi((s_1,s_2)\times(\tau_1,\tau_2))$.
After Theorem \[thm05111605\], we can improve the existence result of Theorem \[existLpLip\] for $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ that satisfies .
\[cor09102030\] Suppose that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ satisfies . Then there exists a unique locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism $\Psi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$, for $f$ such that $\chi(0,\tau)=\tau$ for all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, $\chi$ is of the form $$\chi(s,\tau) = a(\tau) \frac{s^2}{2} + b(\tau) s + \tau ,$$ where $a,b:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ are the locally Lipschitz functions $a(\tau)={\nabla}^ff(0,\tau)$ and $b(\tau)=f(0,\tau)$.
By Theorem \[thm05111605\] and by the Invariance of Domain Theorem, the function $\Psi$ in the corollary is a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism $\Psi:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to\Psi({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Again by Theorem \[thm05111605\], $f$ belongs to ${\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and it is a weak Lagrangian solution of $\Delta^ff=0$. Therefore, we can apply [@MR3753176 Lemma 3.5] and obtain that $\Psi$ is indeed surjective.
We want to stress that, in Corollary \[cor09102030\], the condition is crucial. For instance, consider $f(y,t)=t^2$, which is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ but does not satisfy . The maximal integral curves of ${\nabla}^f={\partial}_y+t^2{\partial}_t$ are not defined on the whole line ${\mathbb{R}}$. Indeed, $\gamma(s)=(s,\frac{\tau_1}{1-\tau_1 (s-s_1)})$ is the solution to with such $f$ and it is not defined at $s=\frac{1+\tau_1s}{\tau_1}$.
Consequences of the second variation {#sec09022317}
====================================
If $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)$ is a local area minimizer, then the second variation formula is non-negative,i.e., see [@MR2455341]: $$\label{eq06221239b}\tag{$2^{nd}$VF}
\forall \varphi\in C^\infty_c(\omega)
\qquad\qquad
II_f(\varphi)\ge\,0 .$$ By Lemma \[lem08261641\], the condition can be extended to $\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c(\omega)$.
We recall that there are plenty of examples of functions $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}(\omega)$, for suitable open sets $\omega$, that satisfy both conditions and , as we wil see in Proposition \[prop06061521\], see also [@MR2472175; @MR2448649].
The aim of this section is to prove the following theorem, which is a restatement of Theorem \[thm06110146\].
\[thm05111656\] Suppose that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ satisfies and . Then ${\nabla}^ff$ is constant and thus the graph $\Gamma_f$ of $f$ is an intrinsic plane.
More precisely, let $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ be the only Lagrangian parametrization associated with ${\nabla}^f$ such that $\chi(0,\tau)=\tau$ for all $\tau$, which exists by Corollary \[cor09102030\]. Then $$\chi(s,\tau) = a \frac{s^2}{2} + b s + \tau$$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
We postpone the proof after a number of lemmas. The overall strategy is the same as in [@MR2333095]. On the other hand let us point out that we are not allowed to carry out the same calculations as in [@MR2333095] in computing the second variation formula. In fact, here function $f$ is supposed to be only locally Lipschitz continuous and not $C^2$. Thus we have to adapt the previous calculations.
\[lem04061138\] Let $a,b\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, and define $$\chi(s,\tau) = \frac{a(\tau)}{2} s^2 + b(\tau) s + \tau .$$ Assume that $\Psi:(s,\tau)\mapsto(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ is a Lagrangian parametrization for $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Then:
1. For all $\tau_1,\tau_2\in{\mathbb{R}}$, either $a(\tau_1)=a(\tau_2)$ and $b(\tau_1) = b(\tau_2)$, or $2 \big(a(\tau_1)-a(\tau_2)\big) (\tau_1-\tau_2) > \big(b(\tau_1)-b(\tau_2)\big)^2 $;
2. For almost every $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we have either $a'(\tau)= b'(\tau)=0$, or $2a'(\tau)> b'(\tau)^2$.
First of all, notice that, by the uniqueness of solutions to for $f$ locally Lipschitz, the Lagrangian parametrization $\Psi$ here is the one constructed in Theorem \[existLpLip\]. In particular, this $\Psi$ is a locally biLipschitz homeomorphism.
The first part of the lemma is contained in Lemma 3.2 of [@MR3753176]. Before proving the second part, notice that $2a'(\tau) \ge b'(\tau)^2$ follows directly from the inequality $2 \big(a(\tau_1)-a(\tau_2)\big) (\tau_1-\tau_2) \ge \big(b(\tau_1)-b(\tau_2)\big)^2 $, which holds for every $\tau_1,\tau_2\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, since $\Psi$ is locally biLipschitz, the function $f\circ\Psi$ is differentiable for almost every $(s,\tau)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
In order to show the second part of the lemma, we show that the sets $$E_k=\left\{ \tau\in{\mathbb{R}}:
\begin{array}{l}
f\circ\Psi\text{ is differentiable at $(s,\tau)$ for a.e.~}s , \\
a,b\text{ are differentiable at $\tau$,}\\
k^{-2} <2a'(\tau)=b'(\tau)^2 \text{ and }|\tau|\le2k
\end{array}
\right\}$$ have zero measure, for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Assume, by contradiction that ${\mathcal{L}}^1(E_k)>\,0$ for a given $k$. Notice that, if $\tau\in E_k$, then for almost every $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $${\partial}_t f(s,\chi(s,\tau)) = \frac{ a'(\tau)s+b'(\tau) }{a'(\tau)s^2/2 + b'(\tau) s + 1}
=\frac1{sb'(\tau)/2+1} .$$ The denominator of this expression vanishes at $s=-\frac{2}{b'(\tau)}\in[2k,2k]$. Therefore, for every $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and for every $\tau\in E_k$ there is $I_{k,N,\tau}\subset[-2k,2k]$ with ${\mathcal{L}}^1(I_{k,N,\tau})>0$, such that $|{\partial}_t f(s,\chi(s,\tau))|\ge N$ for all $s\in I_{k,N,\tau}$. Let $B_{N,k}:=\bigcup_{\tau\in E_k} I_{k,N,\tau}\times\{\tau\}\subset[-2k,2k]^2$. $B_{N,k}$ need not to be ${\mathcal{L}}^2$-measurable. However, since ${\mathcal{L}}^2$ is a Borel outer measure, there exists a Borel set $B^*_{N,k}\subset [-2k,2k]^2$ such that $$B_{N,k}\subset B^*_{N,k} \text{ and }{\mathcal{L}}^2(B^*_{N,k})=\,{\mathcal{L}}^2(B_{N,k})\,.$$ Let $$B^*_{N,k,\tau}:=\left\{s\in{\mathbb{R}}:\,(s,\tau)\in B^*_{N,k}\right\}\text{ if }\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}\,,$$ then $$B^*_{N,k,\tau}\supset I_{k,N,\tau}\text{ for each }\tau\in E_k\,.$$ By Fubini’s theorem, $${\mathcal{L}}^2(B^*_{N,k})=\,\int_{\mathbb{R}}{\mathcal{L}}^1(B^*_{N,k,\tau})\,d\tau\ge\,\int_{E_k}{\mathcal{L}}^1(B^*_{N,k,\tau})\,d\tau>\,0$$ It follows that, for every $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $$\mathrm{ess}\sup_{\Psi(B^*_{N,k})}|{\partial}_t f|\ge N\,,$$ where $\Psi(B^*_{N,k})\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2 $ is a Borel set of ${\mathcal{L}}^2$-positive measure. This is a contradiction, because $f\in \operatorname{Lip}([-2k,2k]^2)$.
We conclude that ${\mathcal L}^1(E_k)=0$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and thus that (2) holds.
\[lem04061131\] Let $a,b\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, and define $$\chi(s,\tau) = \frac{a(\tau)}{2} s^2 + b(\tau) s + \tau .$$ Assume that $\Psi:(s,\tau)\mapsto(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ is a locally biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism for $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ that satisfies . Then, for all $\tilde\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $$ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} ({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
- \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{2a'-b'^2}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\ge 0 ,$$ where $a$, $a'$ and $b'$ are functions of $\tau$, while $\tilde\varphi$ is a function of $(s,\tau)$.
Since the map $\Psi$ is a locally biLipschitz homeomorphism, given $\tilde\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ we have $\varphi:=\tilde\varphi\circ\Psi^{-1}\in\operatorname{Lip}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $II_f(\varphi)\ge0$. Performing a change of variables via $\Psi$ using Theorem \[thm05112336super\], we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\!\!\!\!II_f(\varphi)\!
=\!\!\! \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \!\! \left(\frac{
\left({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi+\tilde\varphi\frac{a's+b'}{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}\right)^2 }{(1+a^2)^{3/2}} +
\frac{
\frac{{\partial}_\tau(\tilde\varphi^2)}{a's^2/2 + b's + 1} a
}{(1+a^2)^{1/2}}
\right)\!\!
(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)
{\,\mathrm{d}}s\text{d}\tau \\
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \bigg[ ({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
+ \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{(a's+b')^2}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)(1+a^2)^{3/2}} +\hfill\\ \hfill
+ {\partial}_s(\tilde\varphi^2) \frac{a's+b'}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
+ {\partial}_\tau(\tilde\varphi^2)\frac{a}{(1+a^2)^{1/2}} \bigg]{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau \\
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \bigg[ ({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
+ \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{(a's+b')^2}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)(1+a^2)^{3/2}} + \hfill\\\hfill
- \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{a'}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
- \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{a'}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}} \bigg] {\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau \\
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \bigg[ ({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
+ \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{b'^2-2a'}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
\bigg]{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau . \hfill
\end{gathered}$$
The following lemma is proven in [@MR2333095 p.45].
\[lem06070850\] Let $A,B\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $B^2\le2A$ and set $h(t):=At^2/2 + Bt + 1$. If $$ \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \phi'(t)^2 h(t) {\,\mathrm{d}}t \ge (2A-B^2) \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \phi(t)^2 \frac1{h(t)} {\,\mathrm{d}}t
\qquad
\forall \phi\in C^1_c({\mathbb{R}}),$$ then $B^2=2A$.
By Corollary \[cor09102030\], $\chi(s,\tau)=a(\tau)\,s^2/2+b(\tau)\,s+\tau$ for some $a,b\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$. By Lemma \[lem04061131\], we have, for all $\tilde\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} ({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{a's^2/2 + b's + 1}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
- \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{2a'-b'^2}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\ge 0 .$$ By standard arguments (taking for example $\varphi(x,y):=\varphi_1(x)\varphi_2(y)$) we can infer that for almost every $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and all $\tilde\varphi\in\operatorname{Lip}_c({\mathbb{R}})$ $$ \int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde\varphi'(s)^2 (a's^2/2 + b's + 1) {\,\mathrm{d}}s
\ge
\int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde\varphi^2 \frac{2a'-b'^2}{(a's^2/2 + b's + 1)} {\,\mathrm{d}}s ,$$ where $a$, $a'$ and $b'$ are functions of $\tau$. By Lemma \[lem04061138\], we have $b'^2\le2a'$ for almost every $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Thus, we can apply Lemma \[lem06070850\] and obtain that $b'(\tau)^2=2a'(\tau)$ for almost every $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$. By Lemma \[lem04061138\] again, we obtain $b'(\tau)=a'(\tau)=0$ for almost every $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
C1W-graphical strips {#sec09022318}
====================
In this section we will study the functions appearing in Theorem \[thm05111605\] with $b\equiv\,0$ and $\hat s=\,0$. Their intrinsic graph has been called *graphical strip* in [@MR2472175], where they have been studied under $C^2$ regularity. This type of surface in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$ has the shape of a helicoid: it contains the vertical axis $\{x=y=0\}$ and the intersection with $\{(x,y,z):(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\}$ is a line for every $z\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Here we will study the case when $f$ could be less regular than $C^2$.
\[prop06061521\] If $a:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is continuous and non-decreasing, then the map $(s,\tau)\mapsto(s,a(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau)$ is a homeomorphism ${\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and there is exactly one function $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ such that for all $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$: $$\label{eq06110006}
f\left(s,a(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau\right)=a(\tau)s .$$ The function $f$ has the following properties:
1. ${\nabla}^ff(s,a(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau) = a(\tau)$;
2. $f$ is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\{y=0\}$, and if $a\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, then $f$ is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$;
3. if $a\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, then holds;
4. if $a\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$, then $$II_{f}(\varphi)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi)^2 \frac{(\frac{a'}2s^2+1)}{(1+a^2)^{3/2}}
-2 \tilde\varphi^2 \frac{ a' }{ (1+a^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a'}2s^2+1) }
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau ,$$ where $a$ and $a'$ are functions in $\tau$ and $\tilde\varphi(s,\tau) := \varphi(s,a(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau)$.
By [@MR3753176 Lemma 3.3], the map $(s,\tau)\mapsto(s,a(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau)$ is a homeomorphism ${\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$. By [@MR3753176 Remark 3.4], there is a unique function $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}$ such that and $(i)$ hold.
Next, we show $(ii)$. Let $ y, y', t, t', t'',\tau,\tau'\in{\mathbb{R}}$ be such that $ y \cdot y'>0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
( y, t) &= ( y,\frac12a(\tau) y^2+\tau) , \\
( y', t') &= ( y',\frac12a(\tau') y'^2+\tau') , \\
( y, t'') &= ( y,\frac12a(\tau') y^2+\tau') .
\end{aligned}$$ Observe first that, if $t''\neq t$, then $\tau'\neq\tau$. Thus, if $a(\tau')=\,a(\tau)$, we can infer that $$f(y,t'')-f(y,t)=\,(a(\tau')-a(\tau))y=\,0\,.$$ Otherwise $$\label{eq07121641}
\begin{split}
\left|\frac{f( y, t'')-f( y, t)}{ t''- t}\right|
&= \left|\frac{(a(\tau')-a(\tau)) y}{\frac12 (a(\tau')-a(\tau)) y^2 + (\tau'-\tau) } \right| \\
&= \left| \frac{1}{ \frac y2 + \frac1 y \frac{\tau'-\tau}{a(\tau')-a(\tau)}} \right|
\le \frac2{| y|} ,
\end{split}$$ because $\frac{\tau'-\tau}{a(\tau')-a(\tau)}>\,0$. Second, we estimate $$\label{eq07121641b}
\begin{split}
|f( y', t')-f( y, t)|
&\le |f( y', t')-f( y, t'')|+|f( y, t'')-f( y, t)| \\
&\le |a(\tau')| | y'- y| + \frac{2}{| y|} | t''- t| \\
&\le |a(\tau')| | y'- y| + \frac{2}{| y|} (| t''- t'|+| t'- t|) \\
&\le |a(\tau')| | y'- y| + \frac{1}{| y|} |a(\tau')| | y^2- y'^2| + \frac{2}{| y|} | t'- t| \\
&= |a(\tau')| \left(1+ \frac{ | y+ y'|}{| y|} \right) | y'- y| + \frac{2}{| y|} | t'- t| .
\end{split}$$ This shows that $f$ is locally Lipschitz on $\{( y, t): y\neq0\}$. If $a$ is locally Lipschitz and $I\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ is a bounded interval, then for $\tau,\tau'\in I$ we have $\frac{\tau'-\tau}{a(\tau')-a(\tau)}\ge \frac1L$ for some $L>0$ depending on $I$. Thus, we obtain in $$\left|\frac{f( y, t'')-f( y, t)}{ t''- t}\right| \le L|y| .$$ The estimate is then $$|f( y', t')-f( y, t)|
\le |a(\tau')| \left(1+ L\frac{ | y+ y'|}{2} |y| \right) | y'- y| + L|y| | t'- t| ,$$ which shows that $f\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
Let’s prove $(iii)$. Assume that $a$ is locally Lipschitz. From $(ii)$ we know that $f$ is locally Lipschitz, and thus the Lagrangian parametrization $\Psi(s,\tau)=(s,\chi(s,\tau))$ with $\chi(s,\tau)=a(\tau)s^2/2+\tau$ is a biLipschitz homeomorphism by Theorem \[existLpLip\]. Performing a change of variables as in Lemma \[lemafLp\] and Theorem \[thm05112336super\], we obtain for all $\varphi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ $$\begin{aligned}
I_f(\varphi)
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \frac{a(\tau)}{\sqrt{1+a(\tau)^2}}
\left( {\partial}_s\tilde\varphi(s,\tau) + \frac{ \tilde\varphi(s,\tau) a'(\tau)s }{ a'(\tau)s^2/2+1 } \right)
(a'(\tau)s^2/2+1) {\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau \\
&= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2} \frac{a(\tau)}{\sqrt{1+a(\tau)^2}}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}s}\left( \tilde\varphi(s,\tau) \, (a'(\tau) s^2/2 + 1) \right)
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
= 0 .
\end{aligned}$$
Finally, part $(iv)$ has already been proven in Lemma \[lem04061131\], because by $(ii)$ the function $f$ is locally Lipschitz when $a\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}})$.
Notice that, if there exists $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\lim_{\tau'\to\tau}\frac{a(\tau')-a(\tau)}{\tau'-\tau}=\infty$, then, from , we get, for each $y\neq 0$, $\lim_{t''\to t}\left|\frac{f( y, t'')-f( y, t)}{ t'- t}\right| = \frac{2}{|y|}$, and therefore $f$ is not locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. An example of such phenomenon is the one in Section \[sec09011226\].
In our coordinates $(x,y,z)$ for ${{\mathbb{H}}}$, the intrinsic graph of functions as in Proposition \[prop06061521\] have the shape of helicoids: $$\Gamma_f = \{(0,0,\tau)+s(a(\tau),1,0) : (s,\tau)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2\} .$$ Moreover, we have the following result for the horizontal vector field $\Omega:={\mathbb{H}}\setminus\{x=y=0\}$ $$\label{eq07121716}
\nu(x,y,z) := -\frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} X|_{(x,y,z)} + \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} Y|_{(x,y,z)} .$$
\[prop06211845\] The vector field $\nu$ is divergence free in $\Omega={\mathbb{H}}\setminus\{x=y=0\}$, and it is a local calibration for the intrinsic graph $\Gamma_f$ for any $f$ as in Proposition \[prop06061521\]. As a consequence, $\Gamma_f$ is a local area minimizer outside the vertical axis, i.e., for every $p\in\Gamma_f\setminus\{x=y=0\}$ there is $U\subset{\mathbb{H}}$ open such that $\Gamma_f$ is area minimizer in $U$.
It is clear that the distributional divergence of $\nu$ in $\Omega$ is $${\operatorname{div}}\nu = - X\left(\frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\right) + Y\left(\frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}\right)
= 0 .$$ Next, let $G_f$ be the subgraph of $f$, i.e., $G_f=\{(0,y,t)(\xi,0,0):\xi\le f(y,t)\}$. It is well known (see [@MR2223801 Theorem 1.2]) that $G_f$ is a set of locally finite perimeter and that its reduced boundary is the intrinsic graph $\Gamma_f$. We describe $\Gamma_f$ as image of the map $G:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^3$, $G(s,\tau)=(0,s,\chi(s,\tau))(f(s,\chi(s,\tau)) , 0,0)$. Since $\chi(s,\tau)=a(\tau)s^2/2+\tau$, then $G(s,\tau) = (0,0,\tau)+s(a(\tau),1,0)$. Hence, its unit normal is $$\nu_{G_f}(G(s,\tau)) = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+a(\tau)^2}} X|_{G(s,\tau)} + \frac{a(\tau)}{\sqrt{1+a(\tau)^2}} Y|_{G(s,\tau)} .
$$ By a direct computation, one easily shows that $\nu_{G_f}(G(s,\tau)) = \nu(G(s,\tau))$. By a calibration argument [@MR2333095 Theorem 2.3], we conclude that the subgraph $G_f$ is a local perimeter minimizer in $\Omega$.
First example {#sec11241414}
=============
\[thm07111720\] Define $f:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$ as $$f(y,t):=
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2t}{y} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2}{2}\\
y & t>\frac{y^2}{2} .
\end{cases}$$ Then the following holds:
1. $f\in W^{1,p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap C^0({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\{0\})$, where $1\le p<3$.
2. ${\nabla}^ff\in{\mathscr{C}}^0({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\{0\})\cap {{L^\infty}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
3. $f$ is stable, but $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane.
4. The intrinsic graph of $f$ is $\Gamma_f = \Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2\cup\Gamma_3\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1 &= \{(0,y,t):\ t\le0,\ y\in{\mathbb{R}}\} ,\\
\Gamma_2 &= \{(x,y,0):0\le x\le y\}\cup\{(x,y,0):y\le x\le 0\} ,\\
\Gamma_3 &= \{(x,y,t):x=y,t\ge 0\} .
\end{aligned}$$ The surface $\Gamma_f$ is a cone with respect to the dilations $\delta_\lambda(x,y,z)=(\lambda x,\lambda y,\lambda^2 z)$.
5. For each $p\in \Gamma_f\setminus\{0\}$, there is a neighborhood $U$ of p in ${{\mathbb{H}}}$, such that $\Gamma_f$ is area minimizing in $U$.
See Figure \[fig09030019\] for an image of the surface $\Gamma_f$.
![\[fig09030019\] Image of the surface $\Gamma_f$ from Theorem \[thm07111720\]](./gradino3.png){width="50.00000%"}
We are not able to prove nor disprove that $\Gamma_f$ is area minimizing in a neighborhood of $(0,0,0)$.
\[rem09042024\] In a neighborhood of $(1,0)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, the function $f$ above is Lipschitz but not $C^1$. Therefore, by [@MR2583494 Theorem 1.3], $f$ is not a vanishing viscosity solution of the minimal surface equation in the sense of [@MR2583494 Definition 1.1]. However, $f$ is a distributional solution to the equation.
Point $(iv)$ is immediate. Let us prove point $(v)$. Notice that the vector field $\nu$ defined in is a calibration of $\Gamma_f$ in the open half-spaces $S_1:=\{y>\,0\}$ and $S_2:=\{y<\,0\}$, while $X$ is a calibration in the open half-space $S_3:=\{t<\,0\}$ and $\frac{X-Y}{\sqrt 2}$ is a calibration in $S_4:=\{t>\,0\}$. Since every point in $\Gamma_f\setminus\{0\}$ belongs to one of these four open sets, $\Gamma_f\setminus\{0\}$ is locally area minimizing. This shows $(v)$.
Since $f$ is absolutely continuous along almost every line parallel to the coordinate axes, its distributional derivatives correspond to the pointwise derivatives: $$\label{eq06211553}
{\partial}_y f(y,t) =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
-\frac{2t}{y^2} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2}{2}\\
1 & t>\frac{y^2}{2} ,
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{eq06211554}
{\partial}_t f(y,t) =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2}{y} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2}{2}\\
0 & t>\frac{y^2}{2} ,
\end{cases}$$ $$\label{eq06211459}
{\nabla}^ff(y,t) = ({\partial}_yf+f{\partial}_tf)(y,t) =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2t}{y^2} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2}{2}\\
1 & t>\frac{y^2}{2} .
\end{cases}$$ It is then immediate to see that the parts $(i)$ and $(ii)$ of the theorem are true.
Part $(iii)$ follows from the Lemma \[lem07121720\] below.
\[lem07121556\] For $\epsilon>0$, define $f_\epsilon:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}$ as $$f_\epsilon(y,t) :=
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2yt}{y^2+2\epsilon} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}\\
y & t>\frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}
\end{cases}$$ Then, the following holds for every $\epsilon>0$:
1. $f_\epsilon\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and its biLipschitz Lagrangian homeomorphism $\Psi_\epsilon:{\mathbb{R}}^2\to{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is $\Psi(s,\tau) = (s,\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau))$ with $\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)=\frac{a_\epsilon(\tau)}{2} s^2 + \tau$, where $$a_\epsilon(\tau) :=
\begin{cases}
0 & \tau\le0 \\
\frac\tau\epsilon & 0\le\tau\le \epsilon \\
1 & \epsilon\le\tau .
\end{cases}$$
2. $\lim_{\epsilon\to0^+}f_\epsilon = f$ in $W^{1,p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $p\in[1,3)$.
3. ${\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon\in C^0({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $\lim_{\epsilon\to0^+}{\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon = {\nabla}^ff$ in ${\mathcal L}^p_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$.
Since $f_\epsilon$ is absolutely continuous along almost every line parallel to the coordinate axes, its distributional derivatives are $${\partial}_y f_\epsilon =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
-\frac{2t(y^2-2\epsilon)}{(y^2+2\epsilon)^2} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}\\
1 & t>\frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}
\end{cases}
\quad\text{and}\quad
{\partial}_t f_\epsilon =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2y}{y^2+2\epsilon} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}\\
0 & t>\frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}
\end{cases}
.$$ Since both ${\partial}_y f_\epsilon$ and ${\partial}_t f_\epsilon$ are bounded on bounded subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, we obtain that $f_\epsilon\in\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. A direct computation shows that $f(s,\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)) = {\partial}_s\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)$ for all $s,\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and that $\Psi_\epsilon$ is indeed biLipschitz. So, part $(a)$ holds.
Let us now observe that $f_\epsilon\to f$, ${\partial}_yf_\epsilon\to {\partial}_yf$ and ${\partial}_tf_\epsilon\to {\partial}_tf$ pointwise almost everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. Moreover, $|f_\epsilon|\le g_1$, $|{\partial}_yf_\epsilon|\le g_2$ and $|{\partial}_tf_\epsilon|\le g_3$ almost everywhere in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, where $$\begin{aligned}
g_1(y,t) &:= |y|, \qquad
g_2(y,t) := 1, \\
g_3(y,t) &:=
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2}{|y|} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2}{2}\\
\frac{\sqrt2}{\sqrt t} & \frac{y^2}{2}<t<\frac{y^2}{2} +1 \\
0 & \frac{y^2}{2}+1<t .
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ Since, for every $L>0$ and $p\neq2$, $$\int_{[-L,L]^2} \!\!\!\!|g_3(y,t)|^p {\,\mathrm{d}}y{\,\mathrm{d}}t
\!=\!\! \left(1-p\frac{2^{p-1}}{2-p}\right) \!\!\int_{-L}^L \!\!|y|^{2-p} {\,\mathrm{d}}y
+ \frac{2^p}{2-p} \!\!\int_{-L}^{L} \!\!\left(y^2+2\right)^{\frac{2-p}{2}} \!\! {\,\mathrm{d}}y ,$$ then $g_3\in{\mathcal L}^p_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $1\le p<3$. Clearly, we also have $g_1,g_2\in{\mathcal L}^p_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $1\le p<3$. Therefore, by the Dominated Convergence Theorem, $f_\epsilon\to f$ in $W^{1,p}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $1\le p<3$, i.e., statement $(b)$ in the lemma.
For part $(c)$, one can check by direct computation that $${\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon =
\begin{cases}
0 & t\le 0 \\
\frac{2 t}{y^2+2\epsilon} & 0<t\le \frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}\\
1 & t>\frac{y^2+2\epsilon}{2}
\end{cases}$$ Moreover, we have ${\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon \to {\nabla}^ff$ in ${\mathcal L}^p_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for all $p\in[1,\infty)$. Indeed, on one hand the pointwise convergence ${\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is clear. On the other hand, $|{\nabla}^{f_\epsilon}f_\epsilon(y,t)|\le 1$ for a.e. $(y,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ and for all $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, and therefore we can conclude again by the Dominated Convergence Theorem.
\[lem07121720\] The function $f$ defined in Theorem \[thm07111720\] is stable.
Let $f_\epsilon$ as in Lemma \[lem07121556\] and $\varphi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Since $f_\epsilon\to f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, then $I_f(\varphi)=\lim_{\epsilon\to0}I_{f_\epsilon}(\varphi)$ by Lemma \[lem08261641\]. By Proposition \[prop06061521\].(iii), $I_{f_\epsilon}(\varphi)=0$ for all $\epsilon$, thus $I_f(\varphi)=0$.
Let $f_\epsilon$ and $a_\epsilon$ as in Lemma \[lem07121556\] and $\varphi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Since $f_\epsilon\to f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, then $II_f(\varphi)=\lim_{\epsilon\to0}II_{f_\epsilon}(\varphi)$ by Lemma \[lem08261641\]. By Proposition \[prop06061521\].(iv), $$II_{f_\epsilon}(\varphi)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\left[({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi_\epsilon)^2 \frac{(\frac{a'_\epsilon}2s^2+1)}{(1+a_\epsilon^2)^{3/2}}
-2 \tilde\varphi_\epsilon^2 \frac{ a_\epsilon' }{ (1+a_\epsilon^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_\epsilon'}2s^2+1) }
\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau ,$$ where we have $\tilde\varphi_\epsilon(s,\tau)=\varphi(s,\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau))$, $\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)=\frac{a_\epsilon(\tau)}{2} s^2+\tau$ and $\tilde f_\epsilon(s,\tau)={\partial}_s\chi_\epsilon(s,\tau)=a_\epsilon(\tau)s$. Since $$({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi_\epsilon)^2\frac{(\frac{a_\epsilon'}2s^2+1)}{(1+a_\epsilon^2)^{3/2}} \ge 0,$$ the thesis follows if it is true that $$\label{eq06241642}
\limsup_{\epsilon\to0}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\tilde\varphi_\epsilon^2
\frac{
a_\epsilon'
}{
(1+({\partial}_s\tilde f_\epsilon)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_\epsilon'}2s^2+1)
}
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\le0 .$$ For proving , Recall that $a_\epsilon'(\tau)=1/\epsilon$ for $\tau\in[0,\epsilon]$ and $0$ otherwise. So, if we perform the change of variables $v=\frac{s}{\sqrt{2\epsilon}}$ and $w=\frac\tau\epsilon$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\tilde\varphi_\epsilon^2
\frac{
a_\epsilon'
}{
(1+(a_\epsilon)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_\epsilon'}2s^2+1)
}
{\,\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal L}^2(s,\tau) \\
=
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^\epsilon
\varphi(s,\frac{\tau s^2}{2\epsilon}+\tau)^2
\frac{
1/\epsilon
}{
(1+(\tau/\epsilon)^2)^{3/2} (\frac1{2\epsilon}s^2+1)
}
{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau{\,\mathrm{d}}s \\
=
\sqrt{2\epsilon}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \int_0^1
\varphi(\sqrt{2\epsilon}v,\epsilon w(v^2+1))^2
\frac{
1
}{
(1+w^2)^{3/2} (v^2+1)
}
{\,\mathrm{d}}w{\,\mathrm{d}}v \\
\le
\sqrt{2\epsilon} M
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac1{v^2+1}{\,\mathrm{d}}v
\int_0^1 \frac1{(1+w^2)^{3/2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}w
\end{gathered}$$ where $M=\sup_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\varphi^2$. Since $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac1{v^2+1}{\,\mathrm{d}}v\int_0^1 \frac1{(1+w^2)^{3/2}}{\,\mathrm{d}}w<\infty$, taking the limsup as $\epsilon\to0$ we get .
Second example {#sec09011226}
==============
In this section we construct the example that proves Theorem \[thm06102321\]. We summarize the results in the following statement, whose proof covers the whole section. A plot of the graph $\Gamma_f$ can be found in Figure \[fig09030022\].
![\[fig09030022\] Image of the surface $\Gamma_f$ from Theorem \[thm09011227\]](./cantor2.png){width="50.00000%"}
\[thm09011227\] Let $a:{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,1]$ be the function that is the Cantor staircase when restricted to $[0,1]$ and with $a(\tau)=0$ for $\tau\le0$, $a(\tau)=1$ for $\tau\ge1$. Let $f\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ be the function such that $f(s,a(\tau)s^2/2+\tau) = a(\tau)s$, as in Proposition \[prop06061521\]. Then the following holds:
1. $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus(\{0\}\times{\mathbb{R}}))$.
2. $f$ is stable, but $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane. The surface $\Gamma_f$ is locally area minimizing in ${{\mathbb{H}}}\setminus\{(0,0,z):z\in C\}$, where $C\subset[0,1]$ is the ternary Cantor set.
The fact that $\Gamma_f$ is not an intrinsic plane is clear. The fact that $\Gamma_f$ is locally area minimizing in ${{\mathbb{H}}}\setminus\{(0,0,z):z\in C\}$ is proven as in Theorem \[thm07111720\].$(v)$: More precisely, if $p\in\Gamma_f\setminus\{x=y=0\}$, then $\nu$ is a local calibration by Proposition \[prop06211845\]; if $p\in\{(0,0,z):z\notin C\}$, then there is $U\subset{{\mathbb{H}}}$ open, $p\in U$ so that $U\cap\Gamma_f$ is a subset of an intrinsic plane. The fact that $f\in {\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap\operatorname{Lip}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus(\{0\}\times{\mathbb{R}}))$ follows from Proposition \[prop06061521\]. For proving that $f$ is stable, we shall construct a Lipschitz approximation of $a$ and then complete the proof by approximation. In particular, we show through Lemma \[lem08270151\] that $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Finally we will estimate the first and the second variations of $f$ in Lemmas \[lem08270101\] and \[lem08270102\].\
Define the closed sets $C(n)\subset[0,1]$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, inductively as follows: $C(0):=[0,1]$ and $$C(n+1) := \frac13 C(n) \cup \left(\frac23 + \frac13 C(n)\right) .$$ For $k,n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, define $$C(n,k) :=
\begin{cases}
\left[\frac{k}{3^n},\frac{k+1}{3^n}\right] &\text{if }[k/3^n,(k+1)/3^n]\subset C(n) \\
\emptyset &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Let $J_n$ be the collection of $k\in\{0,\dots,3^n\}$ such that $C(n,k)\neq\emptyset$. We have $\# J_n=2^n$ and $C(n)=\bigsqcup_{k\in J_n} C(n,k)$. Moreover, $$C=\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty C(n)$$ is the ternary Cantor set in $[0,1]$. Set $q := \frac23$.
For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, let $a_n:\,[0,1]\to [0,1]$ be tha classical sequence of piecewise affine functions for which $a_n\to a$ uniformly on $[0,1]$ and $a$ agrees wiht the Cantor staircase function. A possible way for defining $(a_n)_n$ is the following one. For $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, define $a_n:{\mathbb{R}}\to[0,1]$ as the absolutely continuous function $a_n(\tau)=\int_{-\infty}^\tau a_n'(r){\,\mathrm{d}}r$, where $a_n'(r) :=\frac1{q^n} {{\mathds 1\!}}_{C(n)}(r)$. Then $a_n\to a$ uniformly on ${\mathbb{R}}$, where $a:{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is the function such that $a(\tau)=0$ for $\tau\le0$, $a(\tau)=1$ for $\tau\ge1$ and $a|_{[0,1]}$ is the Cantor function on the ternary Cantor set $C$. Notice that $a(\tau)=a_n(\tau)$ for all $\tau\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus C(n)$. By continuity, the equality holds also on ${\partial}C(n)$.
For $ y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $k\in J_n$ define the following subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
C_ y(n,k) &:= \left\{ a_n(\tau) \frac{ y^2}2 + \tau : \tau\in C(n,k) \right\} \\
&= \left[ a\left(\frac{k}{3^n}\right) \frac{ y^2}2 + \frac{k}{3^n} , a\left(\frac{k+1}{3^n}\right) \frac{ y^2}2 + \frac{k+1}{3^n} \right] ;\\
C_ y(n) &:= \left\{a_n(\tau)\frac{ y^2}2 + \tau : \tau\in C(n) \right\}
= \bigsqcup_{k\in J_n} C_ y(n,k) ; \\
C_ y &:= \left\{a(\tau)\frac{ y^2}2 + \tau : \tau\in C \right\}
= \bigcap_{n=1}^\infty C_ y(n) .\end{aligned}$$
Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}^1(C_ y(n,k) &= \frac1{2^n} \left(\frac{ y^2}{2} + q^n\right), &
{\mathcal L}^1(C_ y(n)) &= \frac{ y^2}{2} + q^n , &
{\mathcal L}^1(C_ y) &= \frac{ y^2}{2} . \end{aligned}$$
For each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, define $f_n\in{\mathscr{C}^1_{\mathbb{W}}}$ as the function such that, for all $(s,\tau)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$, $f_n\left(s,a_n(\tau)s^2/2 +\tau \right) = a_n(\tau) s$, as in Proposition \[prop06061521\]. Since $a_n$ is locally Lipschitz, $f_n$ is locally Lipschitz as well, for all $n$.
\[lem08270151\] The sequence of functions $f_n$ defined above converge to $f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. In particular, $f\in W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
First of all, we claim that $f$ is absolutely continuous along almost all coordinates lines. Indeed, by Proposition \[prop06061521\], $f$ is locally Lipschitz on ${\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus\{ y=0\}$ and thus $ t\mapsto f( y, t)$ is absolutely continuous if $ y\neq0$. Moreover, if $ t\notin C$, then $ y\mapsto f( y, t)$ is constant in a neighborhood of $0$, so it is absolutely continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}$. Since ${\mathcal L}^1(C)=0$, this completes the proof of the claim.
Therefore, the distributional derivatives ${\partial}_ y f$ and ${\partial}_ t f$ are functions and coincide almost everywhere with the derivatives of $f$ along the coordinates lines.
We compute $$\label{eq08270128}
{\partial}_ t f_n( y, t) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{ y}{ y^2/2 + q^n } &\text{if } t\in C_ y(n) \\
0 &\text{if } t\notin C_ y(n) .
\end{cases}$$ Since $a_n$ is piecewise affine, then $ t\mapsto f_n( y, t)$ is also piecewise affine. If $ t\notin C_ y(n)$, then ${\partial}_ t f_n( y, t)=0$. If $k\in J_n$, then $ t\mapsto{\partial}_ t f_n( y, t)$ is constant on $C_ y(n,k) = [ t_1, t_2]$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial}_ t f_n( y, t)
&= \frac{ f_n( y, t_2)-f_n( y, t_1) }{ t_2- t_1 }
= \frac{ a(\frac{k+1}{3^n}) y - a(\frac{k}{3^n}) y }{ a(\frac{k+1}{3^n}) y^2/2 + \frac{k+1}{3^n} - a(\frac{k}{3^n}) y^2/2 - \frac{k}{3^n} }\\
&= \frac{ y}{ y^2/2 + q^n }
\end{aligned}$$ This shows . Next, we show that $$\label{eq08270129}
{\partial}_ t f( y, t) =
\begin{cases}
\frac2 y &\text{for a.e.~} t\in C_ y \\
0 &\text{otherwise} .
\end{cases}$$ Fix $ y\in{\mathbb{R}}$. So, if $ t\notin C_ y$, then $ t'\mapsto f( y, t')$ is constant in a neighborhood of $ t$, hence ${\partial}_ t f( y, t)=0$. If $ y=0$, then $C_0=C$ has measure zero. Let $ y\neq0$ and $ t\in C_ y$ be such that $ t'\mapsto f( y, t')$ is differentiable at $ t$. Then, if $ t=a(\tau)\frac{ y^2}{2}+\tau$ and $ t'=a(\tau')\frac{ y^2}{2}+\tau'$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\limsup_{ t'\to t} \frac{|f( y, t')-f( y, t)|}{| t'- t|}
= \limsup_{\tau'\to\tau} \frac{ (a(\tau')-a(\tau)) y }{ (a(\tau')-a(\tau) ) \frac { y^2}2 + (\tau'-\tau) } \\
\le \frac2 y \limsup_{\tau'\to\tau} \frac{1}{1+\frac2{ y^2} \frac{\tau'-\tau}{a(\tau')-a(\tau)}}
\le \frac2 y .
\end{gathered}$$ Moreover, if $ y>0$ is such that $ t\mapsto f( y, t)$ is absolutely continuous, which happens for almost every $ y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ by Proposition \[prop06061521\], from the inequalities $$y
= f( y,\frac12 y^2+1)
= \int_0^{\frac12 y^2+1} {\partial}_ t f( y, t) {\,\mathrm{d}}t
= \int_{C_ y} {\partial}_ t f( y, t) {\,\mathrm{d}}t
\le \frac2{ y} |C_ y|
= y$$ follows that ${\partial}_ t f( y, t)= \frac2 y$. The same strategy applies to the case $ y<0$ and so we have .
Now we prove the first convergence, that is, $$\label{eq08270132}
{\partial}_ t f_n\to{\partial}_ t f \text{ in }{\mathcal L}^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2) .$$ We directly compute $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\ell &\int_{\mathbb{R}}|{\partial}_ t f_n( y, t)-{\partial}_ t f( y, t)|^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}t {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
&= \int_0^\ell \left[
\int_{C_ y(n)\setminus C_ y} \left(\frac{ y}{ y^2/2+q^n}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}t
+ \int_{C_ y} \left|\frac{ y}{ y^2/2+q^n}-\frac2 y\right|^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}t
\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
&= \int_0^\ell \left[
\left(\frac{ y}{ y^2/2+q^n}\right)^2 \left(|C_ y(n)|-|C_ y|\right)
+ \left|\frac{ y}{ y^2/2+q^n}-\frac2 y\right|^2 |C_ y|
\right]{\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
&= q^n \int_0^\ell \left(\frac{ y}{ y^2/2+q^n}\right)^2 {\,\mathrm{d}}y
+ 2 q^{2n} \int_0^\ell \frac{1}{( y^2/2+q^n)^2} {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
&= 4q^n \int_0^\ell \frac{1}{ y^2/2+q^n} {\,\mathrm{d}}y \\
&= 2 \int_0^{\ell/\sqrt{2q^n}} \frac{\sqrt{2q^n}}{x^2+1} {\,\mathrm{d}}x
= 2\sqrt{2} q^{n/2} \arctan\left(\frac{\ell}{\sqrt2} q^{-n/2}\right) ,
\end{aligned}$$ The last expression goes to $0$ as $n\to\infty$, and so is proven.
The next step is to show that $$\label{eq08270134}
f_n\to f\text{ and }{\nabla}^{f_n}f_n\to {\nabla}^ff\text{ uniformly on compact sets}.$$ First of all, if $\epsilon>0$ and $K>0$, then there is $N>0$ such that for all $ t\in{\mathbb{R}}$, all $ y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ with $| y|\le K$ and all $n\ge N$ there are $\tau_1,\tau_2\in{\mathbb{R}}\setminus C(n)$ such that $$t_1:=a(\tau_1)\frac{ y^2}2+\tau_1
\le t \le
a(\tau_2)\frac{ y^2}2+\tau_2=: t_2,$$ and $a(\tau_2)-a(\tau_1) \le \epsilon$.
Secondly, notice that $a_n=a$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\setminus C(n)$. So, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t) - {\nabla}^ff( y, t)
\le {\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t_2) - {\nabla}^ff( y, t_1)
= a(\tau_2) - a(\tau_1)
\le \epsilon , \\
&{\nabla}^ff( y, t) - {\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t)
\le {\nabla}^ff( y, t_2) - {\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t_1)
= a(\tau_2) - a(\tau_1)
\le \epsilon .
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, there is $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that for all $( y, t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^2$ with $| y|\le K$ and all $n\ge N$, $|{\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t) - {\nabla}^ff( y, t)|\le \epsilon$, i.e., ${\nabla}^{f_n}f_n\to {\nabla}^ff$ uniformly on compact sets.
Next, notice that $f( y, t)={\nabla}^ff( y, t)\, y$ and $f_n( y, t)={\nabla}^{f_n}f_n( y, t)\, y$. Therefore, $f_n\to f$ uniformly on compact sets as well and is proven.
Finally, we conclude that $${\partial}_ y f_n\to{\partial}_ y f\text{ in }{\mathcal L}^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2) .$$ Indeed, since $f$ is ACL, we have, whenever ${\nabla}f_n$ exist for all $n$, $${\partial}_ y f_n = {\nabla}^{f_n}f_n - f_n{\partial}_ t f_n .$$ Since the right hand side converges to ${\partial}_ y f$ in ${\mathcal L}^2_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, the left hand side does the same. The proof is complete.
\[lem08270101\] The function $f$ satisfies .
Let $f_n$ as above and $\varphi\in C^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Since $f_n\to f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, then $I_f(\varphi)=\lim_{n\to\infty}I_{f_n}(\varphi)$ by Lemma \[lem08261641\]. By Proposition \[prop06061521\].(iii), $I_{f_n}(\varphi)=0$ for all $n$, thus $I_f(\varphi)=0$.
\[lem08270102\] The function $f$ satisfies .
Fix $\varphi\in{\mathscr{C}}^\infty_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. Since $f_n\to f$ in $W^{1,2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and ${\nabla}^{f_n}f_n\to{\nabla}^ff$ uniformly on compact sets, then $$II_f(\varphi) = \lim_{n\to\infty} II_{f_n}(\varphi) .$$ Since $a_n$ is locally Lipschitz, by Proposition \[prop06061521\].$(iv)$, we have $$II_{f_n}(\varphi)
= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
({\partial}_s\tilde\varphi_n)^2 \frac{(\frac{a_n'}2s^2+1)}{(1+a_n^2)^{3/2}}
-2 \tilde\varphi_n^2 \frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_n'}2s^2+1) }
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau ,$$ where $\tilde\varphi_n(s,\tau) := \varphi(s,a_n(\tau)\frac{s^2}{2}+\tau)$. So, we only need to show that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\tilde\varphi_n^2 \frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_n'}2t^2+1) }
{\,\mathrm{d}}t{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\le 0 .$$ Let $M:=\sup_{p\in{\mathbb{R}}^2}\varphi(p)^2$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\tilde\varphi_n^2 \frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_n'}2s^2+1) }
{\,\mathrm{d}}t{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau \\
\le
M \int_{C(n)}
\frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} } \int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{1}{ (\frac{a_n'}{2}s^2+1) } {\,\mathrm{d}}t
{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\end{gathered}$$ If $\tau\in C(n)$, then $a_n'=q^{-n}$ and, after substituting $v=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2q^n}}s$, ${\,\mathrm{d}}v = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2q^n}}{\,\mathrm{d}}s$ $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{1}{ (\frac{a_n'}{2}s^2+1) } {\,\mathrm{d}}s
= \int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{\sqrt{2q^n}}{v^2+1} {\,\mathrm{d}}v
= \sqrt{2q^n} \pi .$$ Moreover, $$\int_{C(n)} \frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
= \sum_{k\in J_k} \int_{\frac{k}{3^n}}^{\frac{k+1}{3^n}} \frac{a_n'}{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}\tau$$ For each $k\in J_k$, make the substitution $v=a_n(\tau)$, ${\,\mathrm{d}}v=a_n'{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau$, $\frac{k}{3^n}\mapsto a_n(\frac{k}{3^n})=a(\frac{k}{3^n})$, $\frac{k+1}{3^n}\mapsto a_n(\frac{k+1}{3^n})=a(\frac{k+1}{3^n})$ $$\int_{\frac{k}{3^n}}^{\frac{k+1}{3^n}} \frac{a_n'}{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
= \int_{a(\frac{k}{3^n})}^{a(\frac{k+1}{3^n})} \frac{1}{ (1+v^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}v$$ So, $$\sum_{k\in J_k} \int_{\frac{k}{3^n}}^{\frac{k+1}{3^n}} \frac{a_n'}{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
= \int_0^1 \frac{1}{ (1+v^2)^{3/2} } {\,\mathrm{d}}v
= \frac1{\sqrt2} .$$ All in all, we have $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}
\varphi_n^2 \frac{ a_n' }{ (1+(a_n)^2)^{3/2} (\frac{a_n'}2s^2+1) }
{\,\mathrm{d}}s{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau
\le \limsup_{n\to\infty} M\sqrt{q^n} \pi
= 0 .$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Black hole meiosis
---
Introduction {#sect:intro}
============
By virtue of the correspondence principle, BPS black holes in 4d and 5d string theory compactifications can be studied as bound states of D–brane systems. These D–branes are wrapped such that they form a particle from a 4d (or 5d) point of view: a so–called *D–particle*. If the D–branes carry a sufficient amount of charge, the system will form a black hole through the gravitational backreaction as soon as the string coupling is turned on. Also a D–particle carrying minimal charge is a very interesting toy model, which offers itself for studying the basic mathematical principles governing BPS black holes, although the direct interpretation as a black hole is lost.
In this paper, the partition functions of D–particles modeled as mixed (magnetic/electric charge) ensembles with branes wrapped on algebraic Calabi–Yau 3–folds are studied. The microstates of key interest are so–called polar states, which are given the interpretation of chromosomes of D–particles or black holes in subsection \[subsect:chromosomes\]. One of the main virtues of polar states of black holes is that they are always multi–centered solutions. In the case of a D–particle, polar and some non–polar bound states are enumerated, and we propose a refined computational scheme to calculate indices for these bound states. At the same time, we split up Donaldson–Thomas invariants, used to enumerate constituents of these bound states, into *Donaldson–Thomas partitions*. The index for which we propose a refinement was used in [@Denef:2007vg]. The authors of this paper also state that a moduli space of a bound state is in general a fibration. This was examined for an example in [@Collinucci:2008ht] and a refinement of the index enumerating a bound state was suggested there. This work can be seen as a further development of these latter ideas.\
\
**Interest in multi–centered BPS black hole solutions**\
\
In recent years, great interest has arisen in multi–centered black hole solutions within the BPS spectrum of type II string theory compactifications. This has several reasons, of which we shall list a few of special interest for the development of our work:
According to the BPS black hole attractor mechanism, a spherically symmetric (single–centered) black hole solution can be found in $\mathcal{N}=2, d=4$ supergravity theories, independently of the chosen values of the vector multiplet scalar fields at infinite distance of the black hole $t_{\infty}:=t(r=\infty)$, where $t(r)$ denotes the value of the scalars in dependence of a radial spacetime coordinate $r$. The value of these moduli will be driven to the so–called ‘attractor value’ at the event horizon, $t_{*}:=t(r=0)$. The values of these moduli form a line in moduli space (connecting $t_{\infty}$ and $t_{*}$), which will be referred to as a *single flow*. G. Moore put forth a correspondence between spherically symmetric solutions to the BPS attractor equations and BPS states in string theory. Studies by G. Moore in 1998 [@Moore:1998pn; @Moore:1998zu] showed that this correspondence does not hold. For a full correspondence, (at least) stationary multi–centered solutions must also be considered.
The connection between the supergravity description of BPS black hole solutions and the D–brane description has received completely new impulses from the studies on multi–centered solutions and bound states over the last decade. In [@Denef:2002ru] it was shown how a D–brane system wrapped around a compact manifold, yielding a single point in space, can transform into a bound state of two (or more) constituents, in the gravitational description. Genuine bound states of black holes, subject to specific equilibrium distances for stability, were discovered by Denef and collaborators [@Denef:2000ar; @Denef:2000nb]. A review how to construct these multi–centered solutions was given in [@Bates:2003vx]. By now, it seems fair to say that it has been acknowledged that they form a very prominent part of the spectrum. A sample study of the BPS spectrum for a type II compactification on the quintic 3–fold provides a nice illustration [@Denef:2001xn].
The formulation of the OSV conjecture [@Ooguri:2004zv] released a period of very active research on the connection of black hole entropy and topological string theory; see [@Pioline:2006ni] for a review. Basically, the conjecture suggests a relation of a black hole partition function with the topological string partition function of the form, $\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{BH}}\approx |\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{top}}|^2$. Attempts to prove this conjecture have proven to be extremely difficult. One attempt by Denef and Moore, which is of special relevance for the present work, put multi–centered black hole solutions to the center of the stage [@Denef:2007vg]. The authors concretized the conjecture using a D4–D2–D0 partition function as a black hole partition function, built from a mixed ensemble, keeping the D4–charge fixed and varying over the D2/D0 charges. This partition function displays modular invariance and it turns out that it is completely determined by knowing the degeneracy of a finite number of microstates: *the polar states*[^1]. Such a relation was derived by the authors of [@Denef:2007vg] and independently in [@deBoer:2006vg], subject to certain amendments [@Manschot:2007ha]. These polar states are exclusively realized as multi–centered solutions, as will also be discussed in section \[sect:background\]. A large part of the work presented in this paper consists of the enumeration of polar states for D–particles.
Another finding of [@Denef:2007vg] is, that upon scaling up the charge of a brane system, the entropy of multi–centered microstates carrying that charge will always start to dominate over the entropy coming from single–centered states. This is puzzling, as the entropy of multi–centered solutions scales with the cube, $S\rightarrow \Lambda^3 S$ when scaling D–brane charges $Q\rightarrow\Lambda Q$, and not with the square, as is the case for single–centered solutions, $S\rightarrow \Lambda^2 S$. For a (large) black hole, that carries large charges, this implies that one would expect a far too large entropy and this puzzling discovery has been given the name *entropy enigma*. This again stresses the importance of multi–centered solutions. A possible connection exists with another phenomenon discovered, namely the appearance of *scaling solutions*. Scaling solutions appear as multi–centered BPS solutions, which however allow the continous variation of a parameter, the distance between constituents. This implies that one can vary this ‘scaling modulus’ and choose two centers to lie so close together in spacetime that their throats virtually melt together, and the constituents become indistinguishable to an outside observer. The precise meaning of these solutions is at this moment still a point of ongoing discussion, and their implications for the split attractor flow conjecture (discussed in section \[subsect:splitflows\]) are not completely clear. These issues have been recently addressed in [@deBoer:2008fk; @deBoer:2009un; @deBoer:2008zn]. We will discuss our results in the light of these issues in a separate section, \[scalingsolutions\].
Just like single–centered BPS black holes, multi–centered BPS black hole solutions are also governed by an attractor mechanism. It was originally extended to multi–centered black holes in [@Denef:2000nb]. The image of the scalar moduli in moduli space forms a line, that splits (possibly several times) and runs from a background value $t_{\infty}$ to a split point (and maybe further split points), in order to end at two (or several) attractor points, $t_{1*}, t_{2*},...$, one for each center of the bound state. This image has been given the name *split attractor flow tree* and has been conjectured to be an existence criterion for a multi–centered black hole solution. The meaning of split flow trees extends beyond supergravity, as has been confirmed by studies on the quiver description of D–brane systems in [@Denef:2002ru]. In fact, the *split attractor flow tree conjecture* states that (single and) split flows completely classify the BPS spectrum of type II string theory. The results in this paper can be interpreted as strong evidence for this conjecture.\
\
**Main goal: index refinement for BPS bound states**\
\
In [@Collinucci:2008ht], a study very similar to those in this paper was performed, and a refined prescription for calculating an index for a BPS bound state was proposed. The reason for the necessity of this refinement lay in the fact that the tachyon fields connecting the two constituents of a bound state did not perceive all the individual microstates of a constituent generically. The investigations in this paper go in the same direction, however the reason why the tachyon fields do not perceive all constituent states of a bound states generically, will be different. This leads us to new techniques to calculate the refined index. Non–trivial checks on our method yield exact confirmation of the predictions from modularity on degeneracies of certain states, suggesting that our technique is indeed correct, and beyond that, that the strong split attractor flow conjecture might well be completely accurate. Whereas the ‘naive’ index to enumerate a bound state is a simple product, we argue, as in [@Denef:2007vg; @Collinucci:2008ht], that the moduli space is rather a fibration. This means that the index falls into a sum of several pieces, which can be grouped logically. This leads us to distinguish between those states of a constituent, in our case a D6–brane system enumerated by a Donaldson–Thomas invariant, that are perceived generically, and those that are perceived as special states. This also allows the definition of *Donaldson–Thomas partitions*, which enumerate those generic and special states separately. The main idea of our technique will be explained at the beginning of chapter \[sect:DTpartitions\], which also contains our results on the refined bound state index and on Donaldson–Thomas partitions.\
\
**Organization of this paper**
Section \[sect:background\] covers some basic material and may be skipped by the expert reader. Subsection \[subsect:dtinvariants\] briefly recapitulates the index developed for the enumeration of BPS bound states in type II string theory compactifications in [@Denef:2007vg], extensively used and eventially improved on in this paper. For the sake of stressing their importance, special bound states, namely *polar states*, which determine elliptic genera through modularity, are given the interpretation of chromosomes of a D–particle / a black hole in subsection \[subsect:chromosomes\]. The reader unfamiliar with techniques used in this paper will find short, but more or less self–contained appendices covering the relevant background material used in this paper. We mostly follow the setup of [@Denef:2007vg] and [@Collinucci:2008ht]. The reader will find more explanation on the setup of this paper, in particular D–branes wrapped on algebraic one–modulus Calabi–Yau varieties, in appendix \[sect:setup\], a short account of (modified) elliptic genera in appendix \[sect:ellGenera\], and a short introduction to split attractor flow trees as well as a formulation of the split attractor flow tree conjecture is presented in appendix \[subsect:splitflows\]. Eventually, to concretely establish the existence of BPS states for our study models, we will use numerical techniques, involving the use of mirror symmetry, adapted from [@Denef:2001xn]. This is necessary, as we work with very small charges, and therefore instanton corrections to the central charges of brane systems become dominant. More details on these techniques can be found in appendix \[numericalmethods\].
Section \[sect:ellipticgenera\] presents our results for polar states on two Calabi–Yau’s, described as hypersurfaces in weighted projective spaces. These results allow a prediction on the partition function for a D–particle, and exactly match the results in [@Gaiotto:2007cd].
Section \[sect:DTpartitions\] presents our most interesting findings. For some tractable non–polar states for two of our models, calculations based on the ‘naive computation’ of a BPS index show a discrepancy from the result predicted by modularity. We demonstrate that our computations based on a refined index for BPS bound states however show an exact matching with the prediction. At the same time, we use our procedure to distinguish between constituent states that are perceived by the tachyon field generically, and those that are perceived differently: we use the terms ‘generic’ and ‘special’ states and call the invariants that enumerate these D6–brane systems, *Donaldson–Thomas partitions*, $\mathcal{N}^{(g)}_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta ,n), \mathcal{N}^{(s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta ,n)$, where the superscripts ‘g’ and ‘s’ stand for ‘generic’ and ‘special’, respectively, and where $N_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta ,n)=\mathcal{N}^{(g)}_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta ,n)+\mathcal{N}^{(s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta ,n)$.
In section \[refinedellipticgenera\], we show that the refined prescription to compute BPS indices for bound states also alters the enumeration of polar states, leading to a new prediction for the elliptic genus for a degree ten hypersurface, embedded in a weighted projective space. This prediction is slightly different from the results in [@Gaiotto:2007cd].
Section \[sect:discussion\] is a discussion of our results. We devote some time to the question whether anything can be learned about a ‘tentative’ part of the classical BPS spectrum of a D–particle, namely scaling solutions, in a separate subsection, \[scalingsolutions\]. In another subsection, \[subsect:meiosis\], we interpret our most interesting results, the necessity for the refinement of bound state indices, as an artefact of a ‘sort of meiosis for D–particles / black holes’. We conclude with some implications and possible directions for future research.
Exact enumeration of BPS microstates of a D–particle {#sect:background}
====================================================
We model D–particles using mixed ensembles of D4–D2–D0 branes wrapped on a Calabi–Yau 3–fold $X$, which we choose to be a hyperplane in a weighted projective space. A D4–brane with charge $p=1$ is wrapped on the hyperplane class divisor, and kept fixed, while varying over all possible $U(1)$ worldvolume fluxes $F\in H^2(X)$ and various numbers of bound $\Dob$–branes. We follow the setup of [@Denef:2007vg; @Collinucci:2008ht]. The reader can find more details on our setup and conventions in appendix \[sect:setup\].
The existence of D4–D2–D0 BPS states will be inferred from the the existence of split attractor flow trees. The reader unfamiliar with this technique can find a short introduction in appendix \[subsect:splitflows\]. As we inspect low–charged BPS states, higher order curvature corrections to the action become important, and central charges of brane systems will have to be calculated by exploiting mirror symmetry. Details on this procedure can be found in appendix \[numericalmethods\].
An index for BPS bound states using Donaldson–Thomas (DT) invariants {#subsect:dtinvariants}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Our goal is to describe D4–D2–D0 configurations as bound states of D6–D2–D0 and ${\rm \overline{D6}}$–D2–D0, possibly carrying U(1) fluxes, whereby the D4 charge is induced by the latter fluxes. This will allow us to factorize the indices of D4 systems as products of D6 and $\rm{\overline{D6}}$ indices. In order to compute the BPS indices of the D6 and $\rm{\overline{D6}}$ systems, we will make use of Donaldson–Thomas invariants. An invariant $N_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta, n)$ computes the Witten index of a system with a D2 brane wrapping a curve of homology class $\beta$, and a collection of $\rm{\overline{D0}}$’s, such that the total D0 charge equals $n$. Although the U(1) flux on the D6 interacts with these lower branes, it does not alter the Witten index. In mathematical terms, the DT invariants compute the dimensions of the moduli spaces of the ideal sheaves corresponding to curves and points on the Calabi–Yau. They are indeed conjectured [@MNOP1; @MNOP2] to contain equivalent information as the Gopakumar–Vafa invariants [@Gopakumar:1998ii; @Gopakumar:1998jq], which count the states of M2 branes with momentum, where the M2’s are wrapped on holomorphic curves. By the conjectured identity between the generating functional for GV invariants and DT invariants [@Dijkgraaf:2006um], one can easily obtain the DT invariants for the Calabi–Yau manifolds we use in this paper, from [@Huang:2006hq] and [@Klemm:2004km]. We will state the DT invariants of interest for the models we study, where they are directly applied, in chapters \[sect:ellipticgenera\] and \[sect:DTpartitions\].
As was done in [@Collinucci:2008ht], we will use the index for D4–D2–D0 BPS states of total charge $\Gamma$ from [@Denef:2007vg] to enumerate states: $$\Omega(\Gamma)=\sum_{\Gamma\rightarrow\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2}(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle |-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle |\,\Omega (\Gamma_1)\,\Omega (\Gamma_2),$$ with the sum running over all possible first splits $\Gamma\rightarrow\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2$, belonging to a full split flow tree, and $\langle \Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle$ is the symplectic intersection of the two charges, as defined in appendix \[sect:setup\]. The microscopic logic behind this formula is that all degrees of freedom in a D6/$\Dsb$ can be factorized as the degrees of freedom on the gauge theories of the D6 and $\Dsb$ plus the degrees of freedom of the tachyon field, which are counted by the intersection product. This formula is not accurate though, for all cases, as the moduli space of a bound state is in general a fibration: this is discussed in detail, in chapter \[sect:DTpartitions\].
In general, as discussed in appendix \[subsect:splitflows\], a specific charge can give rise to several split flow trees. A split flow tree will contribute a term to the index of the D4 system as follows: $$\Delta \Omega(\Gamma_{D4})=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_{D6},\Gamma_{\Dsb}\,\rangle |-1}\,|\langle\Gamma_{D6},\Gamma_{\Dsb}\rangle | \, N_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta_1, n_1) \, N_{\textrm{DT}}(\beta_2, n_2)\,,$$ where $$n = \tfrac{1}{2}\,\chi(C_{\beta})+N$$ with $n$ the total and $N$ the added $\Dob$–charge.
The research presented in this paper is closely connected to an ‘OSV–like statement’ for D–particles. The topological string partition function is used to enumerate D6 (and lower dimensional brane charge) systems, or, in the mirror picture, to count D3–brane systems. Schematically, the relationships, of which we would like to gain a better understanding, can be expressed as \_[D\_]{}\~|\_|\^2|\_|\^2|\_[D6]{}|\^2=|\_[D3]{}|\^2, where:
$\mathcal{Z}_{D_{\textrm{particle}}}\sim|\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{top}}|^2$ is an OSV–like statement for a D–particle.
$|\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{top}}|^2\approx |\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{DT}}|^2$ expressed that one uses the asymptotic expansion of the topological string partition function (which is not known exactly) known as the Donaldson–Thomas (DT) partition function.
$|\mathcal{Z}_{\textrm{DT}}|^2\approx |\mathcal{Z}_{D6}|^2$ expressed that one uses DT invariants to enumerate D6–D4–D2–D0 BPS states[^2]
$|\mathcal{Z}_{D6}|^2=|\mathcal{Z}_{D3}|^2$ expressed that mirror symmetry comes into play, and that we examine the mirror D3–brane systems, as these allow computation of exact central charges.
The partition function of a D–particle $\mathcal{Z}_{D_{\textrm{particle}}}$ is identical with the modified elliptic genus, associated to the M–theory picture of the worldvolume description of these ensembles of BPS D–brane states. Elliptic genera are roughly sketched in appendix \[sect:ellGenera\]. The rough scheme discussed above is followed up in this paper, resulting in various elliptic genera for specific CY 3–fold study models, obtained from a new perspective.
Polar states: the chromosomes of D–particles / black holes {#subsect:chromosomes}
----------------------------------------------------------
For partition functions of D–particles (whether they have enough mass to backreact a black hole or not) modeled using a mixed ensemble of branes[^3], the degeneracy of a finite number of BPS microstates, *the polar states*, determines all other degeneracies through modularity. This is illustrated in figure \[dparticledegeneracies\].
(5,4) (-4.5,0) [![A D–particle’s entropy is explained by the many possible ways to model BPS microstates by wrapping branes around cycles in compact dimensions. Among the many BPS microstates of a D–particle modeled as a mixed ensemble, a finite number of polar states (pictured on the right) determine the entire partition function. Polar states come as bound states: the two branes (red and blue) are glued together by tachyonic string modes (green).[]{data-label="dparticledegeneracies"}](dparticle1 "fig:"){width="41.50000%"}]{} (2.5,0) [![A D–particle’s entropy is explained by the many possible ways to model BPS microstates by wrapping branes around cycles in compact dimensions. Among the many BPS microstates of a D–particle modeled as a mixed ensemble, a finite number of polar states (pictured on the right) determine the entire partition function. Polar states come as bound states: the two branes (red and blue) are glued together by tachyonic string modes (green).[]{data-label="dparticledegeneracies"}](dparticle2 "fig:"){width="41.50000%"}]{} (-3.6,0.05) (4.5,0.05)
Although there are of course many shortcomings in the analogy we are about to propose, there is a similarity between how the degeneracy of polar states dictates ‘the whole rest of possible microstates of a D–particle’, and how knowledge of the genome on chromosomes in microbiology dictates — we allow ourselves to simplify things considerably — ‘all possible molecular states of an organism’. We thus like to think of polar states as a sort of ‘chromosomes for D–particles (and black holes)’. Additionally, just like chromosomes come in pairs for (nearly all) mammals (‘diploid’ organisms), polar states are realized as bound states, thus they come in pairs of ‘parent chromosomes’. This is illustrated in the following figure:
(5,4) (0,0) [{width="40.00000%"}]{}
We will come back to this metaphor, when we discuss our results in section \[sect:discussion\]. Of course, these thoughts are nothing else than some intuitive interpretations of the modular properties and the information encoded by the poles of a weak Jacobi form. For now, this may serve as a motive to focus on a D–particle’s polar states. We will however also investigate some of the ‘almost polar’ states[^4], which will provide the most interesting checks on our methods.
Elliptic genera from split flow trees and DT invariants {#sect:ellipticgenera}
=======================================================
This section is a short account of our results on all polar states for two Calabi–Yau (CY) varieties, which allows us to predict the corresponding elliptic genera. We start with a CY given as a sextic hypersurface.
Polar states on the sextic hypersurface in ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11112}}}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11112}}}$, the adjunction formula shows that one can obtain a CY hypersurface by choosing a degree six polynomial. The total Chern class reads $c(X)=\frac{(1+H)^4(1+2H)}{1+6H}=1+14H^2-68H^3$, and using $\int_X H^3=\int_{{\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11112}}}}6H^4=3$, one gets $\chi (X)=-204$. As $\int_X H^3=3$, the weak Jacobi form is in this case three–dimensional: $$Z(q, \bar q, z) = \sum_{k=0}^{2} Z_k(q)\, \Theta_k (\bar q, z)\,,$$ which means that we only have to determine $Z_0$ and $Z_1$. By choosing a basis for $L_X^{\perp}$ one can easily see that there are two gluing vectors, but by the symmetry $\gamma =-\gamma$ one knows that one has just one ‘fundamental’ gluing vector $\gamma_1$. According to our previous intuition, this means that in order to determine the complete elliptic genus, one will have to enumerate states in the classes $[0,\hat{q}_0]$ and $[\gamma_1,\hat{q}_0]$. For convenience, we list the DT invariants for the sextic of interest:
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
& $\mathbf{n=0}$ & $\mathbf{n=1}$ & $\mathbf{n=2}$ & $\mathbf{n=3}$\
$\mathbf{\beta=0}$ & 1 & 204 & 20’298 & 1’311’584\
$\mathbf{\beta=1}$ & 0 & 7884 & 1’592’568 & 156’836’412\
$\mathbf{\beta=2}$ & 7884 & 7’636’788 & 1’408’851’522 & 136’479’465’324\
$\mathbf{\beta=3}$ & 169’502’712 & 443’151’185’260 & 5’487’789’706’776 & 440’554’251’409’968\
1. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=0, \qquad [0,\frac{45}{24}]}$:\
The pure D4–brane carries half a unit of flux to ensure anomaly cancellation, and has total charge $\Gamma = H+\frac{H^2}{2}+(\frac{\chi (P)}{24}+\frac{1}{2}F^2)\,\omega =H+\frac{1}{2}H^2+\frac{3}{4}H^3 =(0,1,\frac{3}{2},\frac{9}{4})$, where we have introduced the notation = (p\^0,p,q,q\_0), which we will equally use from now on. As in [@Collinucci:2008ht], we will also label charge systems by their deviation in D2–brane charge $\Delta q$ and D0–brane charge $\Delta q_0$ as measured from the most polar state. In the ‘charge shift’ notation it is denoted as $\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=0$. As explained in [@Denef:2007vg], various charges are related by flux shifts. Charge equivalence classes contain the same entropy, and they can be labeled by the (flux) gluing vector (see appendix \[sect:ellGenera\]), as well as the reduced D0–brane charge. A charge equivalence class can thus be labeled by $[\gamma ,\hat{q}_0]$, and the most polar state for the sextic lies in the class $[0,\frac{45}{24}]$. One finds a split flow tree with centers $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_1&=&(1,1,\frac{13}{4},\frac{9}{4}),\\ \Gamma_2&=&(-1,0,-\frac{7}{4},0).\end{aligned}$$ It looks and is enumerated as follows:
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$-4$.]{}
The BPS index reads $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)=(-1)^3\cdot 4\cdot 1\cdot 1=-4.$$ Note that the fact that the intersection number between $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ nicely corresponds with the fact that the moduli space of the hyperplane $H\subset X$ is a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{3}}}$, hence $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{3}}})=4$, because the coordinate with weight $2$ can of course not be used to define a hyperplane.
2. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-1,\qquad [0,\frac{21}{24}]}$:\
Adding one $\Dob$, one gets the total charge $(0,1,\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{4})$, with reduced D0–brane charge $\hat{q}_0=\frac{21}{24}$. The flow tree is analogous to what was found for the quintic [@Collinucci:2008ht](the side of the $\Dob$ after the first split can be chosen, according to where one is with respect to the appropriate threshold wall). The charges of the centers after the first split read \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-1),and the flow tree looks like
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$612$,]{}
where of course $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)=(-1)^2\cdot 3\cdot 1\cdot 204=612.$$
3. $\mathbf{\Delta q=1, \Delta q_0=-1,\qquad [\gamma_1,\frac{5}{24}]}$:\
One can now consider a flux, which will involve what we called the relevant gluing vector $\gamma_1$. According to our intuition, which receives further support at this point, this means turning on an extra flux dual to a degree one rational curve. This leads to the total charge $(0,1,\frac{5}{2},\frac{5}{4})$, and to the reduced D0–brane charge $\hat{q}_0=\frac{5}{24}$: thus, there is only one polar state in this $\gamma_1$–class. One finds the split flow tree with a pure D6 one one side, and a $\Dsb$ with a D2 on a degree one rational curve, as expected. The charges read \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-1),with the split flow tree
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}+F(C_1{}^{g=0})}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}_{D2(C_1{}^{g=0})}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$=-15'768$.]{}
The BPS index is calculated according to $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(1,1)=(-1)^1\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 7'884=-15'768.$$
Using a basis for modular forms of the right weight, one can use these numbers to determine the modular form to be given by $$\begin{aligned}
Z_0(q)&=&q^{-\frac{45}{24}}(-4+612q-40'392q^2+146'464'860q^3...) \label{eq:z0sextic} \\
Z_1(q)=Z_2(q)&=&q^{-\frac{29}{24}}(-15'768q+7'621'020q^2+...)), \label{eq:z1sextic}\end{aligned}$$ whose uniqueness follows from [@Denef:2007vg; @deBoer:2006vg; @Manschot:2007ha]. This agrees with the findings of [@Gaiotto:2007cd] (up to an overall sign), which is of course not a surprise, given that the small number of polar states supporting split flow tree realizations apparently do not involve subtleties.
Polar states on the octic hypersurface in ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11114}}}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11114}}}$, the adjunction formula shows that one can obtain a CY hypersurface by choosing a degree eight polynomial. The total Chern class reads $c(X)=\frac{(1+H)^4(1+4H)}{1+8H}=1+22H^2-148H^3$, and using $\int_X H^3=\int_{{\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11114}}}}8H^4=2$, one gets $\chi (X)=-296$. As $\int_X H^3=2$, the weak Jacobi form is in this case two–dimensional: $$Z(q, \bar q, z) = \sum_{k=0}^{1} Z_k(q)\, \Theta_k (\bar q, z)\,,$$ which means that we have to determine $Z_0$ and $Z_1$. By choosing a basis for $L_X^{\perp}$ one can easily see that there is only one gluing vector, $\gamma_1$. According to our previous intutition, this means that in order to determine the complete elliptic genus, one will have to enumerate states in the classes $[0,\hat{q}_0]$ and $[\gamma_1,\hat{q}_0]$. For convenience, we also list the DT invariants of interest, for the octic:
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
& $\mathbf{n=0}$ & $\mathbf{n=1}$ & $\mathbf{n=2}$ & $\mathbf{n=3}$\
$\mathbf{\beta=0}$ & 1 & 296 & 43’068 & 4’104’336\
$\mathbf{\beta=1}$ & 0 & 29’504 & 8’674’176 & 1’253’300’416\
$\mathbf{\beta=2}$ & 564’332 & 204’456’696 & 45’540’821’914 & 6’127’608’486’208\
$\mathbf{\beta=3}$ & 8’775’447’296 & 6’313’618’655’104 & 1’225’699’503’521’536 & 141’978’726’005’461’504\
We will be quite brief on the summary of results on polar states, given the analogy to the previously discussed cases.
1. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=0, \qquad [0,\frac{23}{12}]}$:\
The most polar state is the D4–brane carrying flux $\frac{H}{2}$ for anomaly cancellation, with total charge $(0,1,1,\frac{13}{6})$. The reduced D0–brane charge can be calulcated to be $\hat{q}_0=\frac{23}{12}$, and the state is of course in the class $[0,\frac{23}{12}]$. One finds a split flow tree with centers \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,0),with split flow tree
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$-4$.]{}
where the BPS index is calculated as $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)=(-1)^3\cdot 4\cdot 1\cdot 1=-4.$$ Note again the fact that the intersection number between $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ equals $-4$ corresponds with the fact that one cannot use one of the five coordinates to define a hyperplane, in the D4–picture.
2. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-1,\qquad [0,\frac{11}{12}]}$:\
Adding one $\Dob$, one gets the total charge $(0,1,1,\frac{7}{6})$, with reduced D0–brane charge $\hat{q}_0=\frac{11}{12}$. The flow tree is again analogous to what we found for the sextic (the side of the $\Dob$ after the first split can be chosen, according to where one is with respect to the appropriate threshold wall). The charges of the centers after the first split read \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-1),and the flow tree looks like
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$888$,]{}
where of course $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)=(-1)^2\cdot 3\cdot 1\cdot 296=888.$$
3. $\mathbf{\Delta q=1, \Delta q_0=-1,\qquad [\gamma_1,\frac{1}{6}]}$:\
One can now consider a flux, involving the relevant gluing vector $\gamma_1$. As previously seen, this means turning on an extra flux dual to a degree one rational curve. This leads to the total charge $(0,1,2,\frac{7}{6})$, and to the reduced D0–brane charge $\hat{q}_0=\frac{1}{6}$: thus, there is again only one polar state in this $\gamma_1$–class. One finds the split flow tree with a pure D6 one one side, and a $\Dsb$ with a D2 on a degree one rational curve, as expected. The charges read \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-1),with the split flow tree
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}+F(C_1{}^{g=0})}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}_{D2(C_1{}^{g=0})}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$-59'008$.]{}
The BPS index is calculated according to $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(1,1)=(-1)^1\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 29'504=-59'008.$$
Using a basis for modular forms of the right weight, one can use these numbers to determine the modular form to be given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{octicellipticgenus}
Z_0(\tau )&=&q^{-\frac{23}{12}}(-4+888q-86'140q^2+131'940'136q^3...) \\
Z_1(\tau )=Z_2(\tau)&=&q^{-\frac{7}{6}}(-59'008q+8'615'168q^2+...)\end{aligned}$$ This again agrees with the findings of [@Gaiotto:2007cd] (up to an overall sign).
Refined enumeration of bound states and elliptic genera revisited {#sect:DTpartitions}
=================================================================
Using the BPS index for bound states explained in part \[subsect:dtinvariants\], we were able to predict the elliptic genera for two study models, and we found exact agreement with the authors of [@Gaiotto:2007cd]. In this section, we will discuss the non–polar states that demand the use of a refined prescription for the computation of the BPS index for bound states. In [@Collinucci:2008ht], this was demonstrated for a non–polar BPS state on the quintic 3–fold: the refined computation yielded an exact match with the result predicted from modularity. In our case, the reason for the necessity for refined calculations is different, but we again find exact agreement with the result predicted by modularity, for all tractable examples. We will show that refinements can also alter the enumeration of polar states, in the next section.
We start with a subsection explaining the main reason why refinement is needed, followed by a subsection explaining the more specific techniques used in our computations. We then move on to the various explicit examples, and we will also show how our refined computations allow us to introduce partitions of the Donaldson–Thomas invariants used to enumerate the BPS states belonging to a D6–D2–D0 constituent of a bound state.
The main idea: non–trivially fibered moduli spaces of bound states
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the microscopic D–brane picture, a bound state of a D6–brane system carrying a flux $F_1$ and bound to $N$ $\Dob$’s, and a $\Dsb$ carrying a flux $F_2$ is held together by tachyonic string modes. For the pure D6–$\Dsb$ bound state, the tachyon field $T$ ([@Collinucci:2008pf]) can be understood as a map $T:F_1\rightarrow F_2$, where $F_{1,2}$ are the line bundles corresponding the fluxes. Alternatively, the tachyon can be understood as a section of T(F\_2\^[\*]{}F\_1), and the Riemann–Roch theorem allows us to compute an index $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{T}}$, counting the number of basis elements of this space of sections, $ \Gamma (F_2^{*}\otimes F_1)$: \[tachyonindex\] \_=\_X(F\_2\^[\*]{})(F\_1)Td(X), where $\textrm{ch}(F)$ denotes the Chern class of $F$, and $\textrm{Td}(X)$ denotes the Todd class for the base space (in this case the CY). If one adds a $\Dob$–brane, the tachyon field needs to vanish at an additional point. The map is then a section of $ \Gamma (F_2^{*}\otimes F_1\times\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{p}})$, where $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{p}}$ denotes the ideal sheaf on the point where the $\Dob$ resides. When $N$ $\Dob$’s are bound to the D6–brane, the tachyon field $T$ needs to vanish also at these points, which means that one has to impose $N$ constraints on $T$: the number of independent sections of the tachyon fields is reduced by $N$ (as opposed to the case where one studies a D6–$\Dsb$–system without any extra bound $\Dob$’s). In this way an index is computed, accounting for the degrees of freedom associated with the tachyon moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{T}}$.
The index presented in subsection \[subsect:dtinvariants\] is based on the assumption, that the moduli space of a bound state factorizes into the tachyon moduli space, the moduli space of the D6–brane, and the moduli space of the $\Dsb$–brane: =\_\_[D6]{}\_. To compute an index one naively uses, [@Denef:2007vg] (compare also with subsection \[subsect:dtinvariants\]),
[ccc]{} & & ,\
\_& \_[D6]{} & \_
where $(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle |}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle |$ and $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{T}}$ agree up to a sign.
In general, this moduli space is non–trivially fibered [@Collinucci:2008ht], and thus the dimensionality of the fiber can perform jumps. As a consequence, the index \[tachyonindex\] is not always accurate: it computes a virtual dimension [@Vonk:2005yv], which does not always equal the real dimension of the moduli space. Basically the reason is that the tachyon fields do not perceive all the constituent states generically. For simplicity, we will restrict the discussion in the following to the case that only one of the two constituents is not generically perceived, namely the $\Dsb$–consistuent. We will also focus on the case where $\Dob$–branes are not perceived generically by the tachyon fields, although we will show for an example, that an analogous phenomenon holds for special D2–states (and the curves on which these are wrapped). Generalizations of the presented scheme will become clear from our examples.
We show that the moduli space of a BPS bound state splits up for our examples, and can be grouped into two pieces: =\_[\_g]{}\_[D6]{}\_[\_g]{}\_[\_s]{}\_[D6]{}\_[\_s]{}. The first part, with the superscripts ‘g’, stands for the part where the tachyon fields perceive the constituent states ‘generically’, and hence the virtual dimension of $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{T}}$ is actually the real dimension, and the part with the superscripts ‘s’ stands for the part where the tachyon fields perceive the constituent states as ‘special states’ (in the present case, always for the $\Dsb$–system). This usually happens because the tachyon fields do not perceive all $\Dob$’s that are bound to the $\Dsb$, which results in a *constraint loss* on the tachyon field $T$. For example, generically three $\Dob$’s mean that the independent sections have to vanish at three points. If the tachyon is blind to one of the three, this number is reduced to two, resulting in a jump in the dimension of the fiber of the moduli space of the bound state. Typically, the dimension of $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{T}_s}$ will thus be greater by one, as opposed to $\mathcal{M}_{\textrm{T}_g}$.
In [@Collinucci:2008ht], it was proposed to define Donaldson–Thomas densities (in analogy to a top Chern class), that integrate over moduli space to a Donaldson–Thomas invariant, in order to be able to define a product formula for the bound state index on the level of index densities. One can also decide to integrate these densities on the various partitions of moduli space that have a constant dimension of the fiber of the tachyon moduli space. We call these integrated densities *Donaldson–Thomas partitions* (DT partitions). They separately enumerate generic and special D6–D2–D0 states, and we will calculate a series of examples of such DT partitions. Using these, one can write down how our refined indices come about:
[ccc]{} & &\
\_[\_g]{} & \_[D6]{} & \_[\_g]{}
[ccc]{} + & & .\
\_[\_s]{} & \_[D6]{} & \_[\_s]{}
Before giving our explicit examples, we will now give a more detailed instruction on how to separate the ‘generic’ from the ‘special’ states, resulting in a calculation of Donaldson–Thomas partitions.
Algebraic techniques to deal with special constituent states
------------------------------------------------------------
In [@Collinucci:2008ht], $D4-3\Dob$ states had to be treated more carefully, because the tachyon fields of a D6–($\Dsb$–3$\Dob$)–bound states do not perceive three *collinear* $\Dob$’s generically. Rather, they appear only as two particles. In terms of algebraic geometry, this is simple to express: the three constraints on the tachyon field are not independent (only two of them are independent). For our examples, this *constraint loss* occurs for two reasons, which we shall refer to as ‘special loci’, and as ‘special tangent directions’ (which are important when blowups are performed, required for dealing with coincident loci for two $\Dob$’s). The special loci occur because the Calabi–Yau varieties are embedded in weighted projective spaces, which means that there is not a complete democracy amongst coordinates: If a $\Dob$ sits at a position with non–zero coordinates of a higher weight only, it will not impose constraints on the tachyon, as the higher weight coordinates cannot be included in the definition of the tachyon map. Let us elaborate on this in more detail.
1. **Constraint loss because of special loci**\
For simplicity, consider a Calabi–Yau embedded in ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{1111n}}}$ with $n>1$, coordinates $(x_1,...,x_5)$ and a bound state of a D6–brane with flux $F=H$ (one unit of flux) and a $\Dsb$ without flux. In this case, $H$ is a line bundle of which the coordinates $x_i$ form sections. However, $x_5$ is forbidden as a section, as it has a higher weight. This means that there are only four instead of five independent sections for the tachyon $T\in\Gamma (H)$ ($F_2^{*}$ is the trivial bundle in this case). The most general tachyon field reads $T=a_1x_1+...+a_4x_4$. In general, placing a $\Dob$ on the $\Dsb$ means imposing one constraint on the tachyon field. A good way to think about this, is by treating the $\Dob$ on the $\Dsb$ with point particle quantum mechanics, (check [@Witten:1982im]). If one puts the particle at $x_5=1$ (and all other coordinates zero), it will not impose a constraint on the tachyon field. This might be of relevance and it might not: one still has to check whether this point actually lies on the Calabi–Yau. We will encounter cases where situations analogous to this fictitious example arise.
2. **Constraint loss because of special tangent directions**\
This was not the whole story, though. An additional complication arises as soon as one considers two (or more) $\Dob$–particles: orbifold singularities arise when particles meet. This is dealt with by performing a blowup, which imposes a distinction between the particles, that inhabit the same spot on the brane (and hence on the CY). One can intuitively picture this as considering an infinitesimally short time period before they meet, and distinguishing the particles upon all the different tangent directions (which of course have to be tangent directions to the Calabi–Yau variety under consideration), from which the two particles can approach each other. Two particles lying on the same spot in the Calabi–Yau would originally only impose one constraint on the tachyon field, according to the previous discussion. After performing a blowup, an additional constraint arises, from the splitting through the tangent direction. This means, that the tachyon moduli space fiber does not jump (at least generically) for states, where particles lie at the same locus. The point is: it *can* jump. Namely, one (or several) tangent directions might be built from coordinates that do not impose constraints. Thus, also after performing blowups, one still has to distinguish between generic and special states of particles, that lie at coincident loci.
Let us summarize the two situations, when special states occur (in this case for $\Dob's)$, once more:
For non–coincident $\Dob$’s, one needs to check whether the particles lie at ‘special loci’, where they do not impose a constraint on the tachyon fields. One could refer to these cases as the ‘special non–blowup loci’.
For a bound state, there are cases, when various $\Dob$’s are coincident: in this case one needs to perform blowups. These blown–up states have to be separated into generic and special states, according to whether the tangent direction (arising from the blowup) imposes a constraint on the tachyon fields or not. One might refer to these latter cases as the ‘special blowup loci’.
As will become clear from an example later on, analogous implications arise for bound D2–branes, depending on whether the curves (on which those branes are placed) impose ‘enough’ constraints on the tachyon fields (to make the bound state ‘generic’).
Special points and DT partitions $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the following, a few interesting non–polar states on the sextic and the octic CY’s for which the elliptic genera were predicted in the previous section, are examined. The refined caculations match the predictions from modularity.\
\
**The state $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-2}$ on the sextic**\
\
For this charge system, one finds a split flow tree with centers \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-2),
of the form
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{2D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{2D0}$]{} (5,1.3) [$=-2\cdot 20'298=-40'596$,]{}
and obviously, the index obtained naively $\Omega_{\textrm{naive}}$ differs from the exact index, which is given by $\Omega_{\textrm{exact}}=-40'392$ (see equation \[eq:z0sextic\]). This can be put right using the refined index, as the non–trivially fibered moduli space of this bound state dictates.
One can either argue from the D6–picture, or from a purely algebraic geometrical D4–perspective. Essentially the two arguments are identical. In the first picture, one chooses two point–like sheaves to lie on the vanishing locus of the polynomial describing the tachyon; in the second case, one places two $\Dob$–branes on the D4.
As dicussed before, for the most polar state, the most general tachyon map is of the form \[sextictachyon\] T=a\_1x\_1+...a\_4x\_4, choosing coordinates $(x_1,...,x_4,x_5)$ on ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11112}}}$ transforming with weights $(1,1,1,1,2)$. Setting two $\Dob$–branes on the $\Dsb$ means that the map has to ‘pass’ through two points, so in general, the moduli space of the tachyon will be reduced to from ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{3}}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}$, yielding $\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})=2$. This is where the intersection number $2$ comes from. It will now be shown that the dimension of this fiber jumps (as was observed for a state on the quintic 3–fold, though for a different reason, in [@Collinucci:2008ht]). One might say, that two $\Dob$–particles behave as one on a specific ‘special’ locus. The scheme is to analyze the remaining moduli describing this tachyon, demanding that two points as well as the tangent directions at these points lie on the CY as well as on the zero locus of the tachyon.\
\
**Finding special tangent directions arising from blowups**\
\
We discussed in the previous section that the fiber of the tachyon moduli space jumps in two cases. Firstly, if a particle is placed at a ‘special locus’, directly. Secondly, if two particles are coincident and the tangent direction arising from the blowup procedure is a ‘special tangent direction’. Before putting all the bits into place for the state under current investigation, we will look for the *special tangent directions* for the blowups which we have to perform. Before continuing, let us stress that this is a mechanism special to Calabi–Yau varieties embedded in weighted projective spaces, but will probably play an even more prominent role when working with more general Calabi–Yau varieties, embedded in toric ambient spaces.
Generically, demanding that two points lie in the zero of (\[sextictachyon\]), imposes two independent constraints, reducing the number of moduli by two. Denote the coordinates of the two points by $x_i^{P_1}$ and $x_i^{P_2}$. This is not that clear if the two points lie on top of each other $x^{P_1}_i=x^{P_2}_i$. However, this is generically resolved by the blowup procedure, where the tangent direction of the blowup gives an independent constraint, again leading to two constraints. However, as one is working with a weighted projective space, the coordinate $x_5$ does not appear in (\[sextictachyon\]). Different $x_5$–coordinates are not ‘seen’ by the tachyon. The points do however have to lie on the sextic, for which one can choose a representative given by a transverse polynomial, [@Candelas:1989hd], \[sexticpolynomial\] p\_=x\_5\^3+p\^[(6)]{}(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3,x\_4)=0. where $p^{(6)}$ is a degree 6 homogeneous polynomial in the indicated coordinates. This means that the case $x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{3}}x_5^{P_2}$ for $k=0,1,2$ with all other coordinates equal ($x_i^{P_1}=x^{P_2}_i$ for $i=1,2,3,4$), is possibly of interest.
If the first four coordinates of the two points are identical, this amounts to imposing only one instead of two constraints on the tachyon field. After the usual blowup procedure (if the fifth coordinate is also equal), the particles are however distinguished by a tangent direction, which can be interpreted as the direction from which they ‘approach’ each other.
Consider thus a tangent vector $X^i\partial_i$, and demand that it is a direction tangent to the sextic CY; \[tangentsextic\] \_X p\_=0,
But it also acts on (\[sextictachyon\]) \[tangentvectorconstraint\] \_XT=X\^1a\_1+...+X\^4a\_4. Setting $\nabla_XT=0$, is like a second constraint. The particles are distinguished by the tachyon field after a blowup. This is also the reason why a coincident locus does not in general lead to a jump in the tachyon fiber above that locus. Namely, (\[tangentvectorconstraint\]) does not lead to an extra constraint, iff \[rankofmatrix\] (
[cccc]{} x\_1 & x\_2 & x\_3 & x\_4\
X\^1 & X\^2 & X\^3 & X\^4
) <2, which can happen only if either $X^1=...=X^4=0$ or if $X^i=\lambda x_i$, with $\lambda \in \mathbb C^*$. We will show where this can happen in the present case. In the following distinction of cases, as well as in similar computations later on in this paper, we will always refer to coordinates of the coincident particles. $x_5\neq 0$ for example means, that the two (a priori) coincident particles lie on a locus with $x_5\neq 0$. In the present case, one can distinguish between
$x_5\neq 0$: This means one can choose affine coordinates with $x_5=1$. Thus, in these coordinates, one knows that $X^5=0$ for the tangent vector (and hence the case $X^1=...=X^4=0$ is ruled out and only the case $X^i=\lambda x_i$ remains). The tangent vectors should remain in the CY (\[tangentsextic\]), which leads to $6\lambda p^{(6)}=0$. Since $\lambda\neq 0$, this means $p^{(6)}=0$, so $x_5=0$ upon plugging this into (\[sexticpolynomial\]), which contradicts our assumption. If $x_5\neq 0$, the two particles are distinguished after the blowup.
$x_5=0$: In this case, fix (w.l.o.g.) $x_1=1$. This means $X^1=0$ for the tangent vector. To have only one instead of two ‘constraint’ equations for the tachyon, one thus needs $X^1=...=X^4=0$. This occurs when the tangent vector equals $X^5\partial_5$, which is possible at the locus $x_5=0$. Note that there is *one* tangent direction and *one* locus ($x_5=0$) for which this happens. This is where the fiber of the tachyon moduli space jumps and needs to be taken into account. **Calculating the refined index**\
\
Starting from the naive form for the index of this bound state, ()()=(X)\^2(1)+, one can nicely see how the refinement comes in. The refined index receives the following contributions (where $\chi(X)=-204$ denotes the Euler character of the sextic).
$\frac{1}{2}(\chi(X)^2-3\chi(X)+2\chi_0)\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: this is the generic locus, where the two particles are separated and the locus where $x_i^{P_1}=x_i^{P_2}$ for $i=1,2,3,4$ has been substracted. Note that one has to be careful not to substract the locus where the first four coordinates are identical and $x_5=0$ more than once. This has been taken into account with the $+2\chi_0$ term. $\chi_0$ is the Euler character of the locus $x_5=0$ in the CY and can be calculated from the adjunction formula to give $\chi_0=108$. The factor $\frac 1 2$ accounts for the fact that interchanging the two particles gives the same configuration.
$(\chi -\chi_0)\cdot \chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: this accounts for the locus where the two $\Dob$s coincide, without the locus $x_5=0$. Note that the $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$ results from the blowup of a codimension $3$ locus.
$2\cdot \frac{1}{2}(\chi -\chi_0)\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$: this takes into account the loci where $x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{3}}x_5^{P_2}$ for $k=1$ and $k=2$ (hence the overall factor of two, as these loci both contribute equally). Note that the fiber of the tachyon has jumped, these two particles are seen as one.
$\chi_0\cdot(\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})-1)\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: here, the locus $x_i^{P_1}=x_i^{P_2}$ for $i=1,2,3,4$ and $x_5^{P_i}=0$ is dealt with. In principle, one just has to do a blowup of a codimension $3$ locus (hence a factor of $\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$). After the blowup, the tachyon ‘sees’ two $\Dob$’s. However, one needs to substract the one tangent direction we found in the above analysis, because one loses one of the two ‘constraints’ on the tachyon. This one tangent direction is taken into account on the next line.
$\chi_0 \cdot 1\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$: for this blowup direction (for which the $1$ stands for the index), the tachyon again sees only one particle. Note that had one ignored the subtlety with the locus $x_5$, one would have retrieved the calculation where one finds a product of the tachyon index $2$, and the Donaldson–Thomas invariant $N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$. Collecting all the pieces linked to the value $2$ or $3$ for the tachyon index (up to a sign), one can state the correct index in the form \_ =-2(20’298+204)-3(-204)=-40’392. This allows us to state the *Donaldson–Thomas partitions* $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$ for the sextic: \^[(g)]{}\_(0,2)&=&20’502,\
\^[(s)]{}\_(0,2)&=&-204. $\mathcal{N}^{(g)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$ counts the generic D6–2$\Dob$ BPS states, for which the tachyon perceives two $\Dob$’s, and $\mathcal{N}^{(s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$ counts the special D6–2$\Dob$ BPS states, for which the tachyon perceives only one $\Dob$–brane. Note that there is a sign difference between these indices. N\_(0,2)= \^[(g)]{}\_(0,2)+ \^[(s)]{}\_(0,2). Let us consider a second example.\
\
**The state $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-2}$ on the octic**\
\
For this charge system, one finds a split flow tree with centers \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-2),of the form
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{2D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{2D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$=-2\cdot 43'068=-86'136$.]{}
For the octic, one can choose \[octicpolynomial\] p\_=x\_5\^2+p\^[(8)]{}(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3,x\_4)=0 as a transverse polynomial. Again, the cases where the particles have four equal coordinates, and where $x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2 \pi i k}{2}}x_5^{P_2}$, are possibly of interest. The analysis of the locus where the tachyon field perceives the BPS state with two $\Dob$’s differently and where the fiber changes dimension is analogous to the sextic case, and the discussion will therefore be brief. We again start by searching for the ‘special tangent directions’ by considering (\[rankofmatrix\]):
$x_5\neq 0$: This means one can choose affine coordinates with $x_5=1$. Again, one knows that $X^5=0$ for the tangent vector (and hence the case $X^1=...=X^4=0$ is ruled out and only the case $X^i=\lambda x_i$ remains). The tangent vectors should remain in the CY, which leads to $8\lambda p^{(8)}=0$. $p^{(8)}=0$ would imply $x_5=0$, contradicting the first assumption.
$x_5=0$: In this case, fix (w.l.o.g.) $x_1=1$. This means $X^1=0$ for the tangent vector. To have only one instead of two ‘constraint’ equations for the tachyon, one thus needs $X^1=...=X^4=0$. This occurs when the tangent vector equals $X^5\partial_5$, which is possible at the locus $x_5=0$. Note that there is again *one* tangent direction for which this occurs. This is where the fiber of the tachyon jumps and needs to be taken into account.
**Calculating the exact index**\
The index receives similar contributions as in the case of the sextic, but the calculation is slightly simpler.
$\frac{1}{2}(\chi(X)^2-2\chi(X)+\chi_0)\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: this again is the generic locus, but as in this case $x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2 \pi i k}{2}}x_5^{P_2}$ for $k=0,1$ one substracts two instead of three loci with index $\chi(X)$. Instead of substracting the locus $x_5=0$ three times, one does this twice, and needs to compensate once. In this case, $\chi_0=304$.
$(\chi -\chi_0)\cdot \chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: this accounts for the locus where the two $\Dob$s coincide, without the locus $x_5=0$. Note that the $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$ results from the blowup of a codimension $3$ locus.
$\frac{1}{2}(\chi -\chi_0)\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$: this takes into account the locus where $x_5^{P_1}=-x_5^{P_2}$ and other coordinates equal. This is again a locus where the tachyon index has jumped.
$\chi_0\cdot (\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})-1) \cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: here, the locus $x_5=0$ and other coordinates equal is dealt with. In principle one just has to do a blowup (hence a factor of $\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$). After the blowup, the tachyon ‘sees’ two $\Dob$’s. Again, one needs to substract the one tangent direction we found above, because one loses one of the two ‘constraints’ on the tachyon. This tangent direction is taken into account on the next line.
$\chi_0 \cdot 1\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$: for this one blowup direction, the tachyon again sees only one particle. Collecting all the pieces linked to the value $2$ or $3$ for the tachyon index (up to a sign), one can state the correct index in the form (to be compared with equation \[octicellipticgenus\]) \_ =-2(43’068-4)-3(+4)=-86’140. This means that the *Donaldson–Thomas partitions* $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$ for the octic read: \^[(g)]{}\_(0,2)&=&43’064,\
\^[(s)]{}\_(0,2)&=&4. Note that the sum of the partitions yields $N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$.
Special curves and DT partitions $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(1,2)$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up until now, refinements were presented, which were necesary due to the fact that the tachyon fields did not perceive $\Dob$’s generically. An example will be given now, where an analogous refinement is necessary because of the fact that a D2/D0–state (with the D2 wrapped on a curve) is not perceived generically. A different way of expressing this is to state that there are *special $\Dsb$–D2/D0 bound states*.\
**The state $\mathbf{\Delta q=1, \Delta q_0=-2}$ on the octic**\
\
For this charge system, one finds a split flow tree with centers \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-2),of the form
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}+F(C_1{}^{g=0})}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}-D2(C_1{}^{g=0}),\overline{D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$8'674'176$.]{}
with an index naively calculated as $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(1,2)=(-1)^0\cdot 1\cdot 1\cdot 8'674'176=8'674'176.$$
This naive index agains needs refinement. In this case, for simplicity, choose the Fermat–polynomial for the octic: \[octicfermat\] p\_=x\_5\^2+x\_1\^8+x\_2\^8+x\_3\^8+x\_4\^8=0 The following discussion is nonetheless also valid for more general transverse polynomials. A degree one rational curve on the octic can be represented as a degree one map from ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}$ to the Calabi–Yau. Consider for example the map \[octicratcurve\] (s,t)(s,e\^ s,t,e\^ t,0).
This generically imposes two constraints on the tachyon field, reducing its moduli space to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}$. Adding an extra D–particle will then reduce this moduli space to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}}$, unless something special happens:
The particle ($\Dob$) does not sit on the curve, but nevertheless produces no extra constraint. It is easy to verify that this cannot possibly happen for this example.
The particle lies on the curve, which means that a blowup needs to be performed in the directions normal to the curve. Again, one might encounter special tangent directions, which do not impose an extra constraint on the tachyon. Following a similar procedure as in the previous examples, one can indeed verify that this is the case for the direction $X^5\partial_5$. As $x_5=0$ lies on the curve (\[octicratcurve\]), this direction is automatically also tangent to the octic. **Calculating the exact index**\
The various contributions to the exact index according to the refined prescription read:
$N_{DT}(1,1)(\chi(X)-\chi_C)\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$, where $\chi_C=2$ is the Euler characteristic of the curve. This term deals with the case, when the $\Dob$ is placed at a locus different from the curve, thereby reducing the tachyon moduli space to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}}$.
$N_{DT}(1,1)\chi_C[\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})-1]\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$, dealing with the case that the $\Dob$ is located on the curve, but the blowup tangent direction leads to an extra constraint on the tachyon.
$N_{DT}(1,1)\chi_C\cdot 1\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$, which deals with the case, when the $\Dob$ lies on the curve, and a blowup is performed leading to a special tangent direction. This is an example of what was referred to as a special D2/D0 bound state, or alternatively just as a special curve. In this case, the tachyon field moduli space remains a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}$.
In total, this leads to the index \_ = 1(8’674’176+59’008)+2(-59’008)=8’615’168. Spectacularly, by comparing this number to the prediction from modularity (\[octicellipticgenus\]), one also finds exact agreement for this case! One can thus state the *Donaldson–Thomas partitions* $\mathcal{N}_{\textrm{DT}}(1,2)$ for the octic: \^[(g)]{}\_(1,2)&=&8’733’184,\
\^[(s)]{}\_(1,2)&=&-59’008. Again, note that the sum of the partitions yields $N_{\textrm{DT}}(1,2)$.
To summarize, we conclude that all our results obtained in this section provide exact agreement with the predictions from modularity. This clearly is strong evidence that our procedure is correct. These results also provide a non–trivial and successful test for the split attractor flow conjecture. We will now discuss states on another CY manifold, for which also a polar state requires calculation of a refined bound state index.
Refined predictions for elliptic genera {#refinedellipticgenera}
=======================================
In this section, we show how our refined index computation alters the prediction for an elliptic genus of a CY, realized as a degree ten hypersurface in ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11125}}}$. We choose coordinates $(x_1,...,x_4,x_5)$ with the weights $(1,1,1,2,5)$. We will refer to this CY as the *decantic*, in the following. The total Chern class of this space reads $c(X)=\frac{(1+H)^4(1+2H)(1+5H)}{1+10H}=1+34H^2-288H^3$, and using $\int_X H^3=\int_{{\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11125}}}}10H^4=1$, one obtains $\chi (X)=-288$. We again wrap a D4–brane on the hyperplane class divisor $P=H$. For the lattice of fluxes, one finds in this case that the pullback $L_X=i^{*}_P(H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})$ and it’s orthongonal complement, $L_X\oplus L_X^{\perp}$, are already unimodular, thus no gluing vectors exist and the elliptic genus is a ‘one–dimensional vector’, $$Z(q, \bar q, z) = Z_0(q)\, \Theta_0 (\bar q, z)\, .$$ Again, the list of DT invariants of interest is stated below.
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
& $\mathbf{n=0}$ & $\mathbf{n=1}$ & $\mathbf{n=2}$ & $\mathbf{n=3}$\
$\mathbf{\beta=0}$ & 1 & 288 & 40’752 & 3’774’912\
$\mathbf{\beta=1}$ & 1150 & 435’827 & 89’103’872 & 11’141’118’264\
$\mathbf{\beta=2}$ & -64’916’198 & 40’225’290’446 & 9’325’643’249’563 & 1’119’938’319’168’004\
1. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=0, \qquad [0,\frac{35}{24}]}$:\
As usual, the most polar state is the D4–brane carrying flux $\frac{H}{2}$ for anomaly cancellation, with total charge $(0,1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{19}{12})$. The reduced D0–brane charge can be calulcated to be $\hat{q}_0=\frac{35}{24}$, thus the state lies in the class $[0,\frac{35}{24}]$. One finds a split flow tree with centers \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,0),with split flow tree
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1.5,2.25) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$3$,]{}
where the BPS index is calculated according to $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)=(-1)^2\cdot 3\cdot 1\cdot 1=3.$$ Again, the number $3$ can nicely be understood along the previous lines. In ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11125}}}$ one can only use three coordinates to define a hyperplane, and $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})=3$, so the correspondence between divisor moduli in the D4–picture and tachyonic degrees between the D6 and the $\Dsb$ again works out.
2. $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-1,\qquad [0,\frac{11}{24}]}$:\
Adding one $\Dob$, one obtains the total charge $(0,1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{7}{12})$, with reduced D0–brane charge $\hat{q}_0=\frac{11}{24}$. The flow tree is again analogous to the previous findings, the side of the $\Dob$ after the first split being governed by the appropriate threshold wall. The charges of the centers after the first split read \_1&=&(1,1,,),\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-1).
The flow tree looks like
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$-576$,]{}
from which one is tempted to conclude $$\label{naivedecantic01}
\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)=(-1)^1\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 288=-576.$$
Using these two polar degeneracies, the elliptic genus would be determined to be $$\label{wrongellipticgenusdecantic}
Z_0(q)=q^{-\frac{35}{24}}(3-576q+271'704q^2+206'401'533q^3+21'593'767'647q^4...),$$ which agrees with the findings in [@Gaiotto:2007cd]. We will now argue that this is not quite correct. We will predict the elliptic genus to be $$Z_0(q)=q^{-\frac{35}{24}}(3-575q+271'955q^2+206'406'410q^3+21'593'817'025q^4...).$$ The reason for this lies in the fact that the index (\[naivedecantic01\]) is not correct, because the state $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=1$ has a non–trivially fibered moduli space. This will allow us to calculate partitions of $N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$, for the decantic.\
\
**DT partitions $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$: generic and special $D6-\Dob$ states**\
\
Note that the tachyon map for the most polar state is a section of the bundle $H$, and is of the general form \[decantictachyon\] T=a\_1x\_1+...a\_3x\_3, as the coordinates $x_4$ and $x_5$ are ‘forbidden’ (weight too high). This yields a moduli space with Euler character $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})=3$, accounting for the degeneracy of the most polar state. If one adds a $\Dob$–brane to the system (this is also discussed in [@Collinucci:2008ht] for examples on the quintic 3–fold), the tachyon map also has to vanish on an additional point. Inserting this in generically eliminates one of the moduli, reducing to a tachyon moduli space with Euler character $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})=2$. The problem is that one can place the $\Dob$–brane at the locus $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$, which is indeed a point lying on the decantic $X$. Placing the $\Dob$ on this point means that this ‘particle’ will not imply a constraint on . The Euler character of this locus ($x_1=x_2=x_3$) $\chi_0$ can easily be determined: $\chi_0=1$ (this is trivial, as the locus is just a point).
Thus, the correct index for the $\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-1$ system reads as follows: = -2(\_0-(X))-3(-\_0 )=-575. In other words, $N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$ can be partitioned, into the DT–partitions \^g\_(0,1)&=&\_0-(X) = 289,\
\^s\_(0,1)&=&-\_0 = -1. Again, note that $N_{DT}(0,1)=\mathcal{N}^g_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)+\mathcal{N}^{s}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$. The superscript $g$ stands for generic, and $\mathcal{N}^g_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$ counts the number of D6–$\Dob$ states, which are perceived by the tachyon generically. The superscript $s$ stands for special. Accordingly, $\textrm{N}^s_{\textrm{DT}}(0,1)$ counts the number of D6–$\Dob$ states, where the $\Dob$ sits at a special locus, where the tachyon matrix does not perceive the particle.\
Of course, this also means, that the index for the split flow tree must be stated correctly:
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="25.00000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$-575$.]{}
This leads to the elliptic genus $$\label{ellipticgenusdecantic}
Z_0(q)=q^{-\frac{35}{24}}(3-575q+271'955q^2+206'406'410q^3+21'593'817'025q^4...).$$ It is interesting to note that the authors of [@Gaiotto:2007cd], after having predicted a slightly deviating elliptic genus (as explained above), find $271'952$ as a prediction for the number of BPS states of the system, which we denote as $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=-2$. This is only off by $3$ of the modular result we predict, as opposed to the $248$ from the result predicted by the ‘naive elliptic genus’ (\[wrongellipticgenusdecantic\]). This might be seen as an indication that the new prediction is indeed correct. Unfortunately, our technique does not allow to check this prediction, as a single flow exists for this state and it is thus not possible for us to confirm our elliptic genus with absolute certainty, although we do believe that we have collected strong evidence for our computational scheme. It is nevertheless interesting to predict Donaldson–Thomas partitions $\mathcal{N}^{(g,s)}(0,2)$ for the decantic.\
\
**The state $\mathbf{\Delta q=0, \Delta q_0=-2}$ on the decantic**\
\
The total charge for this system reads $\Gamma =(0,1,\frac{1}{2},-\frac{5}{12})$, which implies $\hat{q}_0=-\frac{13}{24}$: this is thus a non–polar state. One finds a split flow tree with the centers \_1&=&(1,1,,)\
\_2&=&(-1,0,-,-2),
and a flow tree of the form
(3,2.3) (0,0) [{width="22.50000%"}]{} (1,2.35) [$D4_{\frac{H}{2},\overline{2D0}}$]{} (0.6,0.15) [$D6_H$]{} (2.25,0.15) [$\overline{D6}$]{} (2.65,1.8) [$\overline{2D0}$]{} (4,1.3) [$=$]{} (5,1.3) [$=40'752$,]{}
which would naively yield an index $$\Omega=(-1)^{|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle|-1}|\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle |N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,0)\cdot N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)=(-1)^0\cdot 1\cdot 1\cdot 40'752=40'752.$$ For the decantic, one can choose \[decanticpolynomial\] p\_=x\_5\^2+x\_4\^5+p\^[(10)]{}(x\_1,x\_2,x\_3)=0 as a transverse polynomial. Note that the moduli space for the tachyon was ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}}$ for the most polar state. Generically, this is reduced to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}}$ when placing two $\Dob$s, but there are a lot of subtleties involved. Namely, the cases when the $\Dob$s have three equal coordinates $x_1,x_2,x_3$ and $x_4^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i j}{5}}x_4^{P_2}, x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{2}}x_5^{P_2}$ (with $j=0,1,2,3,4$ and $k=0,1$) are of special interest. Additionally, the locus $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$ is special. Again, constraint loss will happen on some loci directly, but will also result from blowups, when placing the two $\Dob$s on the same locus. Thus, we will start by analyzing which tangent directions are special, and thus require special treatment when performing a blowup.
The condition for a contraint loss to occur after a blowup reads (
[cccc]{} x\_1 & x\_2 & x\_3\
X\^1 & X\^2 & X\^3
) <2, which can happen either if $X^1=...=X^3=0$ or if $X^i=\lambda x_i$.
$x_4\neq 0$ or $x_5\neq 0$: Assuming that not all coordinates $x_1, x_2, x_3$ vanish at the same time (this case will be dealt with separately), an analysis shows that for the cases that either (or both) of the coordinates $x_4, x_5$ do not vanish, one finds one tangent direction for which a constraint loss occurs. These subcases shall be discussed briefly:
$x_4\neq 0, x_5\neq 0$: In this case set $x_4=1$, thus $X^4=0$. One can easily check that $X^1=X^2=X^3=0$ is not possible as it would imply $X^5=0$. Thus, set $X^i=\lambda x_i$ ($i=1,2,3$), which leads to $\nabla_X p_{\textrm{decantic}}=10\lambda p^{(10)}+2X^5x_5=0$. Combining this with yields $x_5^2+1=\frac{1}{5\lambda}X^5x_5$. This completely fixes the tangent vector, thus there is one direction for which constraint loss occurs.
$x_4\neq 0, x_5= 0$: Set $x_4=1$, thus $X^4=0$. Choosing $X^1=X^2=X^3=0$ yields $\nabla_X p_{\textrm{decantic}}=2X^5x_5=0$, thus one tangent direction.
$x_4=0, x_5\neq 0$: Set $x_5=1$, thus $X^5=0$. Choosing $X^1=X^2=X^3=0$ yields $\nabla_X p_{\textrm{decantic}}=5X^4x_4^5=0$, thus one tangent direction.
$x_4=x_5=0$: In this case, one can choose $x_1=1$, and thus $X^1=0$. So, a general tangent vector reads $X_2\partial_2+...+X^5\partial_5$. Setting $X^1=X^2=X^3=0$, and plugging this into $\nabla_X p_{\textrm{decantic}}=0$ yields $5X^4x_4+2X^5x_5=0$, which is always satisfied. Thus, the tangent directions for which there is a constraint loss, form a ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}$.
$x_1=x_2=x_3=0$: In this case, set $x_5=1$. In that case reads $x_4^5+1=0$. One might think that one has found five points on the CY, but taking the equivalence relation into account under the group action, one realizes that this is only one point. In this case $X^4=X^5=0$, and thus $X^1=X^2=X^3=0$ is not possible. Therefore, there is no (extra) constraint loss when considering a blowup, when the two $\Dob$s coincide at this point on the decantic.
**Calculating the exact index**\
Using the adjunction formula, one can calculate the Euler character associated to a number of loci of interest for the following calculation:
1. $x_4=0: \chi_4=76$.
2. $x_5=0: \chi_5=295$.
3. $x_4=x_5=0: \chi_{45}=-70$.
4. $x_1=x_2=x_3=0:$ Recall that this is only one point. The Euler character is thus $\chi_0=1$.
A careful calculation reveals the following contributions:
$\frac{1}{2}( (\chi(X)-\chi_0)^2-10(\chi(X)-\chi_0-\chi_4-\chi_5+\chi_{45})-2(\chi_4-\chi_{45})-5(\chi_5-\chi_{45})$\
$-\chi_{45} )\cdot\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$: this is the generic locus. The case $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$ has been substracted from the beginning on, and additionally, also the cases when the coordinates $x_1,x_2,x_3$ of the two $\Dob$s are identical and $x_4^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i j}{5}}x_4^{P_2}, x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{2}}x_5^{P_2}$, $j=0,1,2,3,4; k=0,1$ will be treated independently. These cases have been substracted, but for each possibility $(j,k)$, the subloci where $x_4=0, x_5=0$ or both have been substracted and then treated separately.
$(\chi -\chi_0-\chi_{45})\cdot (\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})-1)\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$: this is the most general case when the two $\Dob$s coincide. One has to treat various loci separately: the case, when the two particles lie on the point $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$ (this is substracted by the term $-\chi_0$), and also the case when $x_4=x_5=0$ has been removed (the term $-\chi_{45}$) and will be treated separately. The factor $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})$ arises from the blowup of a codimension $3$ locus. According to the analysis presented above, one does however need to substract one direction, for which there will be a constraint loss. In this case, two constraints on the tachyon are imposed, reducing the moduli space to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}}$.
$(\chi -\chi_0-\chi_{45})\cdot 1\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: This is the case analogous to the previous, but associated to the blowup direction yielding a constraint loss.
$\chi_{45}\cdot (\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})-\chi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}}))\cdot \chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$: When the two $\Dob$s coincide and $x_4=x_5=0$, a blowup is performed, but the previous analysis revealed two tangent directions associated to a constraint loss. That locus will be dealt with, next. In this case, two constraints are imposed on the tachyon, yielding a $\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{0}}})$.
$\chi_{45}\cdot \chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})\cdot \chi(C \mathbb{P}^1)$: This is the case, when the blowup is associated to a constraint loss, with the two $\Dob$s coincident on a locus with $x_4=x_5=0$.
$\chi_0\cdot \chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{2}}})\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: When the two $\Dob$s lie on the point $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$, there is only one constraint on the tachyon, arising from the tangent directions after the blowup. Recall that there is no constraint from placing a particle at this point: this subtlety appeared already when considering the state $D4-\Dob$ on the decantic, previously.
$(\chi -\chi_0)\cdot \chi_0\cdot \chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: This contribution arises, when one $\Dob$ is placed on the locus $x_1=x_2=x_3=0$ (this $\Dob$ will not impose a constraint on the tachyon), and the other one somewhere else.
$\frac{1}{2}\cdot 9(\chi -\chi_0-\chi_4-\chi_5+\chi_{45})\cdot \chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: These are the cases, when the two $\Dob$s have identical coordinates $x_1,x_2,x_3$, but differ in at least one of the other coordinates, $x_4^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i j}{5}}x_4^{P_2}, x_5^{P_1}=e^{\frac{2\pi i k}{2}}x_5^{P_2}$. In these cases, there is only one constraint on the tachyon. The cases when $x_4=0$ or $x_5=0$ will be treated separately, though.
$1\cdot \frac{1}{2}(\chi_4-\chi_{45})\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: This is as the previous case, but additionally $x_4=0$.
$4\cdot \frac{1}{2}(\chi_5-\chi_{45})\cdot\chi ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{CP}^{1}}})$: Again, the conditions as previously, but with $x_5=0$. Collecting all the pieces linked to the value $0$ or $1$ for the tachyon index (up to a sign), one can state the correct index in the form \_ =1(40’752+3’127)+2(-3’127)=37’625. The *Donaldson–Thomas partitions* $\mathcal{N}^{(1,2)}_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$ for the decantic thus read \^[(g)]{}\_(0,2)&=43’879&,\
\^[(s)]{}\_(0,2)&=-3’127&. Again, note that the sum of the partitions yields $N_{\textrm{DT}}(0,2)$.
Clearly, the number $37'625$ is still very far off from the modular prediction $271'955$. The missing states cannot however be calculated at the moment. Namely, one finds a single flow for this charge system, so there is little hope of obtaining the correct index exclusively using the methods utilized in this paper. It is left as a problem for future research to enumerate the number of BPS states corresponding to this single flow, and (possibly) find and enumerate other split flow trees.
Discussion {#sect:discussion}
==========
In this work, we studied examples of BPS degeneracies of D–particle microstates, arising from a mixed ensemble of D–branes wrapped on algebraic one–modulus Calabi–Yau varieties. We have (presumably) found exact results, directly, and have explained and put to use a refined computational scheme, which allowed us also to find exact results for the other tractable cases. This indeed provides strong evidence for the split attractor flow tree conjecture, stating that (single and) split flows are an accurate classification of the BPS spectrum of type II string theory.
We will discuss whether one might be able to draw any conclusions about the supergravity spectrum associated to our D–particles, and in particular the topic of scaling solutions, in subsection \[scalingsolutions\]. We will then discuss our most important results: the refined index to enumerate bound states and our computational scheme, in subsection \[subsect:meiosis\]. We will support our discussion with a metaphoric interpretation for the need of a refined index for some polar states, along the lines of their interpretation as D–particle/black hole chromosomes given in section \[sect:background\].
Absence of scaling solutions? {#scalingsolutions}
-----------------------------
In this section, we will discuss some of our results (as well as results from [@Collinucci:2008ht]), and in particular whether they might shed any light on the mysterious nature of scaling solutions. We will start by reviewing some of their basic features for the reader. More details can be found e.g. in [@Denef:2007vg].
Scaling solutions for a given total charge $\Gamma$ are microstates that owe their name to the special feature that the distance between their centers is not fixed, but rather a ‘scaling’ modulus. The appearance of scaling solutions can be understood easily using a concrete three–centered example. To make following equations transparent, the shorthand notation $\Gamma_{ij}=\langle \Gamma_i,\Gamma_j\rangle$ is introduced, as well as $h$ to label the constants appearing in harmonic functions, belonging to a multi–centered supergravity solution, H()=\_[i=1]{}\^N+h, where $h=-2\textrm{Im}(e^{-i\alpha}\Omega)_{\tau =0}$. One can find a scaling solution by treating $|\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j|=\lambda\Gamma_{ij}$ as independent variables and sending $\lambda\rightarrow 0$: this explains why these solutions are called ‘scaling solutions’. The distances between the centers are not completely independent: in order for such a solution to exist, one must respect the triangle inequality, \[triangleinequality\] \_[21]{}+\_[13]{}\_[32]{} + . In the limit $\lambda =0$ (or $\lambda$ infinitesimally small), the locations of the centers in spacetime become identical, and the black hole solution becomes indistinguishable from a single–centered black hole for a distant observer, whereas for an observer remaining at finite distance from the centers, the solution stays multi–centered. The interpretation is that the throats of the black holes have melted together and that the near observer has disappeared down the throat. This is illustrated in figure \[scalingsolutionfigure\].
(3.9,3.6) (-1.25,0) [![**Scaling solution**: As the positions of several black holes come very close to each other, the throats belonging to the black holes melt together, eventually disappearing down the (infinitely long) throat of one big black hole. From the outside, it is indistinguishable from a single–centered black hole, for an observer placed somewhere down the throat it remains multi–centered.[]{data-label="scalingsolutionfigure"}](scalingsolutionfigure "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}]{}
We will now discuss some microstates of the D–particles investigated in this paper (as well as an example from [@Collinucci:2008ht]), for which one would expect scaling solutions (ignoring regimes of validity of the description for the moment) in the supergravity approximation. The condition for existence of scaling solutions for a D4–D2–D0 D–particle state, (\[triangleinequality\]), consisting of a fluxed D6–brane, $\Gamma_1=e^{H}(1+\frac{c_2(X)}{24})$, a $\Dsb$–brane, $\Gamma_2=-(1+\frac{c_2(X)}{24})$, and $N$ $\Dob$’s, $\Gamma_3=(0,0,0,-N)$ reads
$N\geq 2$ for the sextic: in particular, the charge labeled by $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=-2$ should allow for a scaling solution. Note that the $40'392$ BPS states we found should be the exact number of BPS quantum states (at least it matches with the prediction from modularity).
$N\geq 2$ for the octic: again, the charge system $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=-2$ fulfills this requirement. Note that the $86'140$ BPS states should be exact.
$N\geq \frac{3}{2}$ for the decantic: in this case, the charge system $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=-2$ should support scaling solutions. At this moment, we cannot address (at least predict and check) the number of BPS states conclusively.
$N\geq \frac{5}{2}$ for the quintic, studied in [@Collinucci:2008ht]: this implies that the charge system $\Delta q=0,\Delta q_0=-3$ falls into this category. The number of $5'817'125$ BPS states found in [@Collinucci:2008ht] should be exact.
There are several possibilites: it might be, that some BPS states in the quantum spectrum might correspond to classical BPS states which are scaling solutions. Another is that scaling solutions exist, but are just not ‘valid’ classical microstate descriptions of the D–particle, as they do not correspond to any quantum states. What is meant by ‘correspond’? The authors of [@deBoer:2008zn] studied the quantization of the phase space of smooth supergravity solutions. In well understood situations (type IIB compactifications and the Strominger–Vafa D1–D5–P black hole), it can be shown that the quantization of the phase space of smooth supergravity solutions (thus a restriction to the states carrying quantum numbers) is in one–to–one correspondence with the BPS microstates in the D–brane description. Microstates on the gravity side arise as wavefunctions, which localize on a unit volume of phase space. A classical solution can then be interpreted as the limit of this localized wavefunction. It can however be the case that there are quantum states in the spectrum, which do not localize on such a unit of phase space, and it is questionable if these states have a reasonable classical description. On the other hand, the authors also argue, that ‘nominally’ classical solutions might occupy the same volume in quantized phase space (arise as limits of a state localized in the same volume), although they differ on a macroscopic scale in their gravitational description. This cannot be reasonable when taking into account Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and thus ‘classical solutions’ of this kind might not be ‘valid’ geometries of the black hole. They might just be a peculiarity without physical significance, found in supergravity. This is exactly what the authors claim to be the case for scaling solutions. Thus, scaling solutions might not be valid classical limits of black hole microstates. Nevertheless, an index accounting for scaling solutions based on the quantization of phase space was constructed in [@deBoer:2008zn], and this might help when trying to match classical and quantum BPS states.
For three of the four listed charge systems, the number of BPS states in the spectrum can be predicted by modularity, and the methods used in this paper allow for exact results to be derived, based on the prescriptions for refined calculations. One is led to believe that one has indeed exhausted the BPS spectrum of the quantum theory, in the sense that one has classified and enumerated all BPS microstates of the corresponding D–particles, carrying the desired charge. At the same time, this means that the split attractor flow conjecture worked perfectly. For none of the mentioned charge systems is there seemingly room for states, which would be described by scaling solutions, after taking a classical limit. This can be concluded from the fact, that an index (as suggested in [@deBoer:2008zn]) for scaling solutions seems to yield results that strongly deviate from any numbers contributing to the total number of BPS states one would expect. It seems reasonable to suppose that the exact numbers for BPS states of the D–particles investigated can be interpreted as an indication that the interpretation of [@deBoer:2008zn] on scaling solutions is indeed correct. It would be wrong however to make an overstatement, as these implications do remain quite speculative, and there are no properly legitimated methods to compute an ‘index for scaling solutions’, taking into account the regime of validity needed in this case. One should at this point remain open to other ideas, one of which might be the wild proposal that ‘special states’ could be quantum partners of scaling solutions. The authors believe this to be rather unlikely, but further investigation on this exciting topic remains for the future.
Scaling solutions might not be good classical limits of quantum microstates, or one might not understand them properly, yet. Maybe — being very careful not to make any overstatement — it is too much to hope for, that split attractor flow trees classify the full BPS spectrum. In any case, the split attractor flow tree conjecture is extremely accurate for a large number of BPS states in supergravity, and also classifies BPS bound states outside of the regime of supergravity: this claim was successfully put to various non–trivial tests in this work.
The meiosis of D–particles/black holes {#subsect:meiosis}
--------------------------------------
Our main results involve a scheme for computing a refined index enumerating BPS bound states, and in connection with this we have calculated partitions of Donaldson–Thomas invariants, resulting from the distinction of constituent states as based on the perception of the tachyon fields gluing together a bound state. Basically, the fact that one needs to use a refined index to enumerate BPS bound states, results from the fact that the constituents are not fully independent, there is some sort of ‘interaction’ between the constituents for which we would like to give a nice little metaphoric interpretation, using the idea to call polar states chromosomes of D–particles/black holes, as stated in the introduction of this paper.
The degeneracy of a polar state is naively believed to factorize into three factors, the degeneracy of the first ‘parent’ constituent, the degeneracy of the second ‘parent’ constituent, and the index accounting for the tachyonic degrees of freedom, gluing the state together. Although this analogy again has many shortcomings, one might — when thinking of the suggested metaphor — count the number of possible outcomes of meiosis, which produces the four haploid gametes, necessary for the sexual reproduction of eukaryotic organisms. Naively, one might expect there to be only one outcome (with half of the gametes containing the father chromosome and the other half the mother chromosome). During the meiosis however, crossing–over (intrachromosomal recombination) takes places, referring to the process of exchange of pieces of the DNA on pair chromosomes (a sort of ‘interaction’ between chromosomes). This means that the number of possibilities does not factorize. For our analogy, the condensation of two higher–dimensional branes is the parallel for the reductional division of two chromosomes leading to a (haploid) cell, a ‘gamete’. For a BPS bound state, constituent branes of course do not really perform a crossing–over, but the number of tachyonic strings (whose specific existence does depend on both of the branes) gluing the state together jumps. Still, this interpretation is meant to stress the point which the authors believe to be important: namely, that the constituents of a bound state are not independent, but in general *do* perform some interaction. This can be taken into account when calculating indices by using the refined prescription, used in this paper.
(4.75,5) (0,0) [{width="40.00000%"}]{}
Finally we would like to state some implications and future directions of reseach suggested by our results:
1. It would be extremely appealing to be able to find more certainty for the correctness of our new prediction of the elliptic genus for the decantic hypersurface in ${\ensuremath{W\mathbb{P}^{4}_{11125}}}$. This would involve enumerating the remaining BPS states, amongst which those corresponding to a single flow.
2. Probably, special loci as discussed in this paper will appear even more prominently, when working with Calabi–Yau varieties embedded in toric ambient spaces. As this feature gains more importance, it would be interesting to study tractable examples, and see how important this effect is. Apart from that, it would also be nice to predict elliptic genera for higher class divisors (also for one–modulus CY’s), and also see what implications the refined BPS bound state index computations have for those examples. A goal is to develop the prescriptions for refined bound state indices to full generality, which includes constraint loss arising from curves and particles on all constituents of a bound state.
3. Additionally, it is a question what the implications are for a factorization formula for BPS indices, and also of the OSV conjecture. The factorization of BPS states is only possible on the level of densities. Thus the question is whether one can also write down a closed formula in the spirit of OSV for a D–particle / black hole partition function, on the level of index densities.
4. Considering our interest in Donaldson–Thomas partitions, it would be interesting to study partition functions built from Donaldson–Thomas partitions. Given the fact that only three divergent asymptotic series (amongst which the Donaldson–Thomas partition function) approximating the topological string partition function are known, it would be interesting to study the convergence behavior of such a ‘partition function of Donaldson–Thomas partitions’.
5. Using our metaphoric interpretation of chromosomes, one might call the quest for finding more elliptic genera for D–particles and eventually of course black holes, the black hole genome project. It would seem an interesting task to map mixed ensembles to IIB string theory, lift them to five dimensions, and in this way strengthen the link between the formalism of 4d polar states (the chromosomes of black holes), and the fuzzball program in 5d. A first step in the direction of mapping polar states to fuzzball microstates in 5d was taken in [@Raeymaekers:2008gk], for BPS polar states in $\mathcal{N}=8$ (4d) supergravity theories.
Setup and conventions {#sect:setup}
=====================
As all Calabi–Yau 3–folds $X$ used in this paper are one–modulus examples, $h^{(1,1)}(X)=1$, we use $H$ to denote the basis element of $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})$. We also use the symbol $H^{2*}(X,\mathbb{Z})$, or for short, $H^{2*}(X)$ to denote the even degree cohomology of $X$: H\^[2\*]{}(X)=H\^0(X)H\^2(X)H\^4(X)H\^6(X). For a type IIA string theory compactification, a vector bundle with fibers $H^{2*}(X)$ over the Kähler moduli space is defined, by virtue of the properties of *special geometry*. These fibres are naturally endowed with a symplectic product (Dirac–Schwinger–Zwanziger), $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle :H^{2*}\times H^{2*}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, for $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\in H^{2*}(X)$: \_1, \_2=\_X\_1\^[\*]{}\_2 where it is understood that only the wedge products of the right dimension remain as an integrand, and $\Gamma^{*}_2$ is defined under an operation inverting the sign of the two–form and the six–form components: $\Gamma=\Gamma^0+\Gamma^2 H+\Gamma^4H^2+\Gamma^6H^3\rightarrow\Gamma^{*}=\Gamma^0-\Gamma^2 H+\Gamma^4H^2-\Gamma^6H^3$.
The IIA complexified Kähler form will be written as[^5] $tH=(B+iJ)H$ using our basis, and allows us to form the holomorphic period vector \_[*hol*]{}:=-(tH)=-1-tH-H\^2-H\^3.The Kähler potential of the Kähler moduli space reads $$K=-\textrm{ln}\left( i\langle\Omega_{\textrm{hol}},\overline{\Omega}_{\textrm{hol}}\rangle\right) =-\textrm{ln}\left( \frac{4}{3}\int_X(J\wedge J\wedge J)\right) ,$$ which also allows us to define the normalized period vector \[periodvector\] :=()\_.
The general formula for the induced charges on a D–brane (due to the WZ term in the Born–Infeld action) wrapped on a (sub)–manifold $W$ reads $$S^{\rm Dbrane}_{W,C} = 2 \pi \int_W C \wedge e^{-B} \, {\rm Tr} \, e^F
\sqrt{\frac{\widehat{A}(TW)}{\widehat{A}(NW)}},$$ where $\widehat A$ is the A–roof characteristic class, $TW$ the tangent bundle of the brane, and $NW$ its normal bundle. From this formula, one obtains for a D6–brane carrying U(1)–flux with field–strength $F_1$, a $\Dtb$ of class $-\beta_1$ and $N_1$ $\Dob$’s the following polyform: $$\Gamma_{D6} = e^{F_1}\,\Big(1-\beta_1-(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\chi(C_{\beta_1})+N_1)\,\omega \Big)\,\Big(1+\frac{c_2(X)}{24}\Big)\,,$$ where $\beta \in H^4(X, \mathbb{Z})$, and $c_2(X)$ is the second Chern class of the tangent bundle of the CY threefold $X$. Similarly, a $\Dsb$ with flux $F_2$ will bind to a D2 of class $\beta_2$ and $N_2$ $\Dob$’s to give the following total charge vector: $$\Gamma_{\Dsb} = -e^{F_2}\,\Big(1-\beta_2+(\tfrac{1}{2}\,\chi(C_{\beta_2})+N_2)\,\omega \Big)\,\Big(1+\frac{c_2(X)}{24}\Big)\,,$$ The modification with respect to the general formula is the addition of D2 and D0 charge in the form of sheaves, which can be thought of as generalizations of bundles (U(1) fluxes). Notice that the D6 will bind with a $\Dtb$, the $\Dsb$ with a D2, but both will bind to $\Dob$’s.
For a D6–D4–D2–D0 brane system, we denote the charges as $(p_0,p,q,q_0)$, such that a polyform using our basis can be written as = p\_0+pH+H\^2+H\^3, where $\mathcal{H}:=\int_X H^3$. We will equivalently use a vector notation: $\Gamma \equiv(p_0,p,q,q_0)$.
The central charge of a D–brane system $\Gamma$ is defined using the period vector , Z=,=()( p\_0t\^3-pt\^2+qt-q\_0) , The central charges of brane systems under investigation will be used for establishing the existence of single/split flows and thus of BPS states, as will be explained in subsection \[subsect:splitflows\].
Modified elliptic genera and D–particles {#sect:ellGenera}
========================================
Modified elliptic genera arise as supersymmetric BPS indices of the $(0,4)$ Maldacena–Strominger–Witten CFT [@Maldacena:1997de]. A non–linear sigma model realization of this CFT has been derived from the dimensional reduction of the M5–brane worldvolume perspective. In this paper, we will work from the IIA perspective. In the following, we use a basis $\Sigma_A \in H_4(X,\mathbb{Z})$ and define the intersection numbers as $6D_{ABC}$. The definition $D_{AB}\equiv D_{ABC}p^C$, its inverse $D^{AB}$ and $D\equiv D_{ABC}p^Ap^Bp^C$ will also come in handy. Using mixed ensembles of D4–D2–D0 branes with fixed magnetic D4–brane charge $p^A$ and variable electric charges ($q_A,q_0$), the central charges of the CFT read c\_L=P\^3+c\_2P,c\_R=P\^3+c\_2P, where $c_2$ is the second Chern class of the Calabi–Yau $X$ and $P$ is the Poincaré dual of the hypersurface $p$. The modified elliptic genus is defined as \[modifiedellipticgenus\] Z(q,|[q]{},y)=\_R( F\^2(-1)\^Fq\^[L\_0-]{}|[q]{}\^[|[L]{}\_0-]{}e\^[2i y\^Aq\_A]{}) , and is constrained to be a *weak Jacobi form* of weight $(-\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})$. The flux on the D4–brane is an element of $H^2(P,\mathbb{Z})+\frac P 2$, where the $\frac P 2$ factor accounts for the Freed–Witten anomaly. Each flux can be decomposed as follows \[fluxdecomposition\] F=+f\^[||]{}+f\^+, where $f^{||}\in L_X\equiv \imath^*H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})$ and $f^{\perp}\in L_X^{\perp}$, and $\gamma$ is given by gluing vectors in the flux lattice. The reader can consult [@Denef:2007vg] for more details. The modified elliptic genus can be decomposed as $$\label{ellipticgenusmodvector}
Z(q,\bar{q},y) = \sum_{\gamma } Z_\gamma (q)\, \Theta_\gamma (q,\bar{q},y)\, ,$$ where $\gamma$ runs through a finite set of gluing vectors. The $Z_{\gamma}(q)$ are meromorphic functions of the variable $q$ and the theta functions are so–called Siegel–Narain theta functions: \[gammathetafunctions\] \_(q ,|[q]{},y)=\_[q\_A()]{}(-1)\^[p\^A q\_A]{}q\^[(-D\^[AB]{}) q\_Aq\_B]{} |[q]{}\^[-(p\^Aq\_A)\^2]{}e\^[2i y\^Aq\_A]{} where the summation over $q_A$ is understood to be $q_A=6D_{AB}(\frac{1}{2}p^B+k^B)+\gamma_A,\; k^A\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ and $n$ is the dimension of the flux lattice.
The dimensionality of the vector $Z_{\gamma}$ is thus given by the number of independent elements $\gamma$ of the discriminant group, the gluing vectors. Additionally, as discussed in [@Moore:1998pn; @Moore:1998zu; @Denef:2007vg; @Manschot:2008zb], it follows from modular invariance, that there is an identification \[gammaidentification\] Z\_=Z\_, =- L\_X.
The $Z_{\gamma}$’s can be given some physical interpretation: $Z_0$ corresponds to a sum over states with no added D2–charge, and increasing D0–charge as the powers of $q$ increase. Each coefficient in the $q$–expansion corresponds to the index of a state with fixed D0–charge. Similarly, the $Z_{\gamma}$’s correspond to states with added D2–charge[^6]. Schematically, the first few terms of $Z_{\gamma}$ will look as follows $$Z_{\gamma}(q) = q^{-\alpha} (\#+ \# \, q+ \# \, q^2 + \ldots)\,,$$ where $\hat{q}_0 \equiv q_0-\frac{1}{12}D^{AB}q_Aq_B$, and $\alpha$ is the highest possible value of $\hat{q}_0$ for a given $\gamma$. In this paper, only the $Z_{\gamma}(q)$ functions will be of concern, as they contain all the relevant information. A stringent mathematical property of weak Jacobi forms is the fact that they are entirely determined by their *polar part*, i.e. terms with negative powers of $q$. These terms correspond to charge configurations that satisfy $\hat{q}_0=q_0-\frac{1}{12}D^{AB}q_Aq_B>0$. Such configurations will be referred to as *polar states*. To construct elliptic genera, we used the method of generating modular representations as in the appendix of [@Gaiotto:2007cd].
The split attractor flow tree conjecture {#subsect:splitflows}
========================================
In the following, the reader will find a very brief presentation on the use and meaning of split flow trees. By the split attractor flow tree conjecture, [@Denef:2007vg], single flows and split flow trees are believed to be an existence criterion and provide a complete classification[^7] for BPS states in type II string theory. Single/split flows are graphical depictions of the flow of the Kähler moduli (or complex structure moduli in the mirror type IIB picture) belonging to a BPS solution of supergravity, but their meaning extends beyond the range of validity of the supergravity approximation to type II string theory, as suggested by the smooth interpolation between the supergravity picture and the quiver description of D–brane bound states found in [@Denef:2002ru].\
\
In order to incorporate the use of split attractor flow trees also outside of the regime of validity of the supergravity approximation to string theory, the following definition of a split flow tree is given:\
\
A **split flow tree** belonging to the total charge $\Gamma$ and $n$ constituents $(\Gamma_1,...,\Gamma_{n})$ is a set of data $$(t_{\infty};t_{1, \textrm{\tiny{split}}},...,t_{n-1, \textrm{\tiny{split}}};t_{1 *},...,t_{n *}), \label{dataset}$$ consisting of $2n$ points, a background value $t_{\infty}$, a set of $n-1$ split points $t_{j, \textrm{\tiny{split}}}$ ($j=(1,..,n-1)$), and n attractor points $t_{j *}$ ($j=1,...,n$), one for each center. Using this notation, a single flow, for example, is denoted as $(t_{\infty};t_{*})$. Note that this definition boils down to the most essential features, but the intuition, that the flow tree depicts the values of the scalars belonging to a supergravity solution in moduli space, remains valuable, when constructing split flow trees.\
\
**The construction of a split flow tree**\
\
A split flow tree is built as follows. One follows the *incoming branch*[^8] of a flow tree from radial infinity towards a putative attractor point, until one hits a *wall of marginal stability* for two *non–local*[^9] constituents $\langle\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2\rangle\neq 0$ such that $\Gamma=\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2$. This is defined as the hypersurface in moduli space where the phases of the central charges align, $\textrm{arg}(Z_1)=\textrm{arg}(Z_2)$. The modulus of a central charge measures the mass of the corresponding state, whereas the phase indicates which $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetry of the original $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetry is preserved by the state. If the phases of two central charges align, the two states are mutually BPS (i.e. preserve the same supersymmetry) and the binding energy of the BPS bound state vanishes, $$|Z_{1+2}|=|Z_1|+|Z_2|,$$ or equivalently, $$\textrm{Re}(\bar{Z}_1Z_2)>0,\qquad \textrm{Im}(\bar{Z}_1Z_2)=0.$$ If one reaches the wall from the side where $\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle (\textrm{arg}(Z_1)-\textrm{arg}(Z_2))>0$, the decay of $\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma_1+\Gamma_2$ is energetically favored. Microscopically, the non–zero value of $\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle$ means that there are chiral strings stretched between the two constituent branes, which make the decay (or the recombination if one goes in reverse) possible. One then follows the flows of the constituents, which might decay again according to the same scheme, until every end branch flows towards an attractor point. This is illustrated by the following figure for a three–centered solution:
\[splitflowBASICfigure\]
(7.5,6) (-1,-0.2) [{width="60.00000%"}]{} (4.8,5.5) [$t_{\infty}$]{} (3.6,3.3) [$t_S^{1,2}$]{} (5,2.5) [$t_S^{2a,2b}$]{} (0.73,0.75) [$t_{*}^{(1)}$]{} (4,0.7) [$t_{*}^{(2)}$]{} (6.3,0.55) [$t_{*}^{(3)}$]{}
For a given total charge $\Gamma$ one might in general find several different split flow trees, and maybe also a single flow, all contributing to the total index of BPS states with this total charge. In general, the BPS spectrum of states $\Omega(\Gamma)$ remains invariant under infinitesimal variations of the background moduli $t_{\infty}$, but it can jump when the moduli are driven through a wall of marginal stability. This is intuitively clear; a certain split might either not be possible anymore because one can only reach the appropriate wall of marginal stability from the unstable side, or, alternatively, a new type of split becomes possible, as one can now reach this wall from the stable side. In such a case one has taken the background into a different *area*, and the fact that there are different basins of attraction in moduli space has led to the name *area code* for the background. Hence, an index of BPS states should more precisely be denoted as $\Omega(\Gamma,t_{\infty})$.\
\
**Threshold walls**\
\
Apart from the walls of marginal stability, which separate regions in moduli space between which a BPS index can jump, there is a second type of wall that is of importance for our work: walls of *threshold* stability. The distinction between these two kinds of walls is explained in more detail in [@deBoer:2008fk]. The threshold conditions are the same as for marginal stability $$\textrm{Re}(\bar{Z}_1Z_2)>0,\qquad \textrm{Im}(\bar{Z}_1Z_2)=0\,,$$ however this time, the two charges are mutually local $\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle =0$. Microscopically this means that there are no tachyonic strings between the two branes that can condense to merge $\Gamma_1$ with $\Gamma_2$. Most importantly, a BPS index cannot jump when crossing the threshold stability wall with the background modulus. What can happen is that the flow tree changes topology: one can imagine, for example, a three–centered solution, with one ‘satellite’ center bound to either of the two others, which then changes sides and is bound to the other center after crossing the threshold wall with the background modulus.\
\
This allows the formulation of the split attractor flow tree conjecture ([@Denef:2007vg]):\
\
**The split attractor flow tree conjecture** (strong version)
1. For a given background $t_{\infty}$ in Kähler/complex structure moduli space, the existence of a split attractor flow tree starting at the background $t_{\infty}$, with a given total charge $\Gamma$ and endpoints corresponding to $\Gamma_i$, is equivalent to the existence of a BPS bound state in string theory, with constituents $\Gamma_i$.
2. The number of split flow trees and hence the total number of states with a given charge $\Gamma$ in a fixed background is finite, at least when charge quantization is imposed.
As will be discussed later on, our results offer support for a strong version of the conjecture.\
\
In this work, we use split flow trees to establish existence of BPS states in a regime where supergravity cannot be trusted. As the D–brane charges used are very low, the attractor equations will drive the horizon size to be very small with respect to the string scale. Thus, the supergravity approximation breaks down, and higher curvature corrections from perturbative $\alpha'$ effects become important. At the same time, the cycles on which the branes are wrapped also become very small, and worldsheet corrections to the central charges of the considered brane systems become dominant. Luckily, one can calculate exact central charges in the mirror picture, as the periods are exactly determined by classical geometry. The periods are determined as solutions to the Picard–Fuchs differential equations and cannot be written down and used analytically. Therefore, we used numerical techniques to tackle this problem. These techniques were developed in [@Denef:2001xn], and are partially based on the techniques prepared in [@Greene:2000ci]. They were also used in the same way as in this work in [@Collinucci:2008ht]. The reader will find more explanations in appendix \[numericalmethods\].
Methods to establish split flows outside the supergravity regime {#numericalmethods}
================================================================
For configurations with low D–brane charges, the attractor flow equations drive the horizon size of solutions to very small sizes in string scale units. This automatically leads far outside the supergravity regime, requiring higher curvature corrections. However, as stated in the main text, the main tool of analysis, namely split attractor flow tree techniques, retains its meaningfulness as predicted by the strong split attractor flow conjecture. As the attractor equations will typically drive the cycles and the CY itself to stringy sizes, the central charges of brane systems receive important worldsheet instanton corrections as a consequence, and these need to be taken into account. In type IIA string theory this would be an impossible task. Luckily, mirror symmetry solves the problem as the central charges are exactly determined classically by the periods of the holomorphic three–form in type IIB string theory on the mirror CY manifold. The mass of a BPS saturated brane wrapping an even cycle corresponds exactly to the notion of quantum volume of that cycle from [@Greene:2000ci]. The general scheme is thus to identify an integral basis of three–cycles, calculate the periods of these cycles, find the explicit mirror map and in this way define the quantum volume of any even dimensional cycle of the mirror.
The periods of the mirror Calabi–Yau’s are determined as solutions of the Picard–Fuchs equation, and are known as Meijer G–functions. Thus, it is not possible to write down analytic formulae for central charges, and certainly not possible to work with split attractor flow trees analytically. This hurdle is overcome in the following by means of numerical approximations with Mathematica[^10]. The periods of the mirror CY are evaluated, and a lattice of points is created, from which the function can be approximated by interpolation. Split flow trees and single flows are then established numerically. More details on the applied technique can be found in [@Denef:2001xn]. The mirror symmetry induced monomial–divisor map is used to convert Kähler to complex structure modulus, and map $(D6,D4,D2,D0)$ brane systems $\Gamma_A$ into their $(D3,D3,D3,D3)$ brane mirrors $\Gamma_B$, $L:H^{2*}(X,\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow H^3(Y,\mathbb{Z})$, and then analyze the attractor flows of the exact central charges in complex structure moduli space (or more precisely in the n–fold cover w–plane). In the IIB picture, BPS black holes are made of D3–branes wrapped along special Lagrangian three–cycles of the internal Calabi–Yau manifold, whereby these D3’s (and their corresponding three–cycles) can split up into intersecting D3’s, by moving in the complex structure moduli space of the CY across some ‘line of marginal stability’.
The mirror map $L$ can be found from a comparison of the IIA and IIB periods near the Large Complex Structure (LCS) point. It relates the even cycles of real dimension $2j$ on the CY $X_A$ to the three–cycles $\gamma_{i}$ of the mirror CY manifold $X_B$. The periods $\Pi_i = \int_{\gamma_i} \Omega$, of the holomorphic three–form on the $\gamma_{i}$ have leading logarithmic behavior $\textrm{log}^j(z)$ near $z=0$ (LCS point), using the coordinate $z=\psi^{-6}$, $\psi^{-8}$ and $\psi^{-10}$ on the mirror moduli space, for the sextic, the octic, and the decantic, respectively. The periods are solutions to the Picard–Fuchs equation, $$\Big{[}z\,\partial_z \prod_{i=1...q}(z\,\partial_z +\beta_i-1)-z\prod_{j=1...p}(z\,\partial_z+\alpha_j)\Big{]}u=0,$$ where the $\alpha_j$ and the $\beta_i$ are model dependent constants, which read $\beta_i=1$, $i=1, 2, 3$, and $\alpha =(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{3},\frac{2}{3},\frac{5}{6})$ for the sextic, $(\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8},\frac{5}{8},\frac{7}{8})$ for the octic, and $(\frac{1}{10},\frac{3}{10},\frac{7}{10},\frac{9}{10})$ for the decantic hypersurface, used in this paper. The Meijer–functions (G–functions) $U_j(z)$ can be expressed as $$U_j(z)=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^j} \oint \frac{\Gamma (-s)^{j+1}\prod_{i=1}^4\Gamma(s+\alpha_i)((-1)^{j+1}z)^s}{\Gamma (s+1)^{3-j}} ds.$$ This particular basis of periods is related to three branching points (LCS point, conifold point and Gepner point) which are connected by appropriately chosen branch cuts.
Associated to these branch cuts are three types of monodromies, which can be expressed as matrices acting on the periods. The monodromy $T(0)$ around the LCS point ($z=0 ,\psi=\infty$) and the monodromy $T(\infty )$ around the Gepner point ($z=\infty ,\psi =0$) act on the period vector ${\bf U}(z)=(U_j(z))_{j=1...4}$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
{\bf U}(e^{2\pi i}z) &=&\, T(0)\, {\bf U}(z),\qquad |z| << 1 \nonumber\\
{\bf U}(e^{2\pi i}z) &=&T(\infty )\, {\bf U}(z),\qquad |z|>> 1 .\end{aligned}$$ The third monodromy matrix of course follows directly from the other two, as a monodromy can always be seen either as ‘around one of the branching points’ or, equivalently as a monodromy ‘around the two other branching points’ in the appropriate directions. For the monodromy around the conifold point one has $$\begin{aligned}
T(1)&=&T(\infty )T(0)^{-1}\qquad \textrm{Im}(z)<0,\nonumber\\
T(1)&=&T(0)^{-1}T(\infty )\qquad \textrm{Im}(z)>0 .\end{aligned}$$ Using Mathematica, we evaluated the periods for our models on a lattice of points, the number of which can be adjusted to the degree of precision demanded. By interpolation this gives a numerical approximation of the periods.
[^1]: These polar states are typically states with a low D2/D0–charge; upon increasing the D2/D0 charge, the states become non–polar at some point.
[^2]: The closer relationship between D6–D2–D0 states and DT invariants has been clarified in [@Denef:2007vg].
[^3]: In the original OSV paper, [@Ooguri:2004zv], the authors argue, that the choice of a mixed ensemble is natural from the viewpoint of topological string theory (TST), as electric vs. magnetic for topological strings is like a choice of position vs. momentum. TST computes topological invariants enumerating constituent BPS states, thus there is also some motivation for the connection of TST with BPS bound states.
[^4]: By almost polar, we mean non–polar states, very close to the polarity–bound, thus carrying charges which are very close to charges of polar states.
[^5]: We will also refer to $t$ just as the *Kähler modulus*.
[^6]: Note that by spectral flow, which transforms $q_A\rightarrow q_A-6D_{AB}k^B$ and $q_0\rightarrow q_0+k^Aq_A-3D_{AB}k^Ak^B$, most of the D2–charge can be absorped in $q_0$
[^7]: The statement that they classify all BPS states in string theory is sometimes referred to as the *strong* form of the conjecture, while one can also formulate the weaker conjecture for BPS states in supergravity.
[^8]: The term ‘incoming branch’ refers to the part of the flow tree connecting the background point and the first split point.
[^9]: If one starts with local constituents, $\langle\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2\rangle =0$ (such as two branes of the same type), they are trivially mutually BPS, and one speaks of a threshold wall instead of a wall of marginal stability.
[^10]: Special thanks to F. Denef for sharing his Mathematica code, [@Denef:2001xn].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Assume that $N$ is a sufficiently large positive number. In this paper we show that for a small constant $\varepsilon>0$, the logarithmic inequality $$\big|p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N\big|<\varepsilon$$ has a solution in prime numbers $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$.\
\
[**Keywords**]{}: Diophantine inequality, logarithmic inequality, prime numbers.\
\
[**2010 Math. Subject Classification**]{}: 11P55 $\cdot$ 11J25
author:
- '**S. I. Dimitrov**'
date: 2019
title: '**A logarithmic inequality involving prime numbers**'
---
Introduction and statements of the result
=========================================
One of the most remarkable diophantine inequality with prime numbers is the ternary Piatetski-Shapiro inequality. The first solution is due to Tolev [@Tolev1]. In 1992 he considered the the diophantine inequality $$\label{Tolevinequality}
|p_1^c+p_2^c+p_3^c-N|<\varepsilon,$$ where $N$ is a sufficiently large positive number, $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$ are prime numbers, $c>1$ is not an integer and $\varepsilon>0$ is a small constant. Overcoming all difficulties Tolev [@Tolev1] showed that has a solution for $$1<c<\frac{15}{14}.$$ Afterwards the result of Tolev was improved by Cai [@Cai1] to $$1<c<\frac{13}{12},$$ by Cai [@Cai2] and Kumchev and Nedeva [@Ku-Ne] to $$1<c<\frac{12}{11},$$ by Cao and Zhai [@Cao-Zhai] to $$1<c<\frac{237}{214},$$ by Kumchev [@Kumchev] to $$1<c<\frac{61}{55},$$ by Baker and Weingartner [@Baker-Weingartner] to $$1<c<\frac{10}{9},$$ by Cai [@Cai3] to $$1<c<\frac{43}{36}$$ and this is the best result up to now.
Inspired by these profound investigations in this paper we introduce new diophantine inequality with prime numbers.
Consider the logarithmic inequality $$\label{Myinequality}
\big|p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N\big|<\varepsilon,$$ where $N$ is a sufficiently large positive number and $\varepsilon>0$ is a small constant. Having the methods of the aforementioned number theorists we expect that can be solved in primes $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$. Thus we make the first step and prove the following theorem.
Let $N$ is a sufficiently large positive number. Let $X$ is a solution of the equality $$N=2X\log(2X/3).$$ Then the logarithmic inequality $$\big|p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N\big|<X^{-\frac{1}{25}}\log^8X$$ is solvable in prime numbers $p_1,\,p_2,\,p_3$.
As usual the corresponding binary problem is out of reach of the current state of the mathematics. In other words we have the following challenge.
Let $N$ is a sufficiently large positive number and $\varepsilon>0$ is a small constant. Then the logarithmic inequality $$\big|p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2-N\big|<\varepsilon$$ is solvable in prime numbers $p_1,\,p_2$.
We believe that the future development of analytic number theory will lead to the solution of this binary logarithmic conjecture.
Notations
=========
For positive $A$ and $B$ we write $A\asymp B$ instead of $A\ll B\ll A$. As usual $\mu(n)$ is Möbius’ function, $\tau(n)$ denotes the number of positive divisors of $n$ and $\Lambda(n)$ is von Mangoldt’s function. Moreover $e(y)=e^{2\pi \imath y}$. We denote by $[y]$ the integer part of $y$. The letter $p$ with or without subscript will always denote prime number. Let $N$ be an sufficiently large positive number. Let $X$ is a solution of the equality $$N=2X\log(2X/3).$$ Denote $$\begin{aligned}
\label{varepsilon}
&\varepsilon=X^{-\frac{1}{25}}\log^8X\,;\\
\label{tau}
&\tau= X^{-\frac{23}{25}}\,;\\
\label{K}
&K=X^{\frac{1}{25}}\log^{-6} X\,;\\
\label{Salpha}
&S(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{X/2<p\leq X} e(\alpha p\log p)\log p\,;\\
\label{Int}
&I(\alpha)=\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}e(\alpha y\log y) \,dy\,.\end{aligned}$$
Lemmas
======
\[Fourier\]Let $k\in \mathbb{N}$. There exists a function $\psi(y)$ which is $k$ times continuously differentiable and such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\psi(y)=1\quad\quad\quad\mbox{for }\quad\quad|y|\leq 3\varepsilon/4\,;\\[6pt]
&0\leq\psi(y)<1\quad\mbox{for}\quad3\varepsilon/4 <|y|< \varepsilon\,;\\[6pt]
&\psi(y)=0\quad\quad\quad\mbox{for}\quad\quad|y|\geq \varepsilon\,.\end{aligned}$$ and its Fourier transform $$\Psi(x)=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi(y)e(-xy)dy$$ satisfies the inequality $$|\Psi(x)|\leq\min\bigg(\frac{7\varepsilon}{4},\frac{1}{\pi|x|},\frac{1}{\pi |x|}
\bigg(\frac{k}{2\pi |x|\varepsilon/8}\bigg)^k\bigg)\,.$$
This is Lemma 1 of Tolev [@Tolev1].
\[Exponentpairs\] Let $|f^{(m)}(u)|\asymp YX^{1-m}$ for $1<X<u\leq2X$ and $m=1,2,3,\ldots$\
Then $$\bigg|\sum_{X<n\le 2X}e(f(n))\bigg|
\ll Y^\varkappa X^\lambda +Y^{-1},$$ where $(\varkappa, \lambda)$ is any exponent pair.
See ([@Graham-Kolesnik], Ch. 3).
\[Iwaniec-Kowalski\] For any complex numbers $a(n)$ we have $$\bigg|\sum_{a<n\le b}a(n)\bigg|^2
\leq\bigg(1+\frac{b-a}{Q}\bigg)\sum_{|q|\leq Q}\bigg(1-\frac{|q|}{Q}\bigg)
\sum_{a<n,\, n+q\leq b}a(n+q)\overline{a(n)},$$ where $Q$ is any positive integer.
See ([@Iwaniec-Kowalski], Lemma 8.17).
\[Iest\] Assume that $F(x)$, $G(x)$ are real functions defined in $[a,b]$, $|G(x)|\leq H$ for $a\leq x\leq b$ and $G(x)/F'(x)$ is a monotonous function. Set $$I=\int\limits_{a}^{b}G(x)e(F(x))dx\,.$$ If $F'(x)\geq h>0$ for all $x\in[a,b]$ or if $F'(x)\leq-h<0$ for all $x\in[a,b]$ then $$|I|\ll H/h\,.$$ If $F''(x)\geq h>0$ for all $x\in[a,b]$ or if $F''(x)\leq-h<0$ for all $x\in[a,b]$ then $$|I|\ll H/\sqrt h\,.$$
See ([@Titchmarsh], p. 71).
\[sumtau\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\emph{(i)}\quad\quad\quad\quad\sum\limits_{n\leq X}\tau^2(n)\ll X\log^3 X,
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\\
&\emph{(ii)}\quad\quad\quad\quad\sum\limits_{n\leq X}\Lambda^2(n)\ll X\log X.
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$
\[SI\] If $|\alpha|\leq\tau$ then $$S(\alpha)=I(\alpha)+\mathcal{O}\Big(Xe^{-(\log X)^{1/5}}\Big)\,.$$
This lemma is very similar to result of Tolev [@Tolev1]. Inspecting the arguments presented in ([@Tolev1], Lemma 14), (with $T=X^{\frac{1}{2}}$) the reader will easily see that the proof of Lemma \[SI\] can be obtained by the same manner.
\[Thetaest\] We have $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}I^3(\alpha)e(-N\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha
\gg\varepsilon\frac{X^2}{\log X}.$$
Denoting the above integral with $\Theta$, using , the definition of $\psi(y)$ and the inverse Fourier transformation formula we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HX}
\Theta&=\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}
e((y_1\log y_1+y_2\log y_2+y_3\log y_3-N)\alpha\big)
\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha \,dy_1\,dy_2\,dy_3\nonumber\\
&=\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}
\psi(y_1\log y_1+y_2\log y_2+y_3\log y_3-N)\,dy_1\,dy_2\,dy_3\nonumber\\
&\geq\mathop{\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}\int\limits_{X/2}^{X}}
_{\substack{|y_1\log y_1+y_2\log y_2+y_3\log y_3-N|<3\varepsilon/4}}\,dy_1\,dy_2\,dy_3
\geq\int\limits_{\lambda X}^{\mu X}\int\limits_{\lambda X}^{\mu X}
\left(\int\limits_{\Delta}\,dy_3\right)\,dy_1\,dy_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are real numbers such that $$\frac{1}{2}<\frac{2}{3}<\lambda<\mu<\frac{5}{7}<1$$ and $$\Delta=\big[X/2,X\big]
\cap\big[y'_3, y''_3\big]=\big[y'_3, y''_3\big],$$ where the interval $\big[y'_3, y''_3\big]$ is a solution of the inequality $$N-3\varepsilon/4-y_1\log y_1-y_2\log y_2
<y_3\log y_3<N+3\varepsilon/4-y_1\log y_1-y_2\log y_2.$$ Let $y$ be an implicit function of $t$ defined by $$\label{Implicitfunction}
y\log y=t,$$ where $$\label{tasymp}
t\asymp X\log X$$ and therefore $$\label{yest}
y\asymp X.$$ The first derivative of $y$ is $$\label{Firstderivative}
y'=\frac{1}{1+\log y}.$$ By and we conclude $$\label{y'est}
y'\asymp\frac{1}{\log X}.$$ Thus by the mean-value theorem we get $$\label{Thetaest1}
\Theta\gg\varepsilon\int\limits_{\lambda X}^{\mu X}\int\limits_{\lambda X}^{\mu X}
y'\big(\xi_{y_1,y_2}\big)\,dy_1\,dy_2\,,$$ where $$\xi_{y_1,y_2}\asymp X\log X.$$ From and it follows that $$\Theta\gg\varepsilon\frac{X^2}{\log X}.$$ The lemma is proved.
\[3Int\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\emph{(i)}\quad\quad\quad\quad\int\limits_{-\tau}^\tau|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll X\log^2X,
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\\
&\emph{(ii)}\quad\quad\quad\quad\int\limits_{-\tau}^\tau|I(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll X,
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\\
&\emph{(iii)}\quad\quad\quad\quad\int\limits_{n}^{n+1}|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\ll X\log^2X.
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$
We only prove $\textmd{(i)}$. The cases $\textmd{(ii)}$ and $\textmd{(iii)}$ are analogous.
Having in mind we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Squareout}
\int\limits_{-\tau}^\tau|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha&=\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2\leq X}\log p_1\log p_2
\int\limits_{-\tau}^\tau e((p_1\log p_1-p_2\log p_2))\alpha)\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&\ll\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2\leq X}\log p_1\log p_2
\min\bigg(\tau,\frac{1}{|p_1\log p_1-p_2\log p_2|}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\ll\tau\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2\leq X\atop{|p_1\log p_1-p_2\log p_2|\leq1/\tau}}\log p_1\log p_2\nonumber\\
&+\sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2\leq X\atop{|p_1\log p_1-p_2\log p_2|>1/\tau}}
\frac{\log p_1\log p_2}{|p_1\log p_1-p_2\log p_2|}\nonumber\\
&\ll U\tau\log^2X+V\log^2X,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&U=\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1,n_2\leq X\atop{|n_1\log n_1-n_2\log n_2|\leq1/\tau}}1\,,\\
&V=\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1,n_2\leq X\atop{|n_1\log n_1-n_2\log n_2|>1/\tau}}
\frac{1}{|n_1\log n_1-n_2\log n_2|}\,.\end{aligned}$$ On the one hand by the mean-value theorem we get $$U\ll\mathop{\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1\leq X}\sum\limits_{X/2<n_2\leq X}1}_
{n_1\log n_1-1/\tau\leq n_2\log n_2\leq n_1\log n_1+1/\tau}
\ll\frac{1}{\tau}\sum\limits_{X/2<n_\leq X}y'(\xi),$$ where $y$ is implicit function defined by the equation and $\xi$ satisfies . Bearing in mind , and the last inequality we find $$\label{Uest2}
U\ll\frac{1}{\tau}\cdot\frac{X}{\log X}\,.$$ On the other hand $$\label{VVl}
V\leq\sum\limits_{l}V_l\,,$$ where $$V_l=\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1,n_2\leq X\atop{l<|n_1\log n_1-n_2\log n_2|\leq2l}}
\frac{1}{|n_1\log n_1-n_2\log n_2|}$$ and $l$ takes the values $2^k/\tau,\,k=0,1,2,...$, with $l\leq X\log X$.\
Using – and the mean-value theorem we conclude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vlest}
V_l&\ll\frac{1}{l}\mathop{\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1\leq X}\sum\limits_{X/2<n_2\leq X}}_
{n_1\log n_1+l< n_2\log n_2\leq n_1\log n_1+2l}1\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{l}\mathop{\sum\limits_{X/2<n_1\leq X}\sum\limits_{X/2<n_2\leq X}}_
{n_1\log n_1-2l< n_2\log n_2\leq n_1\log n_1-l}1\nonumber\\
&\ll\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}y'(\xi)\nonumber\\
&\ll \frac{X}{\log X}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The proof follows from – .
\[Salphaest\] Assume that $\tau\leq|\alpha| \leq K$. Then $$\label{Salpha2526}
|S(\alpha)|\ll X^{24/25}\log^3X.$$
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\tau\leq\alpha \leq K$.
From we have $$\label{SalphavonMangolt}
S(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}\Lambda(n)
e(\alpha n\log n)+\mathcal{O}( X^{1/2}).$$ On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SalphaS1alpha}
&\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}\Lambda(n)e(\alpha n\log n)\nonumber\\
&=\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}\Lambda(n)
e\Big(\alpha n\Big(\ \log(n+1)+ \mathcal{O}\big(1/n\big) \Big) \Big)
\nonumber\\
&=e\big(\mathcal{O}(|\alpha|)\big)\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}
\Lambda(n)e\big(\alpha n\log(n+1)\big)\nonumber\\
&\ll|S_1(\alpha)|,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{S1alpha}
S_1(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{X/2<n\leq X}\Lambda(n)e\big(\alpha n\log(n+1)\big).$$ We denote $$\label{fdl}
f(d,l)=\alpha dl \log(dl+1).$$ Using , and Vaughan’s identity (see [@Vaughan]) we get $$\label{S1alphadecomp}
S_1(\alpha)=U_1-U_2-U_3-U_4,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U1}
&U_1=\sum_{d\le X^{1/3}}\mu(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}(\log l)e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U2}
&U_2=\sum_{d\le X^{1/3}}c(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U3}
&U_3=\sum_{X^{1/3}<d\le X^{2/3}}c(d)\sum_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d,l)),\\
\label{U4}
&U_4= \mathop{\sum\sum}_{\substack{X/2<dl\le X \\d>X^{1/3},\,l>X^{1/3} }}
a(d)\Lambda(l) e(f(d,l)),\end{aligned}$$ and where $$\label{cdad}
|c(d)|\leq\log d,\quad | a(d)|\leq\tau(d).$$
**Estimation of $U_1$ and $U_2$**
Consider first $U_2$ defined by . Bearing in mind we find $$\label{fnthderivative}
\frac{\partial^nf(d,l)}{\partial l^n}
=(-1)^n\left[\frac{\alpha d^n(n-2)!}{(dl+1)^{n-1}}
+ \frac{\alpha d^n(n-1)!}{(dl+1)^{n}}\right], \quad \mbox{ for } n\geq2.$$ By and the restriction and the restriction $$\label{restriction}
X/2<dl\le X$$ we deduce $$\label{fnthderivativeest}
\left|\frac{\partial^nf(d,l)}{\partial l^n}\right|\asymp\alpha d(Xd^{-1})^{1-n}, \quad \mbox{ for } n\geq2.$$ From and Lemma \[Exponentpairs\] with $(\varkappa, \lambda)=\big(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\big)$ it follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumefdl}
\sum\limits_{X/2d<l\le X/d}e(f(d, l))
&\ll(\alpha d)^{1/2}\big(X d^{-1}\big)^{1/2}+(\alpha d)^{-1}\nonumber\\
&=\alpha^{1/2}X^{1/2} +\alpha^{-1} d^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Now , , , and give us $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U2est}
U_2&\ll\big(\alpha^{1/2}X^{5/6}+\alpha^{-1/2}\big)\log^2X\nonumber\\
&\ll\big(K^{1/2}X^{5/6}+\tau^{-1/2}\big)\log^2X\nonumber\\
&\ll X^{23/25}\log^2X.\end{aligned}$$ In order to estimate $U_1$ defined by we apply Abel’s transformation. Then arguing as in the estimation of $U_2$ we obtain $$\label{U1est}
U_1\ll X^{23/25}\log^2X.$$
**Estimation of $U_3$ and $U_4$**
Consider first $U_4$ defined by . We have $$\label{U4U5}
U_4\ll|U_5|\log X,$$ where $$\label{U5}
U_5=\sum_{D<d\le 2D}a(d)\sum_{L<l\le 2L\atop{X/2<dl\leq X}}\Lambda(l)e(f(d,l))$$ and where $$\label{ParU5}
X^{1/3}\ll L\ll X^{1/2}\ll D\ll X^{2/3}, \quad DL\asymp X.$$ Using , , , Lemma \[sumtau\] $\textmd{(i)}$ and Cauchy’s inequality we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U52est1}
|U_5|^2&\ll \sum_{D<d\le 2D}\tau^2(d)\sum_{D<d\le 2D}\bigg|\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2}\Lambda(l)e(f(d,l))\bigg|^2\nonumber\\
&\ll D(\log X)^3\sum_{D<d\le 2D}\bigg|\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2}\Lambda(l)e(f(d,l))\bigg|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{maxmin1}
L_1=\max{\bigg\{L,\frac{X}{2d}\bigg\}},\quad
L_2=\min{\bigg\{2L, \frac{X}{d}\bigg\}}\,.$$ Now from – and Lemma \[Iwaniec-Kowalski\] with $Q\leq L$ and Lemma \[sumtau\] $\textmd{(ii)}$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U52est2}
|U_5|^2&\ll D(\log X)^3 \sum_{D<d\le 2D}\frac{L}{Q}
\sum_{|q|\leq Q}\bigg(1-\frac{|q|}{Q}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_{L_1<l\le L_2\atop{L_1<l+q\le L_2}}\Lambda(l+q)\Lambda(l)
e(f(d,l+q)-f(d,l))\nonumber\\
&\ll \Bigg(\frac{LD}{Q}\sum_{0<|q|\leq Q}
\sum_{L<l\le 2L\atop{L<l+q\le 2L}}\Lambda(l+q)\Lambda(l)
\bigg|\sum_{D_1<d\le D_2}e\big(g_{l,q}(d)\big)\bigg|\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{(LD)^2}{Q}\log X\Bigg)\log^3X,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{maxmin2}
D_1=\max{\bigg\{D,\frac{X}{2l},\frac{X}{2(l+q)}\bigg\}},\quad
D_2=\min{\bigg\{2D,\frac{X}{l},\frac{X}{l+q}\bigg\}}$$ and $$\label{gd}
g(d)=g_{l,q}(d)=f(d,l+q)-f(d,l).$$ It is not hard to see that the sum over negative $q$ in formula is equal to the sum over positive $q$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U52est3}
|U_5|^2\ll\Bigg(\frac{LD}{Q}\sum_{1\leq q\leq Q}
\sum_{L<l\le 2L-q}\Lambda(l+q)\Lambda(l)
\bigg|&\sum_{D_1<d\le D_2}e(g_{l,q}(d))\bigg|\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+\frac{ (LD)^2}{Q}\log X\Bigg)\log^3X.\end{aligned}$$ Consider the function $g(d)$. Taking into account , and we get $$\label{gnthderivative}
g^{(n)}(d)=(-1)^n\left[\frac{\alpha (l+q)^n(n-2)!}{(d(l+q)+1)^{n-1}}
+ \frac{\alpha l^n(n-1)!}{(dl+1)^{n}}\right], \quad \mbox{ for } n\geq2.$$ By and we conclude $$\label{gnthderivativeest}
|g^{(n)}(d)|\asymp\alpha L(XL^{-1})^{1-n}.$$ From , and Lemma \[Exponentpairs\] with $(\varkappa, \lambda)=\big(\frac{11}{82}, \frac{57}{82}\big)$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumegd}
\sum\limits_{D_1<d\leq D_2}e(g(d))
&\ll (\alpha L)^{11/82}\big(X L^{-1}\big)^{57/82}+(\alpha L)^{-1}\nonumber\\
&=\alpha^{11/82}L^{-46/82}X^{57/82} +\alpha^{-1} L^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Bearing in mind , , Lemma \[sumtau\] $\textmd{(ii)}$ and choosing $Q=L$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U52est4}
|U_5|^2&\ll \big( \alpha^{11/82}DLL^{36/82}X^{57/82}
+\alpha^{-1} DL+D^2L\big)\log^4X\nonumber\\
&\ll \big( K^{11/82}L^{36/82}X^{139/82}+\tau^{-1}X+D^2L\big)\log^4X.\end{aligned}$$ Now , , and give us $$\label{U5est}
|U_5|\ll \big( K^{11/164}L^{36/164}X^{139/164}+\tau^{-1/2}X^{1/2}+XL^{-1/2}\big)\log^2X
\ll X^{24/25}\log^2X.$$ From and it follows $$\label{U4est}
U_4\ll X^{24/25}\log^3X.$$ Working as in the estimation of $U_4$ we obtain $$\label{U3est}
U_3\ll X^{24/25}\log^3X.$$ Summarizing , , , , , and we establish the estimation .
The lemma is proved.
Proof of the Theorem
====================
Consider the sum $$\Gamma= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X
\atop{|p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N|
<\varepsilon}}\log p_1\log p_2\log p_3.$$ The theorem will be proved if we show that $\Gamma\rightarrow\infty$ as $X\rightarrow\infty$.
According to the definition of $\psi(y)$ and the inverse Fourier transformation formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GammaGamma0}
\Gamma&\geq\Gamma_0
= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X}
\psi(p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N)\log p_1\log p_2\log p_3\nonumber\\
&= \sum\limits_{X/2<p_1,p_2,p_3\leq X}\log p_1\log p_2\log p_3\nonumber\\
&\times\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}e((p_1\log p_1+p_2\log p_2+p_3\log p_3-N)\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha \nonumber\\
&=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}S^3(\alpha)e(-N\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We decompose $\Gamma_0$ in three parts $$\label{Gamma0decomp}
\Gamma_0=\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2+\Gamma_3.$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma1}
&\Gamma_1=\int\limits_{-\tau}^{\tau}S^3(\alpha)e(-N\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha,\\
\label{Gamma2}
&\Gamma_2=\int\limits_{\tau\leq|\alpha|\leq K}S^3(\alpha)e(-N\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha,\\
\label{Gamma3}
&\Gamma_3=\int\limits_{|\alpha|>K}S^3(\alpha)e(-N\alpha)\Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha.\end{aligned}$$
**Estimation of $\Gamma_1$**
Denote the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Thetataudef}
&\Theta_\tau=\int\limits_{-\tau}^\tau I^3(\alpha) e(-N\alpha) \Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha\\
\label{Thetadef}
&\Theta=\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty I^3(\alpha) e(-N\alpha) \Psi(\alpha)\,d\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ For $\Gamma_1$ denoted by we have $$\label{Gamma1ThetaThetatau}
\Gamma_1=(\Gamma_1-\Theta_\tau)+(\Theta_\tau-\Theta)+\Theta.$$ From , , Lemma \[Fourier\], Lemma \[SI\] and Lemma \[3Int\] $\textmd{(i)}$, \[3Int\] $\textmd{(ii)}$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma1Thetatau}
|\Gamma_1-\Theta_\tau|&\ll\int\limits_{-\tau}^{\tau}|S^3(\alpha)-I^3(\alpha)||\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&\ll\varepsilon\int\limits_{-\tau}^{\tau}|S(\alpha)-I(\alpha)|\big(|S(\alpha)|^2+|I(\alpha)|^2\big)\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&\ll\varepsilon Xe^{-(\log X)^{1/5}}
\Bigg(\int\limits_{-\tau}^{\tau}|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha+\int\limits_{-\tau}^{\tau}|I(\alpha)|^2)\bigg)\nonumber\\
&\ll\varepsilon X^2e^{-(\log X)^{1/6}}.\end{aligned}$$ Using , , , , Lemma \[Fourier\] and Lemma \[Iest\] we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ThetatauTheta}
|\Theta_\tau-\Theta|&\ll\int\limits_{\tau}^{\infty}|I(\alpha)|^3|\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha
\ll\frac{\varepsilon}{(1+\log X)^3}\int\limits_{\tau}^{\infty}\frac{d\alpha}{\alpha^3}\nonumber\\
&\ll \frac{\varepsilon}{\tau^2(1+\log X)^3}\ll\varepsilon\frac{X^2}{\log^2X}.\end{aligned}$$ Bearing in mind , , , , and Lemma \[Thetaest\] we conclude $$\label{Gamma1est}
\Gamma_1\gg \varepsilon\frac{X^2}{\log X}.$$
**Estimation of $\Gamma_2$**
Now let us consider $\Gamma_2$ defined by . We have $$\label{Gamma2est1}
\Gamma_2\ll\int\limits_{\tau}^{K}|S(\alpha)|^3|\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha
\ll\max\limits_{\tau\leq t\leq K}|S(\alpha)|\int\limits_{\tau}^{K}|S(\alpha)|^2|\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha.$$ Using Lemma \[Fourier\] and Lemma \[3Int\] $\textmd{(iii)}$ we deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\label{InttauK}
\int\limits_{\tau}^{K}|S(\alpha)|^2|\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha
&\ll\varepsilon\int\limits_{\tau}^{1/\varepsilon}|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha
+\int\limits_{1/\varepsilon}^{K}|S(\alpha)|^2\,\frac{d\alpha}{\alpha}\nonumber\\
&\ll\varepsilon\sum\limits_{0\leq n\leq 1/\varepsilon}\int\limits_{n}^{n+1}|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha
+\sum\limits_{1/\varepsilon-1\leq n\leq K}\frac{1}{n}\int\limits_{n}^{n+1}|S(\alpha)|^2\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&\ll X \log^3X.\end{aligned}$$ From , and Lemma \[Salphaest\] it follows $$\label{Gamma2est2}
\Gamma_2\ll X^{49/25}\log^6X\ll \frac{\varepsilon X^2}{\log^2X}.$$
**Estimation of $\Gamma_3$**
Using (\[Gamma3\]), Lemma \[Fourier\] and choosing $k=[\log X]$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gama3est}
\Gamma_3&\ll \int\limits_{K}^{\infty}|S(\alpha)|^3|\Psi(\alpha)|\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&\ll X^3\int\limits_{K}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\alpha}\bigg(\frac{k}{2\pi \alpha\varepsilon/8}\bigg)^k\,d\alpha\nonumber\\
&=X^3\bigg(\frac{4k}{\pi\varepsilon K}\bigg)^k\ll1.\end{aligned}$$
**The end of the proof**
Bearing in mind , , , and we establish that $$\label{Gammaest}
\Gamma\gg \varepsilon\frac{X^2}{\log X}.$$ Now and imply that $\Gamma\rightarrow\infty$ as $X\rightarrow\infty$.
The proof of the Theorem is complete.
**Acknowledgments.** The author thanks Professor Kaisa Matomäki and Professor Joni Teräväinen for their valuable remarks and useful discussions.
[100]{}
R. Baker, A. Weingartner, [*A ternary diophantine inequality over primes*]{}, Acta Arith., [**162**]{}, (2014), 159 – 196.
Y. Cai, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers*]{}, Acta Math. Sinica, Chinese Series, [**39**]{}, (1996), 733 – 742.
Y. Cai, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers III*]{}, Acta Math. Sinica, English Series, [**15**]{}, (1999), 387 – 394.
Y. Cai, [*A ternary Diophantine inequality involving primes*]{}, Int. J. Number Theory, [**14**]{}, (2018), 2257 – 2268.
X. Cao, W. Zhai, [*A Diophantine inequality with prime numbers*]{}, Acta Math. Sinica, Chinese Series, [**45**]{}, (2002), 361 – 370.
S. W. Graham, G. Kolesnik,[*Van der Corput’s Method of Exponential Sums*]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York, (1991).
H. Iwaniec, E. Kowalski, [*Analytic number theory*]{}, Colloquium Publications, **53**, Amer. Math. Soc., (2004).
A. Kumchev, T. Nedeva, [*On an equation with prime numbers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**83**]{}, (1998), 117 – 126.
A. Kumchev, [*A diophantine inequality involving prime powers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**89**]{}, (1999), 311 – 330.
E. Titchmarsh, [*The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-function*]{} (revised by D. R. Heath-Brown), Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1986).
D. Tolev, [*On a diophantine inequality involving prime numbers*]{}, Acta Arith., [**61**]{}, (1992), 289 – 306.
R. C. Vaughan, [*An elementary method in prime number theory*]{}, Acta Arithmetica, **37**, (1980), 111 – 115.
S. I. Dimitrov\
Faculty of Applied Mathematics and Informatics\
Technical University of Sofia\
8, St.Kliment Ohridski Blvd.\
1756 Sofia, BULGARIA\
e-mail: [email protected]\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We quantize explicitly the Witt algebra in characteristic $0$ equipped with its Lie bialgebra structures discovered by Taft. Then, we study the reduction modulo $p$ of our formulas. This gives $p - 1$ families of polynomial noncocommutative deformations of a restricted enveloping algebra of a simple Lie algebra in charactristic $p$ (of Cartan type). In particular, this yields new families of noncommutative noncocommutative Hopf algebras of dimension $p^p$ in char $p$.
[[[[**Keywords:** ]{}Witt algebra, Lie bialgebra, finite dimensional Hopf algebra in non-zero characteristic.]{}]{}]{}
[[[[**A.M.S. subject classification:** ]{}16W30, 17B37, 17B62, 17B66]{}]{}]{}
author:
- |
Cyril Grunspan\
\
Dipartimento di Matematica\
Instituto Guido Castelnuovo\
Universita di Roma La Sapienza\
P.le Aldo Moro, 2\
00185 Roma, Italia\
\
Email: grunspan\[AT\]mat.uniroma1.it
title: Quantizations of the Witt algebra and of simple Lie algebras in characteristic $p$
---
[[[*“Il est faux de croire que rien n’arrive jamais. En vérité, tout arrive toujours mais seulement quand on ne le désire plus.”*]{}]{}]{}
Introduction
============
This article comes within the scope of the general program of quantization of simple Lie bialgebras in non-zero characteristic.
In the following, we use the general method of quantization by Drinfeld’s twist to quantize explicitly the Lie bialgebra structures discovered by Taft on the Witt algebra in characteristic zero [[@T]]{}. Then, we study the case of the Witt algebra in characteristic $p$ where $p$ is a prime number and we show that our formulas lead to quantizations of its restricted enveloping algebra.
We start by recalling the definitions of the Witt algebra in characteristic $0$ and of its natural structure of triangular Lie bialgebra of Taft. In Section $2$, by using the twist discovered by Giaquinto and Zhang [[@GZ]]{}, we quantize explicitly this structure. In Section $3$, we remark that although the twist used for the quantization involves terms with [[[*negative*]{}]{}]{} $p$-adic valuation, conjugation by this twist preserves the nonnegative $p$-adic valuation part of the tensor square of the enveloping algebra of the Witt algebra. Moreover, the reduction modulo $p$ of these formulas is compatible with the structure of $p$-Lie algebra on the Witt algebra. We use this fact to equip the restricted enveloping algebra of the Witt algebra with non-commutative and non-cocommutative Hopf algebra structures. We do not expect these Hopf algebras to be triangular since the twist which helps to define it is not defined on $\mathbbm{F}_p$. We thus get new examples of Hopf algebra of dimension $p^p$ in characteristic $p$. These Hopf algebras contain the Radford algebra as a Hopf-subalgebra.
Definition of the Witt algebra
------------------------------
One denotes by $W$ the $\mathbbm{Q}$-Lie algebra given by generators: $L_r,
r \in \mathbbm{Z}$ and relations: $[ L_r, L_s ] = ( s - r ) L_{r + s}$.
This Lie algebra is isomorphic to the Lie algebra of vector fields on the circle and generators $L_r, r \in \mathbbm{Z}$ correspond to operators $x^{r +
1} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}x}$ in ${\operatorname{Der}} (\mathbbm{Q}[ x, x^{- 1} ] )$. The following proposition is due to Taft [[@T]]{}.
There is a triangular Lie bialgebra structure on $W$ given by the $r$-matrix $r - r^{21}$ with $r {:=}L_0 \otimes L_i$ and $i \in \mathbbm{Z}$.
In fact, it has been proved by Ng and Taft that it was the only Lie bialgebra structure on the “positive” part of the Witt algebra [[@NgT]]{}. The purpose of this article is to quantize this structure and to investigate the case of the non-zero characteristic.
Notations. {#notations. .unnumbered}
----------
In Section $2$, one fixes $i \in \mathbbm{Z}$. In Section $3$, $p$ is an odd prime number. We set: $$\begin{aligned}
h & {:=}& \frac{1}{i} L_0\\
e & {:=}& iL_i\end{aligned}$$ For all element $x$ of an unitary $R$-algebra ($R$ a ring) and $a \in R$, we also set: $$x^{( n )} {:=}x ( x + 1 ) \ldots ( x + n - 1 ) \label{xap}$$
\[secq\]Quantification of Taft’s structure
==========================================
Let us denote by $( U ( W ), m, \Delta_0, S_0, \varepsilon )$ the natural Hopf algebra structure on $U ( W )$ i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_0 ( L_k ) & = & L_k \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes L_k\\
S_0 ( L_k ) & = & - L_k\\
\varepsilon ( L_k ) & = & 0.\end{aligned}$$ In order to quantize the Taft’s structure, we recall the twist $F$ of [[@GZ]]{} defined by: $$F {:=}\sum_{r = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{r!} h^{( r )} \otimes e^r t^r .$$ where $t$ denotes a formal variable.
The following proposition has been proved in [[@GZ]]{}.
We have: $$\begin{aligned}
( \Delta_0 \otimes {\operatorname{Id}} ) ( F ) \cdot ( 1 \otimes F ) & = & ( F
\otimes 1 ) \cdot ( {\operatorname{Id}} \otimes \Delta_0 ) ( F )\\
( \varepsilon \otimes {\operatorname{Id}} ) ( F ) & = & ( {\operatorname{Id}} \otimes
\varepsilon ) ( F ) = 1\\
F & = & 1 \quad ( t )
\end{aligned}$$ In other words, $F$ is a twist for $( U ( W ), m, \Delta_0, S_0, \varepsilon
) i.e., F$ is invertible, $u {:=}m \circ ( S \otimes I_d ) ( F )$ is invertible and $( U ( W ) \left[ \left[ t \right] \right], m, \Delta_{},
S_{}, \varepsilon )$ is a Hopf algebra with $\Delta {:=}F^{- 1} \Delta_0
F$ and $S {:=}u^{- 1} S_0 u$.
We note that $F = 1 + r \cdot t \quad ( t^2 )$. Therefore, the Hopf algebra constructed with $F$ quantizes the Taft’s structure. The following theorem gives explicitly the quantization.
\[to\]There exists a structure of non-commutative and non-cocommutative Hopf algebra on $U ( W ) \left[ \left[ t \right] \right]$ denoted by $( U (
W ) \left[ \left[ t \right] \right], m, \Delta_{}, S_{}, \varepsilon )$ which leaves the product of $U ( W ) \left[ \left[ t \right] \right]$ undeformed but with a deformed comultiplication defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta ( L_k ) & {:=}& L_k \otimes ( 1 - et )^{\frac{k}{i}} + \sum_{l
= 0}^{\infty} ( - 1 )^l i^l \frac{\prod_{j = - 1}^{l - 2} ( k + ji )}{l!}
h^{( l )} \otimes ( 1 - et )^{- l} L_{k + li} t^l \label{dellk}\\
S ( L_k ) & {:=}& - ( 1 - et )^{- \frac{k}{i}} \sum_{l = 0}^{\infty}
i^l \frac{\prod_{j = - 1}^{l - 2} ( k + ji )}{l!} L_{k + li} ( h + 1 )^{(
l )} t^l \label{slk}\\
\varepsilon ( L_k ) & {:=}& 0 \label{elk}
\end{aligned}$$ with $k \in \mathbbm{Z}$.
One can simplify formulas of Theorem 4 by introducing the operator $d^{( l )}$ ($l \in \mathbbm{N}$) on $U ( W )$ defined by $d^{( l )} {:=}\frac{1}{l!}
{\operatorname{ad}} ( e )^l$. Indeed, it is easy to see that $$d^{( l )} ( L_k ) = i^l \frac{\prod_{j = - 1}^{l - 2} ( k + ji )}{l!} L_{k
+ li} \label{dl}$$ We have then: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta ( L_k ) & {:=}& L_k \otimes ( 1 - et )^{\frac{k}{i}} + \sum_{l =
0}^{\infty} ( - 1 )^l h^{( l )} \otimes ( 1 - et )^{- l} d^{( l )} ( L_k )
t^l \\
S ( L_k ) & {:=}& - ( 1 - et )^{- \frac{k}{i}} \sum_{l = 0}^{\infty}
d^{( l )} ( L_k ) \cdot ( h + 1 )^{( l )} t^l . \end{aligned}$$ We can also give a general formula for the antipode.
\[props0\]For any homogeneous element $x \in U ( W )$ with respect to the graduation given by $|L_k | = k$, one has: $$S ( x ) = ( 1 - et )^{- \frac{|x|}{i}} \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} d^{( n )} (
S_0 ( x ) ) \cdot ( h + 1 )^{( n )} t^n .$$
In fact, by applying Lemma \[grazie\] below with $a = i$ and $k$ replaced by $k - i$, we remark that the structure coefficients of $\Delta$ and $S$ in (\[dellk\]) and (\[slk\]) belong to $\mathbbm{Z}$.
\[grazie\]For all integers $a, k$ and $l$, $a^l \frac{\prod_{j = 0}^{l
- 1} ( k + ja )}{l!}$ is an integer.
This fact allows us to consider the reduction modulo $p$ of our formulas.
Quantizations of restricted enveloping algebras
===============================================
We show that formulas above can be used to define an Hopf algebra structure on the [[[*restricted*]{}]{}]{} enveloping algebra of the Witt algebra in characteristic $p$ [[@J]]{}.
One denotes by $\mathfrak{D}$ the $\mathbbm{F}_p$-Lie algebra given by generators: $D_k, k \in \mathbbm{Z}$ and relations: $$\begin{aligned}
[ D_k, D_l ] & = & ( l - k ) D_{k + l}\\
D_{k + p} & = & D_k
\end{aligned}$$ for $k, l \in \mathbbm{Z}$. The algebra $\mathfrak{D}$ is called the Witt algebra in characteristic $p$.
The algebra $\mathfrak{D}$ is isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Der}} (\mathbbm{F}_p [ X ] /
( X^p - 1 ) )$ and $D_k$ corresponds to the operator $X^{k + 1}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}X}$.
It is well known that $\mathfrak{D}$ is a simple restricted Lie algebra [[@J]]{}. Its structure of $p$-Lie algebra is given by $D_0^{( 0 )} = D_0$ and $D_k^{( 0 )} = 0$ for $k$ non divisible by$p$. Its restricted enveloping algebra $\text{$U_c (\mathfrak{D})$}$ is isomorphic to $U (\mathfrak{D}) / I$ where $I$ is the ideal of $U (\mathfrak{D})$ generated by $D_r^p - D_r$ with $p$ divides $r$ and $D_k^p$ with $k$ non divisible by $p$. A basis of this algebra is given by monomials $\prod_{k = 0}^{p - 1} D_k^{\alpha_k}$ with $\alpha_k \in \{ 0, \ldots, p - 1 \}$ [[@J]]{}. So, $\dim_{\mathbbm{F}_p}
U_c (\mathfrak{D}) = p^p$.
The Witt algebra in characteristic $p$ is also sometimes defined as the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{w} \mathfrak{i} \mathfrak{t} \mathfrak{t}$ given by generators: $e_k, k \in \{ - 1, \ldots, p - 2 \}$ and relations: $$[ e_k, e_l ] = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
( l - k ) e_{k + l} & \text{if } k + l \leqslant p - 2 ;\\
0 & \text{otherwise} .
\end{array}\right. \label{ekel}$$ The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{w} \mathfrak{i} \mathfrak{t} \mathfrak{t}$ is isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Der}} (\mathbbm{F}_p [ Y ] / ( Y^p ) )$ and $e_k$ stands for the operator $Y^{k + 1} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}Y}$. This Lie algebra is also isomorphic to $\mathfrak{D}$ as it can be seen by setting $X = Y + 1$. The corresponding Lie algebra morphism maps $e_k$ to $\sum_{l = - 1}^k ( - 1
)^l \left(\begin{array}{c}
k + 1\\
l + 1
\end{array}\right) D_l$.
On $\mathbbm{F}_p$, the twist $F$ does not make sense because of the coefficient $\frac{1}{n!}$ in the definition of $F$. However, as we have seen at the end of Section \[secq\], formulas of Theorem \[to\] are defined on $\mathbbm{Z}$. Moreover, Lemma \[compp\] below shows that these coefficients are compatible with the reduction modulo $p$.
\[compp\]Let $\alpha, \kappa, l$ be integers. Then, the residue class of $\alpha^l \frac{\prod_{j = 0}^{l - 1} ( \kappa + j \alpha )}{l!}$ modulo $p$ depends only on $l$ and on the residue class of $\alpha$ and $\kappa$.
By definition, for $l \in \mathbbm{N}$ and $a, k \in \mathbbm{F}_p$, we will denote by $N ( a, k, l )$ the common residue modulo $p$ of all integers of the form $\alpha^l \frac{\prod_{j = 0}^{l - 1} ( \kappa + j \alpha )}{l!}$ with ${\operatorname{cl}} ( \alpha ) = a, {\operatorname{cl}} ( \kappa ) = k$.
Therefore, Theorem \[tq\] below make sense in $\mathbbm{F}_p$.
\[tq\]Let $i$ be an element of $\mathbbm{F}_p - \{ 0 \}$. Then, the Hopf algebra $( U_c (\mathfrak{D}) \left[ t \right], m, \Delta_{},
S_{}, \varepsilon )$ is a polynomial deformation of the restricted enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{D}$. The algebra structure is undeformed and the coalgebra structure is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta ( D_k ) & {:=}& D_k \otimes ( 1 - et )^{\frac{k}{i}} + \sum_{l
= 0}^{p - 1} ( - 1 )^l N ( i, k - i, l ) h^{( l )} \otimes ( 1 - et )^{-
l} D_{k + li} t^l \label{deldk}\\
S ( D_k ) & {:=}& - ( 1 - et )^{- \frac{k}{i}} \sum_{l = 0}^{p - 1} N
( i, k - i, l ) D_{k + li} ( h + 1 )^{( l )} t^l \label{sdk}\\
\varepsilon ( D_k ) & {:=}& 0 \label{edk}
\end{aligned}$$ with, $k \in \mathbbm{F}_p, h {:=}\frac{1}{i} D_0$ and $e {:=}iD_i$.
The above sums are finite, which explains why they define a polynomial deformation. Thus, we can specialize $t$ to any element of $\mathbbm{F}_p$. Since $i$ is an arbitrary element of $\mathbbm{F}_p - \{ 0 \}$, this gives $p
- 1$ new families of non-commutative and non-cocommutative Hopf algebra of dimension $p^p$ in characteristic $p$.
If we set $\alpha {:=}( 1 - et )^{- 1}$, then we have: $\left[ h, \alpha
\right] = \alpha^2 - \alpha ; h^p = h ; \alpha^p = 1 ; \Delta ( h ) = h
\otimes \alpha + 1 \otimes h, \alpha$ is “group-like”, $S ( h ) = h
\alpha^{- 1}$ and $\varepsilon ( h ) = 0$.
So, the sub-algebra generated by $h$ and $e$ is a sub-Hopf algebra of $U_c
(\mathfrak{D})$ isomorphic to the Radford algebra .
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
I am very grateful to B. Enriquez for help and support during the preparation of this article. I am also grateful to P. Bauman, J. Bichon, F. Gavarini and E. Taft for comments and S-H Ng who kindly emailed me his thesis. I would also like to thank C. Procesi for the hospitality of the Castelnuovo Institute and C. Kassel for the hospitality of the university of Strasbourg.
[1]{}
S-H Ng E. Taft. Classification of the lie bialgebra structures on the witt and virasoro algebras. , 2000.
A. Giaquinto and J. Zhang. Bialgebra action, twists and universal deformation formulas. , 1998.
N. Jacobson. Lie algebras. , 1962.
E. Taft. Witt and virasoro algebras as bialgebras. , 1993.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The noble elements, argon and xenon, are frequently employed as the target and event detector for weakly interacting particles such as neutrinos and Dark Matter. For such rare processes, background radiation must be carefully minimized. Radon provides one of the most significant contaminants since it is an inevitable product of trace amounts of natural uranium. To design a purification system for reducing such contamination, the adsorption characteristics of radon in nitrogen, argon, and xenon carrier gases on various types of charcoals with different adsorbing properties and intrinsic radioactive purities have been studied in the temperature range of 190-295 K at flow rates of 0.5 and 2 standard liters per minute. Essential performance parameters for the various charcoals include the average breakthrough times ($\tau$), dynamic adsorption coefficients ($\textit{$k_a$}$) and the number of theoretical stages ($\textit{$n$}$). It is shown that the $\textit{$k_a$}$-values for radon in nitrogen, argon, and xenon increase as the temperature of the charcoal traps decreases, and that they are significantly larger in nitrogen and argon than in xenon gas due to adsorption saturation effects. It is found that, unlike in xenon, the dynamic adsorption coefficients for radon in nitrogen and argon strictly obey the Arrhenius law. The experimental results strongly indicate that nitric acid etched Saratech is the best candidate among all used charcoal brands. It allows reducing total radon concentration in the LZ liquid Xe detector to meet the ultimate goal in the search for Dark Matter.'
address:
- 'Randall Laboratory of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1040, USA'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111, USA'
author:
- 'K. Pushkin'
- 'C. Akerlof'
- 'D. Anbajagane'
- 'J. Armstrong'
- 'M. Arthurs'
- 'J. Bringewatt'
- 'T. Edberg'
- 'C. Hall'
- 'M. Lei'
- 'R. Raymond'
- 'M. Reh'
- 'D. Saini'
- 'A. Sander'
- 'J. Schaefer'
- 'D. Seymour'
- 'N. Swanson'
- 'Y. Wang'
- 'and W. Lorenzon'
title: Study of radon reduction in gases for rare event search experiments
---
Radon ,Noble Gases ,Dual Phase Detector ,Time-Projection Chamber ,Dark Matter ,Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay
Introduction
============
Modern rare-event search experiments require low-radioactivity Time Projection Chambers (TPCs) to achieve high detection sensitivities. Noble gases such as argon (Ar) and xenon (Xe) are well-suited as target media for Dark Matter (DM) and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay (NDBD)[@Akerib2017; @EXOcollab; @Guiseppe2017]. They are both excellent scintillators. Both are easily ionized by particles and can be easily purified of electronegative impurities [@Aprile_book] to achieve efficient charge transport. The challenge of every DM and NDBD experiment is to suppress radioactive backgrounds. Natural Ar and Xe do not have intrinsic long-lived isotopes but, during the production cycle, Xe can be contaminated with $^{85}$Kr from the atmosphere. $^{39}$Ar is produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays scattering from $^{40}$Ar. Both radioactive isotopes decay primarily by $\beta$-emission and their presence in detectors may limit ultimate sensitivities. Fortunately online distillation systems can be employed to remove these radioactive isotopes [@Wang2014]. Radon ($^{222}$Rn), with a half life of 3.8 days, is another isotope that must be eliminated from TPC detectors. $^{222}$Rn is a daughter of $^{238}$U and is continuously supplied from detector components (e.g., cables, feedthroughs).
In the past charcoals have been used in low background experiments (Borexino [@Pocar2003], XMASS [@Abe2012], SNO+ [@Golightly2008] and CUORE [@Benato2018]) to reduce $^{222}$Rn in the detectors by trapping the $^{222}$Rn in charcoal long enough for it to decay but, to the best of our knowledge, available charcoal adsorbents have not been systematically studied. A gas system was fabricated to study $^{222}$Rn reduction methods using commercial charcoal brands: Calgon Carbon (OVC 4x8) [@Calgon], Shirasagi (G2x4/6-1) [@Shirasagi], Saratech (Bl[ü]{}cher GmbH.), nitric acid (HNO$_3$) etched Saratech (Bl[ü]{}cher GmbH.) [@Saratech] and Carboact (Carboact International) [@Carboact]. The studies were performed within the scope of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) DM experiment [@Akerib2018]. The physical conditions of charcoals ranged between 190 K and 295 K for $^{222}$Rn in nitrogen (N$_{2}$), Ar and Xe as carrier gases with flow rates of 0.5 and 2 standard liters per minute (slpm).
Apparatus
=========
Gas system
----------
$^{222}$Rn adsorption on different types of charcoals was measured while entrained in N$_{2}$, Ar, and Xe carrier gases. A schematic view of the $^{222}$Rn reduction system is shown in Figure 1. The radon reduction system was designed and constructed at the University of Michigan.
{height="2.5in"}
The plumbing assemblies were welded (HE Lennon Inc., Swagelok, Michigan) [@HELennon] from 1/4" ultra-high vacuum (UHV) pipes and valves. After completion, the system was helium leak checked using a residual gas analyzer (RGA100, SRS), and no leaks were detected within the detection limits (5$\times$10$^{-14}$ Torr). Water vapor and other gas impurities may significantly affect the performance of a charcoal trap. Therefore, only boiled-off N$_{2}$ and Ar gases as well as research purity grade Xe gas were used for the measurements. Moreover, Xe and Ar gases were continuously purified during the measurements with a SAES high temperature getter (Model: PS3-MT3-R-1) composed of zirconium to remove oxygen, water vapor, nitrogen and other impurities [@SAES]. The getter bed operating temperature was in the range of 350-400 $^{0}$C. When pure N$_{2}$ was used, the getter was turned off and bypassed to prevent exothermic reaction leading to irreversible damage, and possibly explosion, to the zirconium cartridge. Before commencement of each set of measurements with carrier gases and charcoals, the moisture content of the trap was purged with boiled-off N$_{2}$ gas for 12 hours. The charcoal trap was baked at 100 $^{0}$C and evacuated with scroll and turbo-molecular pumps (Agilent Technologies). The charcoal trap and the UHV gas system were evacuated to at least 10$^{-5}$ Torr for 12 hours before the measurements began.
The experimental procedure was as follows. At the beginning of each measurement the gas was flowed through the charcoal trap and two independent radon detectors connected in series to evaluate radon background levels in the gas system and in the investigated charcoal trap. Uranium ores were initially used as $^{222}$Rn source, but their activity was very weak. Therefore, they were replaced by a Pylon-1025 source (Electronics Development Company, Ltd.) containing dry radium ($^{226}$Ra) with an activity of 103 kBq and encapsulated in an aluminum cylinder to prevent its leakage [@Pylon]. The carrier gas was diverted through the source for up to 3 minutes resulting in an injection of a sharp, short pulse of $^{222}$Rn into the charcoal trap. The carrier gas continued flowing through the trap for the duration of each individual measurement. The gas flow rate was controlled with a UHV gas regulator and a metering valve. It was measured with a UHV mass flow meter (Model:179A01314CR3AM, MKS) [@MKS]. The precision and accuracy of the flow meter were 0.2% and 1% of the full scale, respectively. The pressure in the gas system was regulated using a check-valve installed at the outlet port. The mass flow meter was operated with a single channel power supply readout (Model: 246C, MKS) [@MKS]. The gas system included mechanical gas pressure gauges and a baratron absolute pressure transducer with an analog read-out before and after the trap to measure the gas pressure. The measurements were made at different gas pressures to study their impact on $^{222}$Rn adsorption on charcoals. The gas system was equipped with pressure relief valves (PRV) rated to 60 pounds per square inch (psi). When average $^{222}$Rn breakthrough times were measured in Ar and N$_{2}$ carrier gases, the gases were not recovered in view of their low cost. The system handled 16 kg of Xe gas contained in two aluminum cylinders with volumes of 30 l each. The xenon gas was cryogenically transferred between the two cylinders using liquid N$_2$. The mass of the Xe gas was measured with tension load cells (FL25-50 kg, Forsentek, China) [@Forsentek].
Vacuum-jacketed cryostat and charcoal traps
-------------------------------------------
In order to select the optimal radon adsorbent, different types of charcoals were investigated. Charcoals were contained in modified conflat UHV vessels (Kurt J. Lesker, USA) [@Lesker]. The dimensions of the vessels were 3.4 cm and 6.4 cm in diameter and 12.6 cm and 35 cm in length with corresponding volumes of 0.1 l and 1.1 l, respectively. Charcoals Calgon OVC 4x8 (Calgon, 50 g, 0.1 l), Shirasagi (G2x4/6-1, 45 g, 0.1 l), Saratech (70 g, 0.1 l; 650 g, 1.1 l), HNO$_3$ etched Saratech (650 g, 1.1 l) and Carboact (241 g, 1.1 l) were selected for their different properties such as porosity, density, surface area, radioactive background as well as relative cost. Before assembly, the traps and their UHV components were thoroughly cleaned in methanol. All charcoals, except specially treated etched Saratech, were then rinsed with deionized (DI) water. The traps were equipped with fine stainless steel (SS) meshes as well as 60 $\mu$m UHV filter gaskets on the inlet and outlet to prevent escape of fine charcoal grains and dust into the main volume of the gas system. The pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the charcoal trap was measured to be less than 1 psi. The charcoal bed layers were compressed with a SS spring to maintain stable and uniform packing. The meshes and springs were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath with methanol prior to assembly. The charcoal traps were equipped with calibrated platinum RTD PT100 (Omega) temperature sensors [@Omega] embedded in the charcoal layers. The temperatures of the inner volume in the vacuum-jacketed cryostat and the inner volume of the charcoal trap agreed within 0.5%. The vacuum-jacketed cryostat was well suited (Cryofab, Cryogenic equipment, USA) [@Cryofab] to store charcoal traps and perform studies at various temperatures. The inner height and diameter of the cryostat were 132 cm and 30 cm, respectively. The cryostat was filled with 57 l (87 kg) of Novec-7100 (C$_4$F$_9$OCH$_3$, 3M, Engineered fluid) [@Novec] to provide uniform and efficient cooling of the charcoal traps. The freezing and boiling temperatures of Novec-7100 fluid are 135 K and 334 K, respectively. The top lid of the cryostat was insulated from the trap and cryofluid by a 30 cm thick polystyrene layer to reduce thermal conduction. The cryostat was equipped with a baratron pressure transducer, a PRV, a manual gas valve, a solenoid valve for the engineered fluid and an outlet port for the refrigerator cooling probe. A photograph of the vacuum-jacketed cryostat and its cutaway view with a small charcoal trap (0.1 l) inside are shown in Figure 2 (a, b).
An EK-90 immersion cooler (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) [@EK90] was used to cool the charcoal traps to 190-273 K. The immersion cooler was equipped with a digital temperature LED display and a calibrated platinum RDT PT100 sensor to monitor the temperature of the cooled fluid. Moreover, the cryostat was equipped with a 500 W heater to warm the Novec-7100 fluid and heating tape to bake the charcoal traps. A quad chamber diaphragm pump (Grainger, USA) with a manifold consisting of electric solenoid valves and Tygon PVC pipes was used to siphon Novec-7100 fluid between the cryostat and the sealed storage drum. To monitor adsorption of the carrier gases on the charcoal during measurements, the cryostat was placed on an electronic scale (GFK 660a, Adam) with a maximum capacity of 300 kg and an accuracy of 0.02 kg.
General characteristics of the investigated charcoals
-----------------------------------------------------
The description of the charcoals used in this work is shown in Table 1. Both the radiation purity of the charcoals and their adsorbing characteristics are crucial for their applications in low background experiments. $^{222}$Rn emanation from the charcoals may significantly contribute to radioactive background in TPC detectors. Hence, for the development of a charcoal trap, both the $^{222}$Rn emanation from within the detector and from the charcoal itself must be taken into account.
-------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------------------------------- ------------
Calgon OVC 4x8 Flake 0.45 1.1$\times$10$^7$ 0.3 - 0.8
Shirasagi G2x4/6-1 Cylinder 0.40 - 0.47 1.24$\times$10$^7$ 0.3 - 0.5
Saratech Sphere 0.60 1.34$\times$10$^7$ 0.05
Carboact Fragmented 0.28 8$\times$10$^6$ - 1.2$\times$10$^7$ 0.01 - 0.4
-------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------------------------------- ------------
The radon emanation rates of the charcoal samples were measured with a counting facility developed for the LZ experiment and were carried out at the University of Maryland. The facility features conflat (CF) vessels for hosting the charcoal samples during radon emanation, a radon trapping gas panel, and a low-background electrostatic radon counter (ESC) similar to that shown in Figure 3. Each charcoal sample was weighed, rinsed with DI water five to ten times, and loaded into a CF vessel. The carbon was compressed slightly on both ends with springs and secured with stainless steel perforated meshes and polyester felt. The carbon was dried for no less than 12 hours with a N$_2$ gas purge while baking at a temperature between 100 $^{0}$C and 140 $^{0}$C. After connecting the vessel to the $^{222}$Rn trapping panel, the charcoal was prepared for emanation by purging with radon-free helium (He) gas at a temperature of 140 $^{0}$C. This removed all relic $^{222}$Rn from the charcoal. To determine the amount of He carrier gas required for this purge, a preparatory measurement was performed on each sample using a $^{222}$Rn source and a specified He flow rate calibrated with a bubble flow meter.
After a given emanation period, typically one week, the charcoal was heated to 140 $^{0}$C and the emanated $^{222}$Rn was recovered by purging the charcoal again with radon-free He. To collect the recovered $^{222}$Rn, the He purge was directed through a liquid N$_2$ cold trap filled with copper beads and then pumped out of the system. After warming the copper trap to room temperature, the trapped $^{222}$Rn was transferred into the electrostatic counter for measurements of He at atmospheric pressure. The trapping efficiency was shown to be near 100% by calibration measurements. The absolute efficiency of the counter was determined to be (24$\pm$4)% by measuring a calibrated radon source purchased from Durridge [@Durridge]. A second calibrated source provided by researchers at Laurentian University provided an independent cross check that agreed within the measurement uncertainty. In addition, ion drift simulations of the counter were performed. These confirmed that the measured counter efficiency is reasonable. The simulations rely upon previous measurements of the ion charge fraction in gases such as N$_2$ and He [@Andersen1997; @Howard1991].
To search for a temperature dependence of the emanation rate, we allowed each charcoal sample to emanate at temperatures of 20 $^{0}$C, 80 $^{0}$C, and 140 $^{0}$C. No temperature dependence was observed over this range for all of the carbon samples. This suggests that either the $^{222}$Rn is produced at the surface of the carbon grains, or else the characteristic time for a $^{222}$Rn atom to diffuse out of the bulk at these temperatures is short compared to the radon half-life. A solution of the diffusion equation in a homogenous spherical geometry indicates that the egress fraction due to diffusion should remain near unity at these temperatures. An activation energy of 29,000 J/mol$\cdot$K, and a diffusion constant below $10^{-3}$ cm$^2$/s was assumed.
The mass measurement of the charcoal was subject to systematic uncertainty. Each charcoal sample was weighed upon receipt from the vendor and prior to washing in DI water. After washing, the CF vessel was filled with the wet charcoal, and the vessel was baked and purged overnight with N$_2$ gas to dry as explained above. The portion of wet charcoal which did not fit in the vessel was set aside and allowed to air dry for one week. Its weight was then measured and subtracted from the total mass to determine the mass of charcoal loaded into the vessel. The amount subtracted was less than 2% of the total except for Calgon OVC (8%). The results of the specific activity for natural and synthetic charcoals reported in Table 2 were obtained by dividing the observed emanation rate by the mass according to the procedure. A blank measurement of the empty CF vessel was subtracted from each result. In Table 2 we combine all measurements for a given sample, regardless of emanation temperature, using either a weighted average or a maximum likelihood method. The uncertainties reported in Table 2 are statistical only. A 16% systematic uncertainty due to the ESC efficiency applies to all results.
Among the samples tested, the synthetic carbons had the lowest specific activity. Carboact was found to have the very lowest activity, followed by a sample of Saratech adsorbent that was soaked in a 4 M solution of ultra-pure HNO$_3$ acid and rinsed in DI water. We refer to this material as HNO$_3$ etched Saratech. 363 grams of Carboact and 796 grams of etched Saratech were employed for these measurements. To increase the statistical power, three Carboact and three etched Saratech emanation runs were performed. Regular (HNO$_3$ unetched) Saratech was also measured and was found to have a specific activity several times higher than the etched material, indicating the efficacy of the etching process for removing the traces of $^{238}$U. The bulk density of etched Saratech was measured after the etching procedure and remained unchanged.
------------------------- ----------------- -------- ------------
Calgon OVC 4x8 53.6 $\pm$ 1.3 6 This work
Shirasagi G2x4/6-1 101.0 $\pm$ 8.0 27 This work
Saratech 1.71 $\pm$ 0.20 35 This work
HNO$_3$ etched Saratech 0.51 $\pm$ 0.09 135 This work
Carboact 0.23 $\pm$ 0.19 15,000 This work
Carboact 0.33 $\pm$ 0.05 15,000 [@Rau2000]
------------------------- ----------------- -------- ------------
$^{222}$Rn electrostatic detectors
----------------------------------
A commercial radon detector (RAD7, Durridge, Radon Instrumentation) with real time monitoring and spectrum analysis was used to measure $^{222}$Rn average breakthrough times in N$_{2}$ and Ar carrier gases. Since the RAD7 detector is not UHV rated, a separate in-house ESC was constructed to measure radon breakthrough times in Xe gas. The detector consisted of an UHV conflat vessel with a volume of about 2 l and a 18x18 mm$^2$ Si-PIN photodiode (S3204-09, Hamamatsu, 0.3 mm in depletion thickness, unsealed) [@Hamamatsu]. The schematic view of the ESC with electronics is shown in Figure 3.
{height="2.5in"}
The detector performance is based on the electrostatic collection of $^{222}$Rn daughter nuclei [@Mitsuda2003; @Mamedov2011]. As $^{222}$Rn atoms in the carrier gas enter the detector, they may decay and produce $^{218}$Po atoms. 88% of the time, these $^{218}$Po atoms form positive ions which, in turn, are attracted towards the surface of the Si-PIN photodiode under the strong electric fields created within the vessel. At this point, subsequent alpha emission generates particles with kinetic energies of 6.00 MeV [@Hopke1996]. The Si-PIN photodiode was mounted on a high voltage feedthrough which was electrically isolated from the grounded stainless steel vessel. A high voltage (HV) divider was built to supply up to -6 kV [@Mitsuda2003]. The HV divider was physically separated from a charge sensitive preamplifier (CSP, Cremat, CR110) to prevent current leakage. The reverse voltage (-800 V) was applied through the HV divider to the anode of the Si-PIN photodiode resulting in maximum collection efficiency of $^{218}$Po ions. The reverse voltage difference between the cathode and the anode of the Si-PIN photodiode was below the maximum allowed reverse voltage ($\leq$100 V) for this particular Si-PIN photodiode. The charge signals were sent from the cathode to the CSP followed by a shaping amplifier (SA, Tennelec, TC243) with a shaping time of 1 $\mu$s. These amplified pulses were subsequently digitized by a multi-channel analyzer (MCA8000D, Amptek). The detection sensitivity was measured for both the RAD7 and in-house detectors using the Pylon source. The detection sensitivity for RAD7 was found to agree with its specification within statistical uncertainties for $^{218}$Po alpha-peaks [@RAD7] and was (6.34$\pm$0.02)$\times$10$^{-3}$ cpm/Bq/m$^3$. The detection sensitivity for our in-house ESC detector was found to be greater than for RAD7. It was measured to be (21.80$\pm$0.06)$\times$10$^{-3}$ cpm/Bq/m$^3$ for $^{218}$Po alpha-peaks. Furthermore, the in-house ESC detector can be operated at high gas pressures ($\approx$ 2 atm) while the operating gas pressure for RAD7 is not recommended to exceed 1 atm.
Slow control system
-------------------
A slow control system was developed to monitor and control the important functions of the system. Parameters such as gas pressure, Novec-7100 fluid temperature, gas flow rates, charcoal temperature, Xe gas mass, room temperature, and room humidity were continuously monitored and recorded during operations. The values were archived in a SQL database and displayed on a remotely monitored webpage. Additional automatic control features were introduced to control the gas system remotely. A liquid cryogenic control system was constructed for the $^{222}$Rn breakthrough time measurements in Xe gas to facilitate long term and safe measurements.
Experimental results and discussion
===================================
Measurements of $^{222}$Rn adsorption characteristics on various charcoals in N$_2$, Ar, and Xe carrier gases
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$^{218}$Po and $^{214}$Po spectra were measured with time intervals from 3 to 15 minutes after a $^{222}$Rn spike was injected into the charcoal trap. Only $^{218}$Po was of interest since it is the first progeny decay product (“new radon”) of the $^{222}$Rn decay chain. The $^{218}$Po peaks were fitted with an analytical function for alpha particle spectra where the integral-area of the peak was determined according to [@Bortels1987]
$$f({x,\mu,\sigma,\nu})=\frac{A}{2\nu}e^{{(\frac{x-\mu}{\nu}} + {\frac{\sigma}{2\nu^2})}}erfc\bigg(\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\bigg[\frac{x-\mu}{\sigma}+\frac{\sigma}{\nu}\bigg]\bigg),$$
where $x$ is the channel number, $\textit{A}$ is the peak area, $\mu$ is the mean of the Gaussian probability-density function, $\sigma$ is the standard deviation and $\nu$ is the parameter of the normalized left-sided exponential function. A typical radon daughter pulse height spectrum is shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 displays examples of elution curves measured in Ar carrier gas through three types of charcoals Calgon OVC 4x8, Shirasagi, and Saratech) contained in a 0.1 l trap at a temperature of 295 K and at atmospheric pressure.
{height="3in"}
{height="3in"}
The chromatographic plate model method [@Levins1979; @Keulemans1959] was employed in the data analysis for this paper. In this approach, a charcoal trap can be divided into a number of stages of equal volume in which equilibrium can always exist between the gas and the charcoal. For a short pulse of $^{222}$Rn introduced into the charcoal bed layer the elution curve is
$$y\big(\frac{t}{\tau}\big)=\frac{\alpha n^n}{(n-1)!}\big(\frac{t}{\tau}\big)^{n-1}e^{-n \frac{t}{\tau}},$$
where $\alpha$ is the amplitude of the radon spike input, $\tau$ is the average breakthrough time of $^{222}$Rn in a carrier gas, and $\textit{n}$ is the number of theoretical stages.
The $\tau$-value is given by the linear relation [@Pocar2003]
$$\tau=\frac{k_a m}{f},$$
where $\textit{$k_a$}$ is the dynamic adsorption coefficient in l/g, $\textit{m}$ is the mass of the adsorbent in g, and $\textit{f}$ is the mass flow rate in slpm.
The $\tau$-values for $^{222}$Rn in N$_2$, Ar and Xe gases and the $\textit{n}$-values were obtained from fits of the elution curves and are presented with total uncertanties ($\delta$$\tau$$^2$=$\sigma$$^2$$_{stat}$+$\sigma$$^2$$_{sys}$) in Table 3. The $\textit{n}$-values are presented with statistical uncertanties derived from the elution curve fits.
{height="3.5in"}
The average breakthrough times of $^{222}$Rn measured in Ar carrier gas in all charcoals are greater than in N$_2$ gas measured in the same charcoals. The longest average breakthrough times of $^{222}$Rn both in N$_{2}$ and Ar carrier gases were measured in Calgon OVC 4x8 and Saratech. The total uncertainties were about 5%. The systematic uncertainties were due to small fluctuations in the flow rate and gas pressure in the system. The $\tau$-values in Ar and N$_2$ in Calgon OVC 4x8 and Saratech charcoals increased with increasing gas pressure.
The $\tau$-values for $^{222}$Rn in Xe measured in Saratech are greater than in Carboact. The $\tau$-values for regular Saratech and HNO$_3$ etched Saratech are consistent within statistical and systematic uncertainties. The $\tau$-values in Xe gas in Carboact and Shirasagi decrease as the gas flow rate increases by a factor of four. The total uncertainties were about 5% as well. Unlike in Ar and N$_2$ carrier gases, no difference in the $\tau$-values was observed in Xe carrier gas when the gas pressure was increased. The measurements of $^{222}$Rn breakthrough times in carrier gases in various charcoals allowed calculating $^{222}$Rn dynamic adsorption coefficients $\textit{$k_a$}$ using relationship (3), which determine optimal parameters for charcoal traps. The $\textit{$k_a$}$-values of $^{222}$Rn in N$_2$, Ar and Xe gases were calculated for various charcoals and are presented in Table 4.
[ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
Carrier gas & Charcoal brand & 295 K & 273 K & 268 K & 263 K & 258 K & 253 K\
N$_2$ (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Calgon OVC 4x8 (50 g) & 7.0$\pm$0.3 & 17$\pm$1 & 23$\pm$1 & 29$\pm$1 & 34$\pm$2 & 45$\pm$2\
N$_2$ (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Saratech (70 g) & 5.4$\pm$0.3 & 13$\pm$1 & $-$ & 20.2$\pm$1.0 & $-$ & 33$\pm$2\
N$_2$ (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 5.5$\pm$0.3 & 14$\pm$1 & $-$ & 22$\pm$1 & $-$ & 37$\pm$2\
Ar (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Calgon OVC 4x8 (50 g) & 8.4$\pm$0.4 & 20$\pm$1 & 25$\pm$1 & 33$\pm$2 & 42$\pm$2 & $-$\
Ar (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Saratech (70 g) & 5.4$\pm$0.3 & 15$\pm$1 & $-$ & 24$\pm$1 & $-$ & 39$\pm$2\
Ar (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 5.2$\pm$0.3 & 16$\pm$1 & $-$ & 27.2$\pm$1.4 & $-$ & 45$\pm$3\
Carrier gas & Charcoal brand & 295 K & 273 K & 253 K & 233 K & 213 K & 190 K\
Xe (0.5 slpm, 1 atmA) & Carboact (241 g) & 0.51$\pm$0.02 & 0.68$\pm$0.03 & 0.84$\pm$0.04 & 1.17$\pm$0.05 & $-$ & 2.05$\pm$0.10\
Xe (0.5 slpm, 1.6 atmA) & Saratech (650 g) & 0.50$\pm$0.03 & 0.61$\pm$0.03 & 1$\pm$0.1 & 1.3$\pm$0.1 & 2.0$\pm$0.1 & 2.9$\pm$0.2\
Xe (0.5 slpm, 1.6 atmA) & Etched Saratech (650 g) & 0.50$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & 1.4$\pm$0.1 & 2.0$\pm$0.1 & 3.0$\pm$0.2\
Xe (0.5 slpm, 1 atmA) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 0.51$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & 1.2$\pm$0.1 & $-$ & 2.1$\pm$0.1\
Xe (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Carboact (241 g) & 0.44$\pm$0.01 & 0.73$\pm$0.02 & 0.94$\pm$0.02 & 1.22$\pm$0.03 & 1.62$\pm$0.04 & 2.1$\pm$0.1\
Xe (2 slpm, 1 atmA) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 0.61$\pm$0.03 & 0.90$\pm$0.04 & 1$\pm$0.1 & 1.3$\pm$0.1 & $-$ & 2.2$\pm$0.1\
[ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| ]{}\
Carrier gas & Charcoal brand & 295 K & 273 K & 253 K & 233 K & 213 K & 190 K\
Xe (0.5 slpm) & Carboact (241 g) & 0.50$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 0.8$\pm$0.1 & 1.2$\pm$0.1 & $-$ & 2.1$\pm$0.1\
Xe (0.5 slpm) & Saratech (650 g) & 0.50$\pm$0.03 & 0.61$\pm$0.03 & 1$\pm$0.1 & 1.3$\pm$0.1 & 2.0$\pm$0.1 & 2.9$\pm$0.2\
Xe (0.5 slpm) & Etched Saratech (650 g) & 0.50$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & 1.4$\pm$0.1 & 2.0$\pm$0.1 & 3.0$\pm$0.2\
Xe (0.5 slpm) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 0.51$\pm$0.03 & 0.70$\pm$0.04 & 1.0$\pm$0.1 & 1.2$\pm$0.1 & $-$ & 2.1$\pm$0.1\
Xe (2 slpm) & Carboact (241 g) & 0.44$\pm$0.02 & 0.73$\pm$0.03 & 0.94$\pm$0.04 & 1.2$\pm$0.1 & 1.6$\pm$0.1 & 2.1$\pm$0.1\
Xe (2 slpm) & Shirasagi (45 g) & 0.61$\pm$0.03 & 0.90$\pm$0.04 & 1$\pm$0.1 & 1.3$\pm$0.1 & $-$ & 2.2$\pm$0.1\
As shown in Table 4, the $^{222}$Rn adsorption coefficients range from 5 to 45 l/g in N$_2$ and Ar carrier gases depending on the charcoal and its temperature. The $\textit{$k_a$}$-values for $^{222}$Rn obtained in Xe carrier gas are about an order of magnitude lower and fall in the range of 0.5-3 l/g. The plots of $^{222}$Rn adsorption coefficients for various charcoals in N$_2$, Ar and Xe carrier gases are shown in Figures 6 and 7 (a,b).
{height="2.7in"}
The $\textit{$k_a$}$-values were fitted to the Arrhenius equation [@Gross] as a function of inverse temperature in Ar and N$_2$ carrier gases as shown in Figure 6. The Arrhenius relation, shown below, gives the dependence of the $\textit{$k_a$}$-value for $^{222}$Rn atoms adsorbed on charcoals where $\textit{k$_0$}$ is the pre-exponential factor, frequency in (1/s), that yields the numbers of attempts by a particle to overcome a potential barrier, $\textit{$Q$}$ is the adsorption heat (J/mol), $\textit{R}$ is the universal gas constant in (J/mol\*K), and $\textit{T}$ is the absolute temperature in (K).
$$k_a=k_0e^{\frac{Q}{RT}}.$$
The $\textit{$k_a$}$-values are greater in Ar gas than in N$_2$ gas, and they are greater for Calgon OVC 4x8 charcoal than for Shirasagi and Saratech. Figure 7 (a,b) shows that the $^{222}$Rn dynamic adsorption coefficients in Xe carrier gas for regular Saratech and HNO$_3$ etched Saratech are consistent within statistical and systematic uncertanties. While the $\textit{$k_a$}$-values appear to obey the Arrhenius relationship for regular and HNO$_3$ etched Saratech, they violate it for Carboact and Shirasagi and show a linear relation as a function of temperature.
Discussion
----------
The measurements of the $\tau$ and $\textit{$k_a$}$-values are crucial for demonstrating the behavior of $^{222}$Rn atoms in various charcoals. They revealed that both the $\tau$ and $\textit{$k_a$}$-values are significantly greater in N$_{2}$ and Ar carrier gases than in Xe gas. This effect may be attributed to the low polarizabilities of N$_{2}$ and Ar gases which leads to their low attraction to charcoals. The adsorption of N$_{2}$ and Ar gases was measured in the charcoals in the 0.1 l trap during the $^{222}$Rn adsorption characteristics measurements in the range of 253-295 K. The adsorbed mass of N$_{2}$ and Ar was below the detection limit of the scale. In contrast, Xe atoms have high polarizability and tend to occupy the charcoal adsorption sites almost instantly resulting in short $^{222}$Rn breakthrough times [@Boer1957]. The adsorbed mass of Xe, scaled to 1 kg of Saratech and Carboact, as a function of temperature is shown in Figure 8. The xenon adsorption measurements in Saratech were crosschecked using tension load cells and the results agreed within statistical and systematic uncertainties. The adsorbed mass of Xe increases linearly in Carboact and Saratech with decreasing temperature. The adsorbed mass of Xe in Carboact did not rise proportionally with increasing gas pressure. It is evident from Figure 8 that Saratech adsorbs on average 30% less Xe than Carboact at atmospheric pressure. In order to measure carrier gases adsorption and their interference in $^{222}$Rn adsorption on charcoals with high precision, mass-spectroscopy methods should be applied.
{height="2.7in"}
The linear dependence of the $\textit{$k_a$}$-values shown in Figure 7 (a,b) for Carboact and Shirasagi may be attributed to saturation effects of the charcoal’s surface area by Xe atoms as a function of temperature. The $^{222}$Rn dynamic adsorption coefficients on charcoal in Ar gas are greater than in N$_2$ gas.
The shapes of the $^{222}$Rn elution curves determine the operation of the adsorbing bed of charcoals in the trap which is another important characteristic. It is worthwhile pointing out that for $\textit{$n$}$$\rightarrow$$\infty$, the elution curve becomes symmetric and the $\tau$-values tend to approach a gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of
$$\sigma{_{\tau}}=\frac{\tau}{\sqrt n}.$$
Figure 5 shows that the shape of the elution curve measured in Saratech is more symmetric than the curves obtained for Shirasagi and Calgon OVC 4x8. The shapes of the elution curves are independent of the used carrier gases. It is possible that the shape of the elution curves may be affected by the shape of the charcoal granules.
Microscopic images of Saratech, Carboact and Shirasagi shown in Figure 9 reveal the large difference in shape and size for the charcoal granules. The average shape and size of Saratech granules are uniform compared to Carboact, Calgon OVC 4x8 and Shirasagi granules. It will lead to less open spaces between the Saratech granules resulting in a significant increase of the total surface area of the adsorbent to the volume of the trap [@Ruthven]. As a consequence, the number of theoretical stages, $\textit{$n$}$, is higher for Saratech than for Carboact, Shirasagi, and Calgon OVC 4x8 as shown in Table 3. This defines the uncertainty of the average $^{222}$Rn breakthrough time pulse through the charcoal trap, i.e. the lower the $\textit{$n$}$-value is the sooner $^{222}$Rn atoms begin departing the charcoal trap despite the fact that the average breakthrough time remains the same. Hence, this study of $^{222}$Rn adsorbing characteristics have shown that Saratech, among all the investigated charcoals, appears to be the most efficient $^{222}$Rn adsorbent. Moreover, the chemical treatment of Saratech leads to a significant reduction of radioactivity while it retains its $^{222}$Rn adsorbing properties. This makes it particularly desirable and cost effective for $^{222}$Rn reduction applications in low background experiments.
Trap performance
----------------
Equation (6) predicts the efficacy of a charcoal trap to reduce $^{222}$Rn concentration in TPC detectors based on the total mass and specific activity of a charcoal material according to
$$N_{out}=N_{in}e^{-\frac{k_a \cdot m}{f\cdot \tau_R}}+s_0\, f\, \frac{\tau_R}{k_a}\left(1-e^{-\frac{k_a \cdot m}{f\cdot \tau_R}}\right),$$
where $\tau_R$ is the average $^{222}$Rn lifetime (7921 min), $s_0$ is the $^{222}$Rn specific activity in mBq/kg, $\textit{N$_{in}$}$ is the $^{222}$Rn concentration entering the charcoal trap in mBq, and $\textit{N$_{out}$}$ is the total $^{222}$Rn concentration at the output of the charcoal trap in mBq. It should be noted that the lowest achievable $^{222}$Rn concentration at the output of the trap is given by $min(N_{out})=s_0f\tau_R/k_a$, and thus depends on the specific activity but not on the total mass of the charcoal.
Figure 10 provides an illustration of Equation (6) for HNO$_3$ etched Saratech and Carboact for input $^{222}$Rn concentrations of (a) 8.3 mBq and (b) 20 mBq entrained in Xe carrier gas both at a flow rate of 0.5 slpm, respectively. The $^{222}$Rn concentration range corresponds to the estimated concentrations that continuously emanate from the warm LZ detector components embedded in xenon gas and are used for the inline radon reduction system being constructed for the LZ DM search experiment. The radon reduction results suggest that it will require about 5(7) kg of etched Saratech to reduce the estimated $^{222}$Rn concentrations of 8.3(20) mBq [@Akerib2018; @LZTDR], continually emanated from the LZ detector components, below 1 mBq in the return stream of the radon reduction system. The dynamic adsorption coefficients, used in these calculations for etched Saratech and Carboact, were measured at 190 K. For fixed and relatively limited volumes of adsorbent, the much higher density for Saratech produces more efficient retention of radon at a cost that is about 50 times lower than for Carboact. Thus, etched Saratech provides a very attractive option for an effective inline radon reduction system based on excellent performance and low cost.
Conclusion
==========
$^{222}$Rn adsorbing characteristics in charcoals were measured in N$_{2}$, Ar, and Xe carrier gases in the temperature range of 190-295 K at different gas flow rates. The measurements have shown that breakthrough times of $^{222}$Rn entrained in N$_{2}$ and Ar carrier gases are significantly longer than in Xe carrier gas. This effect may be attributed to the low polarizabilities of N$_{2}$ and Ar gases requiring significantly smaller amounts of charcoals to effectively trap $^{222}$Rn. In contrast, $^{222}$Rn atoms in Xe have much shorter average breakthrough times and much smaller dynamic adsorption coefficients due to saturation effects of Xe atoms in charcoals resulting in far fewer available adsorption sites for $^{222}$Rn atoms. The adsorption measurements of Xe gas in various charcoals have revealed that Saratech adsorbs Xe about 30% less than Carboact at atmospheric pressure independent of temperature. Both the $\tau$ and $k_a$-values for $^{222}$Rn in Ar and N$_2$ carrier gases follow the Arrhenius law which describes adsorption and desorption kinetic processes on surfaces. However, for $^{222}$Rn in Xe carrier gas this is only true for Saratech, but not for Carboact and Shirasagi, where $\tau$ and $k_a$ do not follow the Arrhenius law, but instead display a linear dependence as a function of inverse temperature. This may be attributed to higher saturation processes. Among all investigated charcoals, Saratech appears to be the most efficient $^{222}$Rn reduction material. The chemical treatment of Saratech with ultra-pure HNO$_3$ acid reduced its intrinsic radioactivity ($^{238}$U) and, as a consequence, the $^{222}$Rn specific activity by a factor of three and made it competitive with Carboact. Moreover, the etching did not affect the $^{222}$Rn adsorption characteristics making Saratech a strong candidate for the future DM and NDBD low background experiments considering its very low cost and exemplary properties.
Acknowledgments
===============
We acknowledge support of the US Department of Energy (DE-SC0015708), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) and the University of Michigan. We would like to thank Professor Jacques Farine at Laurentian University for providing the rubber radon emanation standard and Professor Tom Shutt at SLAC for providing the radon counting hardware. We would like to acknowledge Eric Miller at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology for performing the temperature dependence radon emanation rate calculations for the LZ components. We would also like to thank the members of the LZ collaboration for many insightful discussions. Special thanks go to Professor Kimberlee Kearfott at the Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences department of the University of Michigan for lending us the Pylon radon source.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
D. S. Akerib et al., [Results from a search for Dark Matter in the complete LUX exposure]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118 (2017) 021303.
EXO-200 Collaboration, [Search for Majorana neutrinos with the first two years of EXO-200 data]{}, Nature, 510 (2014) 229–234.
V. E. Guiseppe et al., [The Status and Initial Results of the Majorana demonstrator experiment]{}, AIP Conference Proceedings 1894, 020010 (2017).
E. Aprile et al., [Noble gas detectors]{}, [WILEY-VCH]{} (2006) 1–363.
Z. Wang et al., [Large scale xenon purification using cryogenic distillation for dark matter detectors]{}, JINST 9 (2014) P11024.
A. Pocar, [Low background techniques and experimental challenges for Borexino and Nylon Vessels]{}, [PhD thesis, Princeton university]{} (2003) 1–267.
A. Abe et al., [Radon removal from gaseous xenon with activated charcoal]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 661 (2012) 50–57.
J. Golihtly, [Characterization of a carbon radon filter and radon detection]{}, [Master thesis, Queen’s university,]{} (2008) 1–108.
G. Benato et al., [Radon mitigation during the installation of the CUORE 0$\nu$$\beta$$\beta$ decay detector]{}, JINST 13 (2014) P01010.
, [<https://www.calgoncarbon.com/app/uploads/DS-OVC4x815-EIN-E1.pdf>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-12]{}.
, [<http://www.ogc.co.jp/shirasagi/e/div/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-12]{}.
, [<https://www.bluecher.com/en/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-12]{}.
, [<https://www.carboactinternational.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-12]{}.
D. S. Akerib et al., [Projected WIMP sensitivity of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) dark matter experiment]{}, arXiv:1802.06039 \[astro-ph.IM\], 2018.
, [<https://michigan.swagelok.com/en>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.saesgetters.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://pylonelectronics-radon.com/radioactive-sources/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.mksinst.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<http://www.forsentek.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.lesker.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.omega.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.cryofab.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/199818O/3mtm-novectm-7100-engineered-fluid.pdf>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/322-1201>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
, [<https://durridge.com/>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
T. Andersen, [Development of systems for the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory]{}, [PhD thesis, University of Guelph]{} (1997).
A. Howard and W. Strange., [Heavy‐ion migration through argon and helium in weak electric fields]{}, J. Appl. Phys. 69 (1991) 6248.
, [<https://www.hamamatsu.com/resources/pdf/ssd/s3204-08_etc_kpin1051e.pdf>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-6-13]{}.
C. Mitsuda et al., [Development of super-high sensitivity radon detector for the Super-Kamiokande detector]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 497 (2003) 414–428.
F. Mamedov et al., [Development of an ultra-sensitive radon detector for the Super NEMO experiment]{}, JINST. 6 (2011) 1–6.
P. K. Hopke et al., [The initial atmospheric behavior of radon decay products]{}, J. Rad. and Nucl. Chem., 203(2) (1996) 353–375.
W. Rau and G. Heusser., [$^{222}Rn$ emanation measurements at extremely low activities]{}, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 53 (2000) 371–375.
, [<https://durridge.com/documentation/RAD7%20Specifications.pdf>]{}, [Last time accessed: 2018-2-16]{}.
G. Bortels and P. Kollaers., [Analytical function for fitting peaks in alpha-particle spectra from Si detectors]{}, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 38(10) (1987) 831–837.
K. P. Strong and D. M. Levins., [Dynamic adsorption of radon on activated carbon]{}, [Proceedings of the 15[$^{th}$]{} DOE nuclear air cleaning conference]{} 10(19) (1978) 627–639.
A. I. M. Keulemans et al., [Gas Chromatography]{}, [New York]{}, (1959) 1–234.
A. Gross, [Theoretical Surface Science:A Microscopic Perspective]{}, [Springer-Verlag]{}, (2007).
J. H. De Boer and S. Kruyer., [The two-dimensional Van-Der Waals constants of molecules adsorbed on charcoal and graphite]{}, Trans. of the Farad. Soc. 54 (1958) 540–547.
D. Ruthven, [Principles of adsorption and adsorption processes]{}, [Wiley]{}, (1984).
B. J. Mount et al., [LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Technical Design Report]{}, arXiv:1703.09144v1 \[physics.ins-det\], 2018.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper provides a generalization of the realizability-preserving discontinuous-Galerkin scheme given in [@Schneider2015a] to general full-moment models that can be closed analytically. It is applied to the class of Kershaw closures, which are able to provide a cheap closure of the moment problem. This results in an efficient algorithm for the underlying linear transport equation. The efficiency of high-order methods is demonstrated using numerical convergence tests and non-smooth benchmark problems.'
address: 'Fachbereich Mathematik, TU Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger-Str., 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany, [[email protected]]{}'
author:
- Florian Schneider
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Kershaw closures for linear transport equations in slab geometry II: high-order realizability-preserving discontinuous-Galerkin schemes'
---
moment models ,minimum entropy ,Kershaw closures ,kinetic transport equation ,realizability-preserving ,discontinuous-Galerkin scheme 35L40 ,47B35 ,65M08 ,65M60 ,65M70
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Casimir effect in a dilute Bose gas confined between two planar walls is investigated in the canonical ensemble at zero temperature by means of Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis effective action approach within the improved Hartree-Fock approximation. Our results show that: (i) the Casimir energy and the resulting Casimir force in the canonical ensemble remarkably differ from those in the grand canonical ensemble; (ii) when the distance between two planar walls increases, the Casimir energy and Casimir force decay in accordance with a half-integer power law in the canonical ensemble instead of an integer power law in the grand canonical ensemble.'
author:
- Nguyen Van Thu
title: 'Casimir effect in a dilute Bose gas in canonical ensemble within improved Hartree-Fock approximation'
---
Introduction\[sec1\]
====================
More than seventy years have passed since the Casimir effect was discovered [@Casimir], this effect is and will be a widely-mentioned subject of modern physics in many areas, for example, quark matter [@ThuPhat], atomic and molecular physics [@Babb], superconductor [@Bimonte; @Chen] and so on in both the theory and experiment. In field of Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), motivated by experiments on the critical Casimir force [@Fukuto; @Ganshin] and the Casimir-Polder force [@Harber; @Obrecht; @Klimchitskaya], the interest in this phenomenon has blossomed in recent years.
It is well-known that, in quantum theory, the Casimir effect in the BEC at zero temperature confined by two planar walls is the consequence of the quantum fluctuation above ground state associated with phononic excitations [@Biswas2; @Biswas3; @Schiefele]. So far, many studies on the Casimir effect in the BEC mainly focused on considering it at zero temperature within the constraint of a dilute condition. In process of the calculations, one has to deal with the ultraviolet (UV) divergence of the energy density. To eliminate this problem, some methods are available, such as, using Abel-Plana formula as in [@Schiefele; @Thu1], momentum cut-off and using Euler-MacLaurin formula [@Biswas3; @Pomeau]. For the weakly interacting Bose gas, in Ref. [@Schiefele; @Thu1] the Casimir force is expressed through an integral of density of state. Instead of using Abel-Plana formula, using the second way, in the one-loop approximation of quantum field theory, many authors pointed out that the Casimir force in a weakly interacting Bose gas depends on the coupling constant and decays as power law of the distance $\ell$ between two planar walls, which is the well-known result $$\begin{aligned}
F_C=-\frac{\pi^2}{480}\frac{\hbar v_s}{\ell^4},\label{1a}\end{aligned}$$ in which $\hbar$ is Planck’s constant, the speed of sound $v_s$ is determined by the interaction of atoms in the system.
In the high-order approximation, our previous work [@ThuIJMPB] employed the Cornwall-Jackiw-Tomboulis (CJT) effective action approach [@CJT] to consider the Casimir effect in the improved Hartree-Fock (IHF) approximation in the lowest order of the momentum integrals. Our results show that although the order parameter is strongly affected by the compactification of the space, the Casimir energy and thus the Casimir force are the same in comparison with those in the one-loop approximation. More exactly, this effect is considered in Ref. [@ThuPhysa] in the higher-order term of the momentum integrals and the obtained results are significantly improved. The Casimir force equals to its value in the one-loop approximation (\[1a\]) after adding a corrected term and $$\begin{aligned}
F_C\propto-\frac{1}{\ell^4}-\frac{1}{\ell^7}.\label{1b}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[1a\]) and (\[1b\]) show that the Casimir force decays according to the law of the negative half-integer power of the distance.
A common feature of the above studies is that the system under consideration is connected to a particle reservoir, this means that the results were given in the grand canonical ensemble. From the idea of Fisher and de Gennes [@Fisher] about the critical Casimir effect, the authors of Refs. [@Gross; @Rohwer] investigated it in the critical fluid system within the mean-field theory in the canonical ensemble, where the particle number is kept constant. In these works, it has been found that significant qualitative differences arise between the critical Casimir force in the canonical ensemble and the grand canonical ensemble. These studies authors also gave evidences that the critical Casimir force strongly depends on the imposed boundary conditions. To our knowledge, there is a lack of investigating the Casimir effect in the BEC at zero temperature in the canonical ensemble, except our work [@Thu382]. However, the Casimir effect was only considered in the one-loop approximation. To fill this gap and improve the accuracy of the results, in this paper, the Casimir effect is worked out in the canonical ensemble within the framework of the CJT effective action approach in the IHF approximation, in which not only the contribution of all two-loop diagrams is taken into account, but the Goldstone theorem is also valid.
To begin with, we consider a dilute Bose gas described by Lagrangian [@Pethick], $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}=\psi^*\left(-i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\right)\psi-\mu\left|\psi\right|^2+\frac{g}{2}\left|\psi\right|^4,\label{1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\psi=\psi(\vec{r},t)$ being the field operator, its expectation value plays the role of the order parameter; $m$ and $\mu$ are the atomic mass and chemical potential, respectively; the strength of repulsive intraspecies interaction is determined by coupling constant $g=4\pi\hbar^2a_s/m>0$ with $a_s$ being the $s$-wave scattering length [@Pitaevskii].
This paper is structured as follows. In Section \[sec:2\], the Casimir effect in a dilute Bose gas is studied in the canonical ensemble, which consists of the Casimir energy and the Casimir force. Conclusion and outlook are given in Section \[sec:3\].
Casimir effect in a dilute Bose gas in canonical ensemble \[sec:2\]
===================================================================
In this Section, the Casimir effect in a dilute Bose gas confined between two planar walls is considered in the canonical ensemble and in the improved Hartree-Fock approximation at zero temperature. At first, we consider a Bose gas at finite temperature $T$ and let the temperature be zero at the end. Let $\psi_0$ be the expectation value of the field operator $\psi$ in the mean field theory, an expansion of the field operator can be performed $$\begin{aligned}
\psi\rightarrow \psi_0+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\psi_1+i\psi_2),\label{shift}\end{aligned}$$ in which two real fields $\psi_1,\psi_2$ associated with the quantum fluctuations of the field [@Andersen]. By substituting (\[shift\]) into Lagrangian (\[1\]), one has the free Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_0=-\mu\psi_0^2+\frac{g}{2}\psi_0^4,\label{L0}\end{aligned}$$ and the interaction Lagrangian in the double-bubble approximation $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_{int}=\frac{g}{2}\psi_0\psi_1(\psi_1^2+\psi_2^2)+\frac{g}{8}(\psi_1^2+\psi_2^2)^2.\label{Lint}\end{aligned}$$ Based on (\[L0\]), it is easy to find the inverse propagator in the tree-approximation $$\begin{aligned}
D_0^{-1}(k)&=&\left(
\begin{array}{lr}
\frac{\hbar^2\vec{k}^2}{2m}+2g\psi_0^2 & -\omega_n \\
\omega_n & \frac{\hbar^2\vec{k}^2}{2m}\\
\end{array}
\right),\label{protree}\end{aligned}$$ in momentum space, where $\vec{k}$ is the wave vector. The Matsubara frequency for boson is defined as $\omega_n=2\pi n/\beta ~(n=0,\pm1,\pm2...),~\beta=1/k_BT$ and $k_B$ is Boltzmann constant. The inversion propagator (\[protree\]) shows that there is a Goldstone boson associated with the symmetric breaking of $U(1)$ group.
It was pointed out [@ThuIJMPB; @ThuPhysa; @Phat] that in the Hartree-Fock approximation, the Goldstone boson is disappeared. To restore it, a method proposed by Ivanov [*et. al.*]{} in Ref. [@Ivanov] is invoked and which leads to an approximation called the IHF approximation. In this approximation, the CJT effective potential has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{V}_\beta^{CJT}=&&-\mu\psi_0^2+\frac{g}{2}\psi_0^4+\frac{1}{2}\int_\beta \mbox{tr}\left[\ln D^{-1}(k)+D_0^{-1}(k)D(k)-{1\!\!1}\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{g}{8}(P_{11}^2+P_{22}^2)+\frac{3g}{8}P_{11}P_{22},\label{VIHF}\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to a new inverse propagator $$\begin{aligned}
D^{-1}(k)=\left(
\begin{array}{lr}
\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}+M^2 & -\omega_n \\
\omega_n & \frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m} \\
\end{array}
\right),\label{proIHF}\end{aligned}$$ with $M$ being the effective mass of the Goldstone boson, which is restored in the IHF approximation. In Eqs. (\[VIHF\]) and (\[proIHF\]), we abbreviate $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\beta f(\vec{k})=\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}f(\omega_n,\vec{k}).\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{11}\equiv \int_\beta D_{11}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2k^2/2m}{\hbar^2k^2/2m+M^2}},\nonumber\\
&&P_{22}\equiv \int_\beta D_{22}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2k^2/2m+M^2}{\hbar^2k^2/2m}},\label{tichphan}\end{aligned}$$ are momentum integrals at zero temperature. The dispersion relation in the IHF approximation can be read off by requesting the determinant of the inversion propagator vanishes [@Floerchinger], which yields $$\begin{aligned}
E(k)=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}\left(\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}+M^2\right)}.\label{dispersion}\end{aligned}$$
Using the formula [@Schmitt], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\beta}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{n=+\infty}\ln\left[\omega_n^2+E^2(k)\right]&=&E(k)+\frac{2}{\beta}\ln\left[1-e^{-\beta E(k)}\right],\end{aligned}$$ one can extract the canonical energy density at zero temperature from Eqs. (\[VIHF\]) and (\[dispersion\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega\equiv\frac{1}{2}\int_\beta \mbox{tr}\ln D^{-1}(k)=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d^3\vec{k}}{(2\pi)^3}\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}\left(\frac{\hbar^2k^2}{2m}+M^2\right)}.\label{en}\end{aligned}$$ In order to simplify notations, dimensionless quantities are introduced: wave vector $\kappa=k\xi$, effective mass ${\cal M}=M/\sqrt{gn_0}$ with $\xi=\hbar/\sqrt{2mgn_0}$ and $n_0$ being the healing length and bulk density, respectively. In this way, the momentum integrals in Eqs. (\[tichphan\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
&&P_{11}=\frac{1}{2\xi^3}\int\frac{d^3\kappa}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\kappa}{\sqrt{\kappa^2+{\cal M}^2}},~P_{22}=\frac{1}{2\xi^3}\int\frac{d^3\kappa}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\sqrt{\kappa^2+{\cal M}^2}}{\kappa},\label{tichphan1a}\end{aligned}$$ and the canonical energy density (\[en\]) can be rewritten $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega=\frac{gn_{0}}{2\xi^3}\int\frac{d^3\kappa}{(2\pi)^3}\sqrt{\kappa^2(\kappa^2+{\cal M}^2)}.\label{energy}\end{aligned}$$ The integrations over the dimensionless wave vector are UV-divergent. This divergence can be eliminated by using the dimensional regularization proposed by Andersen in Ref. [@Andersen].
Now the effects from the compactification of one direction in space on the Casimir energy and the Casimir force are considered. The system under consideration is the weakly interacting Bose gas confined by two planar walls, which are parallel plates at the distance $\ell$ and are perpendicular to $0z$-axis; the order parameter is translational invariant in the $0x$ and $0y$ directions. The area $A$ of each planar wall satisfies $A\gg\ell^2$. Our system is not connected to any particle reservoir therefore the particle number $N$ is fixed and roughly speaking $$\begin{aligned}
N=n_0A\ell.\label{number}\end{aligned}$$ This means that the system is considered in the canonical ensemble.
Because of this compactification, the wave vector is quantized as follows $$\begin{aligned}
k^2\rightarrow k_\perp^2+k_n^2,\end{aligned}$$ in which the wave vector component $k_\perp$ is perpendicular to $0z$-axis and $k_n$ is parallel with $0z$-axis. For the boson system, the periodic boundary condition is imposed $$\begin{aligned}
k_n=\frac{2\pi n}{\ell}.\end{aligned}$$ In dimensionless form one has $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa^2\rightarrow \kappa_\perp^2+\kappa_n^2, ~\kappa_{n}=\frac{2\pi n}{L}\equiv\frac{n}{\overline{L}},~\overline{L}=\frac{L}{2\pi},\label{k1}\end{aligned}$$ where $L=\ell/\xi$. The quantization of wave vector leads to a change in the canonical energy density and Eq. (\[energy\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega=\frac{8 \pi ^3\hbar ^2Na_s}{mA \ell^3 }\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty\int\frac{d^2\kappa_{\perp}}{(2\pi)^2}\sqrt{(\overline{L}^2\kappa_{\perp}^2+n^2)({\cal M}_0^2+n^2)},\label{term12}\end{aligned}$$ in which $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_0=\overline{L}\sqrt{\kappa_{\perp}^2+{\cal M}^2}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that the integral in Eq. (\[term12\]) is UV-divergent when $\kappa_\perp$ tends to infinity, thus a cut-off $\Lambda$ is introduced for the top limit of this integral. After integrating over $\kappa_\perp$ from zero to $\Lambda$, the summation in Eq. (\[term12\]) can be dealt by using the Euler-Maclaurin formula [@Arfken], $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty \theta_nF(n)-\int_0^\infty F(n)dn=-\frac{1}{12}F'(0)+\frac{1}{720}F'''(0)-\frac{1}{30240}F^{(5)}(0)+\cdots,\label{EM}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1/2, & \hbox{if $n=0$;} \\
1, & \hbox{if $n>0$.}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, after taking the limit $\Lambda\rightarrow\infty$ and subtracting the bulk part one has a finite part of the canonical energy density $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_C=-\frac{\pi^{5/2}\hbar^2a_s^{1/2}}{720\sqrt{2}m}\sqrt{\frac{N}{A}}\frac{{\cal M}}{\ell^{7/2}},\label{energyC}\end{aligned}$$ which is the Casimir energy. Eq. (\[energyC\]) makes it clear that the Casimir energy in the canonical ensemble is proportional to $\ell^{-7/2}$ instead of $\ell^{-3}$ in the grand canonical ensemble [@ThuPhysa].
The momentum integrals (\[tichphan1a\]) formally resemble the canonical energy density (\[term12\]). Under the quantization of the wave vector, the momentum integrals (\[tichphan1a\]) are also UV-divergent and it can be resolved in the same way as the method applied for the Casimir energy. By introducing the cut-off $\Lambda$, Eqs. (\[tichphan1a\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
P_{11}&=&8\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{Na_s}{A\ell}\right)^{3/2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_0^\Lambda \frac{d^2\kappa_\perp}{(2\pi)^2}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_\perp^2+\kappa_n^2}{\kappa_\perp^2+\kappa_n^2+{\cal M}^2}},\nonumber\\
P_{22}&=&8\sqrt{2}\left(\frac{Na_s}{A\ell}\right)^{3/2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty}\int_0^\Lambda \frac{d^2\kappa_\perp}{(2\pi)^2}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_\perp^2+\kappa_n^2+{\cal M}^2}{\kappa_\perp^2+\kappa_n^2}}, \label{k2}\end{aligned}$$ and using Euler-Maclaurin formula (\[EM\]) one has $$\begin{aligned}
P_{11}=-\frac{\pi ^2}{180 \ell^3 \cal M}, ~P_{22}=\frac{\pi N a_s \cal M}{3 A \ell^2}-\frac{\pi ^2}{180 \ell^3 \cal M}.\label{k4}\end{aligned}$$
In order to calculate the Casimir force, the remaining problem is finding the dimensionless effective mass $\cal M$ in Eq. (\[energyC\]). To this end, we first note that for a dilute Bose gas, i.e. the gas parameter must satisfy the well-known condition $n_0a_s^3\ll1$ [@Pethick]. In this case, the chemical potential is approximated $\mu\approx gn_0$ [@Andersen]. Minimizing the CJT effective potential (\[VIHF\]) with respect to the order parameter and elements of the propagator, keeping in mind Eqs. (\[k4\]), one arrives at the dimensionless form of the gap equation $$\begin{aligned}
-1+\phi_0^2+\frac{\pi a_s\cal M}{6 \ell}-\frac{\pi ^2 A}{90N{\cal M} \ell^2}=0,\label{gap}\end{aligned}$$ and the Schwinger-Dyson equation $$\begin{aligned}
-1+3\phi_0^2+\frac{\pi a_s\cal M}{2\ell}-\frac{\pi ^2 A}{90N{\cal M} \ell^2}={\cal M}^2.\label{SD}\end{aligned}$$ Note that here we use $\phi_0=\psi_0/\sqrt{n_0}$. It is easy to prove that the solution for Eqs. (\[gap\]) and (\[SD\]) has the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\cos\frac{\alpha}{3},\label{Mhdn}\end{aligned}$$ in which $$\begin{aligned}
\cos\alpha=\frac{\pi ^2 A}{20 \sqrt{6}N \ell^2}.\label{alpha}\end{aligned}$$ For the weakly interacting Bose gas, it is shown that [@ThuPhysa] the dimensionless effective mass can be written in a approximate form $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}\approx{\cal M}_1+\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\cos\alpha,\label{Mhd1}\end{aligned}$$ in which ${\cal M}_1=\sqrt{2}$ is the dimensionless effective mass in the one-loop approximation. This result is an improvement compared with the one in the one-loop approximation and the second term in right hand side of Eq. (\[Mhd1\]) is a result of taking into account the two-loop diagrams.
Combining Eqs. (\[energyC\]) and (\[Mhd1\]), the Casimir energy can be written as a function of only the distance between two planar walls $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal E}_C=-\frac{\pi^{5/2}\hbar^2a_s^{1/2}}{720m}\sqrt{\frac{N}{A}}\frac{1}{\ell^{7/2}}-\frac{\pi^{9/2}\hbar^2a_s^{1/2}}{180.720\sqrt{2}m}\sqrt{\frac{A}{N}}\frac{1}{\ell^{11/2}}.\label{E1}\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to realize that the first term in right hand side of Eq. (\[E1\]) is the Casimir energy in the one-loop approximation in the canonical ensemble [@Thu382] because in this approximate level the dimensionless effective mass is independent of the distance as shown in Eq. (\[Mhd1\]). The second term is contribution of the high-order diagram in the interaction Lagrangian (\[Lint\]). The common feature can be read off from (\[E1\]) is that the Casimir energy is negative in the canonical ensemble, this is similar to the one in the grand canonical ensemble [@ThuIJMPB; @ThuPhysa].
![(Color online) The evolution of the Casimir force versus the distance (solid line). The red dashed line and the blue dashed line correspond to the first and second terms in right hand side of Eq. (\[Fc1\]).[]{data-label="f1"}](fig_1.eps)
The Casimir force is defined as the negative derivative of the Casimir energy with respect to a change in the distance between two planar walls $$\begin{aligned}
F_C=-\frac{\partial {\cal E}_C}{\partial\ell}.\label{dn}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[E1\]) into (\[dn\]) one has $$\begin{aligned}
F_C=-\frac{7\pi^{5/2}\hbar^2a_s^{1/2}}{1440m}\sqrt{\frac{N}{A}}\frac{1}{\ell^{9/2}}-\frac{11\pi^{9/2}\hbar^2a_s^{1/2}}{180.1440m}\sqrt{\frac{A}{N}}\frac{1}{\ell^{13/2}}.\label{Fc}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence of the Casimir energy, the first term in right hand side of Eq. (\[Fc\]) is the Casimir force in the one-loop approximation in the canonical ensemble and the last one comes from the correction of the high-order diagrams in the interaction Lagrangian. Moreover, when looking at the Eq. (\[Fc\]) there is no doubt that the Casimir force is attractive, the same as the one in the grand canonical ensemble. In dimensionless form, Eq. (\[Fc\]) is scaled by $$\begin{aligned}
F_0=\frac{64\sqrt{2}\pi^{5/2}\hbar^2}{m}\left(\frac{N}{A}\right)^{5/2},\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_C}{F_0}=-\frac{7A^2a_s^{1/2}}{92160\sqrt{2}N^2}\frac{1}{\ell^{9/2}}-\frac{11\pi^2A^3a_s^{1/2}}{360.92160N^3}\frac{1}{\ell^{13/2}}.\label{Fc1}\end{aligned}$$ In order to illustrate for above calculations, several numerical computations are made for rubidium Rb 87 with $m=86.909$ u (1 u = 1.6605.$10^{-27}$ kg is unit of atomic mass), $a_s=100.4a_0,~a_0=0.529$ [Å]{} is Bohr radius [@Egorov]. The total particle number and the area of each planar wall are $N=6.10^6,~A=10^{-6}$ m$^2$ [@Biswas3], respectively. The $\ell$-dependence of the Casimir force is shown in Fig. \[f1\], in which the dashed red and dashed blue lines correspond to the first and second term in right hand side of (\[Fc1\]), the solid blue line sketches the Casimir force, in which the distance between two planar walls is scaled by $\xi=4000$ [Å]{}. It is obvious that the Casimir is only significant in small-$\ell$ region and contribution of the second term is dominant.
![(Color online) The evolution of the Casimir force versus the $s$-wave scattering length (solid line). The red dashed line and the blue dashed line correspond to the first and second terms in right hand side of Eq. (\[Fc1\]).[]{data-label="f2"}](fig_2.eps)
An important property of Bose gas is that the $s$-wave scattering length $a_s$ can be controlled by Feshbach resonance [@Inouye] changing the laser detuning. Fig. \[f2\] clearly shows that the Casimir force against the scattering length $a_s$ at distance $\ell=4000$ [Å]{} with the same parameters in Fig. \[f1\]. In this case, the first and second terms contribute to the Casimir force in the same order. These lines are in shape of $a_s^{1/2}$ and thus the Casimir force tends to zero when the scattering length approaches to zero, this result coincides to the fact that the Casimir force in an ideal Bose gas vanishes at zero temperature because of vanishing of the speed of sound as pointed out in Eq. (\[1a\]).
Conclusion and Outlook\[sec:3\]
===============================
We presented here the analysis of the Casimir effect in the dilute Bose gas confined between two parallel plates in the canonical ensemble in the improved Hartree-Fock approximation with the conservation of Goldstone boson. Our results indicate that Casimir force is significantly different not only in the different ensembles and the same approximation (the IHF approximation) but also in different approximations and the same ensemble (the canonical ensemble).
First of all, within the same approximation, i.e. the improved Hartree-Fock approximation, the Casimir energy is proportional to the distance in power law of $\ell^{-3}$ in grand canonical ensemble, whereas it decays as $1/\ell^{7/2}+1/\ell^{11/2}$ in canonical ensemble. Similarly, the Casimir force sharply decreases versus distance between two planar walls as the power law $1/\ell^{9/2}+1/\ell^{13/2}$ in the canonical ensemble instead of $1/\ell^{4}+1/\ell^{7}$ in the grand canonical ensemble [@ThuPhysa]. One can easily realize that the power law for the Casimir effect is a half-integer in the canonical ensemble and a integer in the grand canonical ensemble.
Although there are many significant properties, the results in both statistical ensembles have several common points. Firstly, in both the canonical and grand canonical ensembles, the Casimir energy is always negative and it increases monotonously as the distance between two plates increases. This fact leads to the Casimir force is attractive. A further common feature is that the Casimir force is divergent when the distance tends to zero in both statistical ensembles. Last but not least, the Casimir effect does not appear in the ideal Bose gas at zero temperature in the canonical ensemble as well as in the grand canonical ensemble.
It is very interesting to extend this problem to consider the Casimir effect in a binary mixture of Bose gases.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This research is funded by Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 103.01-2018.02.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
H. B. G. Casimir, [*On the attraction between two perfectly conducting plates*]{}, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. [**51**]{}, 793 (1948). Tran Huu Phat, Nguyen Van Thu, [*Finite-size effects of linear sigma model in compactified space time*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**29**]{}, 1450078 (2014). J. F. Babb, [*Casimir Effects in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics*]{}, Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics [**59**]{}, 1 (2010). G. Bimonte, [*Casimir effect in a superconducting cavity and the thermal controversy*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 062101 (2008). F. Chen, G. L. Klimchitskaya, V. M. Mostepanenko, and U. Mohideen, [*Control of the Casimir force by the modification of dielectric properties with light*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 035338 (2007). M. Fukuto, Y. F. Yano, P. S. Pershan, [*Critical Casimir Effect in Three-Dimensional Ising Systems: Measurements on Binary Wetting Films*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 135702 (2005). A. Ganshin, S. Scheidemantel, R. Garcia, M. H. W. Chan, [*Critical Casimir Force in $^4$He Films: Confirmation of Finite-Size Scaling*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 075301 (2006). D. M. Harber, J. M. Obrecht, J. M. McGuirk, E. A. Cornell, [*Measurement of the Casimir-Polder force through center-of-mass oscillations of a Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 033610 (2005). J. M. Obrecht, R. J. Wild, M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, E. A. Cornell, [*Measurement of the Temperature Dependence of the Casimir-Polder Force*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 063201 (2007). G. L. Klimchitskaya, V. M. Mostepanenko, [*Conductivity of dielectric and thermal atom-wall interaction*]{}, J. Phys. A [**41**]{}, 312002 (2008). S. Biswas, [*Bose-Einstein condensation and Casimir effect of trapped ideal Bose gas in between two slabs*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. D [**42**]{}, 109 (2007). S. Biswas, J. K. Bhattacharjee, D. Majumder, K. Saha, N. Chakravarty, [*Casimir force on an interacting Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, J. Phys. B [**43**]{}, 085305 (2010). J. Schiefele, and C. Henkel, [*Casimir energy of a BEC: from moderate interactions to the ideal gas*]{}, J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 045401 (2009). Nguyen Van Thu and Luong Thi Theu, [*Casimir Force of Two-Component Bose-Einstein Condensates Confined by a Parallel Plate Geometry*]{}, J. Stat. Phys [**168**]{}, 1 (2017). D. C. Roberts, Y. Pomeau, [*Casimir-Like Force Arising from Quantum Fluctuations in a Slowly Moving Dilute Bose-Einstein Condensate*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 145303 (2005). Nguyen Van Thu and Luong Thi Theu, [*Finite-size effect on Bose-Einstein condensate mixtures in improved Hartree Fock approximation*]{}, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**33**]{}, 1950114 (2019). J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw, E. Tomboulis, [*Effecitve action composite operators*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 2428 (1974). Nguyen Van Thu and Pham The Song, [*Casimir effect in a weakly interacting Bose gas confined by a parallel plate geometry in improved Hartree-Fock approximation*]{}, Physica A [**540**]{}, 123018 (2020). M. E. Fisher and P. G. de Gennes, [*Wall phenomena in a critical binary mixture*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris B [**287**]{}, 207 (1978). M. Gross, O. Vasilyev, A. Gambassi, S. Dietrich, [*Critical adsorption and critical Casimir forces in the canonical ensemble*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**94**]{}, 022103 (2016). C. M. Rohwer, A. Squarcini, O. Vasilyev, S. Dietrich, M. Gross, [*Ensemble dependence of critical Casimir forces in films with Dirichlet boundary conditions*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**99**]{}, 062103 (2019). Nguyen Van Thu, [*The forces on a single interacting Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, Phys. Lett. A [**382**]{}, 1078 (2018). C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, [*Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases*]{}, (Cambridge University Press, 2008). L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, [*Bose-Einstein condensation*]{}, Oxford University Press (2003). J. O. Andersen, [*Theory of the weakly interacting Bose gas*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 599 (2004). T. H. Phat, L. V. Hoa, N. T. Anh, and N. V. Long, [*Bose-Einstein condensation in binary mixture of Bose gases*]{}, Ann. Phys. [**324**]{}, 2074 (2009). Yu. B. Ivanov, F. Riek, J. Knoll, [*Gapless Hartree-Fock resummation scheme for the $O(N)$ model*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 105016 (2005). S. Floerchinger and C. Wetterich, [*Superfluid Bose gas in two dimensions*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 013601 (2009). A. Schmitt, [*Dense Matter in Compact Stars*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010. G. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber, [*Mathematical Methods for Physicists*]{}, 6th edn (San Diego: Academic, 2005). M. Egorov, B. Opanchuk, P. Drummond, B. V. Hall, P. Hannaford, and A. I. Sidorov, [*Measurement of $s$-wave scattering lengths in a two-component Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 053614 (2013). S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H. -J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, W. Ketterle, [*Observation of Feshbach resonances in a Bose-Einstein condensate*]{}, Nature (London) [**392**]{}, 151 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the optomechanical properties of a periodic array of identical scatterers placed inside an optical cavity and extend the results of \[A. Xuereb, C. Genes, and A. Dantan, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 223601 (2012)\]. We show that operating at the points where the array is transmissive results in linear optomechanical coupling strengths between the cavity field and collective motional modes of the array that may be several orders of magnitude larger than is possible with an equivalent reflective ensemble. We describe and interpret these effects in detail and investigate the nature of the scaling laws of the coupling strengths for the different transmissive points in various regimes.'
author:
- André Xuereb
- Claudiu Genes
- Aurélien Dantan
title: 'Collectively-enhanced optomechanical coupling in periodic arrays of scatterers'
---
The ability to measure and control the motion of massive mechanical oscillators has progressed dramatically in recent years [@Aspelmeyer2013; @Meystre2013], and several important milestones have been reached in the field of optomechanics towards bringing this capability into the quantum regime, including the cooling to the motional quantum ground state [@Teufel2011; @Chan2011; @Verhagen2012], the detection of quantized mechanical motion [@SafaviNaeini2012; @Brahms2012], and the observation of the ponderomotive squeezing of light [@Brooks2012; @SafaviNaeini2013] or of the radiation-pressure shot noise on a mechanical oscillator [@Purdy2013].
One challenge faced by the current generation of optomechanical experiments is that the interaction strength between a single photon and a single massive mechanical element is typically very weak. This can be ameliorated by confining light in wavelength-scale structures [@Eichenfield2009] or, generically, counteracted by the use of strong light fields in an optical resonator to amplify the interaction strength [@Groblacher2009a], albeit at the expense of trading off the intrinsically nonlinear nature of the radiation-pressure interaction (see, however, the recent proposals in Refs. [@Borkje2013; @Lemonde2013]). A growing number of theoretical proposals has contemplated the opposite – ‘strong coupling’ – regime, where a single photon can affect the motion of the oscillator significantly, thus giving access to the full quantum nature of the optomechanical interaction [@Akram2010; @Rabl2011; @Nunnenkamp2011; @Nunnenkamp2012; @Qian2012; @Ludwig2012; @Stannigel2012; @Kronwald2013; @Liao2013].
On the other hand, *collective* effects in optomechanical systems involving multiple mechanical and electromagnetic field modes have been discussed in a number of theoretical works, in connection with, e.g., optomechanical entanglement [@Mancini2002; @Zhang2003; @Marshall2003; @Eisert2004; @Pinard2005; @Vitali2007b; @Genes2008d; @Bhattacharya2008; @Bhattacharya2008a; @Hartmann2008; @Ludwig2010], enhanced displacement sensitivity [@Miao2009; @Dobrindt2010; @Xu2013], optomechanical nonlinearities [@Stannigel2012; @Ludwig2012; @Seok2012; @Komar2013; @Genes2013], quantum information processing [@Stannigel2010; @Chang2011; @Jacobs2012; @Rips2012], many-body physics [@Heinrich2010; @Heinrich2011; @Marcos2012; @Akram2012; @Ludwig2012b], as well as in a number of recent experiments [@Grudinin2010; @Lin2010; @Mahboob2011; @Mahboob2012; @massel2011; @Zhang2012; @Botter2013]. Collective optomechanical effects are also at the heart of cavity optomechanics with cold atomic ensembles [@StamperKurn2012].
Motivated by the exploration of such collective optomechanical effects, we recently [@Xuereb2012c] showed that the collective motion of a periodic array of identical scatterers, when placed inside a cavity field, can couple very strongly to the optical field in the configuration where the array is *transmissive*, in contrast to the usual *reflective* optomechanics approach. The aim of the present work is to present a detailed exploration of this system, to highlight the regimes in which these generic collective effects are seen and to compare the various possible transmissive operating points.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section we summarize and discuss the tools used to model a periodic array of $N$ identical elements, and show that such an array can be modeled as a single effective element in the framework of the transfer matrix theory for one-dimensional scatterers. [Section \[sec:OM\]]{} discusses the optomechanical properties of such a generic $N$-element stack, when placed inside an optical cavity, in two distinct and opposite regimes: (i) A maximally-reflective stack ([Sec. \[sec:OM:Refl\]]{}), and (ii) a transmissive stack ([Sec. \[sec:OM:Tran\]]{}). In the second regime we show that the equations of motion for the system at hand are effectively described by an optical field interacting with a single collective mechanical mode, whose profile strongly depends on the transmissive operating point chosen. The next section discusses this regime in further detail, and explores the scaling of the optomechanical coupling strength in the transmissive regime with the various system parameters and the various operating points; we show that the increase in the optomechanical coupling strength with the number of scatterers combines with an effect whereby the linewidth of the cavity resonance is narrowed due to the presence of the stack to provide an enhancement of the optomechanical cooperativity by several orders of magnitude over that of a single element system. A detailed comparison of the different transmissive points of the system is also given. Finally, [Section \[sec:Imp\]]{} briefly examines the case of absorbing elements.
![Schematic diagram illustrating the basis of the model: $N$ scatterers interacting with four running waves. $B$ and $C$ represent incident fields, $A$ and $D$ outgoing fields. The four field amplitudes are connected by means of transfer matrices.[]{data-label="fig:Stack"}](fig1.pdf)
Modeling an $N$-element stack
=============================
Throughout this paper we shall restrict ourselves to a one-dimensional system and use the transfer matrix formalism to model a periodic $N$-element array, as illustrated in [Fig. \[fig:Stack\]]{}. As is well-known [@Deutsch1995; @Xuereb2009b], this formalism can treat elements (‘scatterers’) that interact linearly with the electromagnetic field, no matter the strength of this interaction or whether the scatterer is lossless or not. Within this formalism, each scatterer is parametrized by its polarizability $\zeta$, which is real for lossless scatterers but complex in the presence of absorption. $\zeta$ is related to the amplitude reflectivity $r$ of the element through the expression $$r=\frac{i\zeta}{1-i\zeta}\,.$$ Therefore, for a lossless scatterer, we have $${\lvertr\rvert}^2=\frac{\zeta^2}{1+\zeta^2}\,,$$ which allows us to link our results to, e.g., those in Ref. [@Miladinovic2011] through their Eq. (8). The flexibility afforded by the transfer matrix formalism allows us to treat ensembles of atoms in an optical lattice on the same footing as periodic arrays of macroscopic scattering elements (e.g., arrays of thin dielectric membranes) in the limit of a one-dimensional scattering theory. The formal relation between these physical systems and the transfer matrix formalism, through the parameter $\zeta$, was illustrated in the Supplemental Information for Ref. [@Xuereb2012c].
Transfer matrix for $N$-element stack
-------------------------------------
We start by discussing the optical properties of a periodic array of $N$ equally-spaced elements, assumed to be identical to one another and non-absorbing for the time being. Each element is assumed to have a small thickness compared to the wavelength of the light in question, as explained in further detail in the Supplemental Information for Ref. [@Xuereb2012c]. At this point we make no distinction between arrays of membranes and arrays of atoms in an optical lattice; the following formalism holds identically for either case.\
The optical properties of the array will be determined entirely by the number of elements, the distance $d$ between pairs of elements in the array, and the polarizability $\zeta$ of each element. A real $\zeta$ captures the fact that there is no absorption in the elements; this requirement will be lifted later on. As a first step, we recall the matrix relating the electromagnetic fields interacting with a single element [@Deutsch1995], $$M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\equiv{\begin{bmatrix}1+i\zeta&i\zeta\\#3&1-i\zeta\end{bmatrix}}\,.$$ To describe our array we also need the effect of free-space propagation of a monochromatic beam of wavelength $\lambda=2\pi/k$ over a distance $d$, $$M_\mathrm{p}(d)\equiv{\begin{bmatrix}e^{ikd}&0\\#3&e^{-ikd}\end{bmatrix}}\,.$$ Crucially, both $M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)$ and $M_\mathrm{p}(d)$ have unit determinant. These matrices relate forward- and backward-propagating electromagnetic waves on either side of the element: $${\begin{pmatrix}A\\#2\end{pmatrix}}=M\cdot{\begin{pmatrix}C\\#2\end{pmatrix}}\,,$$ with $A$ and $C$ being the (complex) amplitudes of the backward-propagating waves, and similarly $B$ and $D$ the amplitudes of the forward-propagating waves. [Figure \[fig:Stack\]]{} illustrates the situation we wish to describe. The transfer matrix of the array can be written as a product of the form $$M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(d)\cdot M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\cdots M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\,,$$ where $M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)$ appears $N$ times (i.e., once for each element). We now define a matrix $M$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
M_\mathrm{p}(d/2)\cdot M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(d)\cdots M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(d/2)\\
=\bigl[M_\mathrm{p}(d/2)\cdot M_\mathrm{m}(\zeta)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(d/2)\bigr]^N\equiv M^N\,.\end{gathered}$$ Evaluating the product explicitly, $M$ can be written as $$M\equiv{\begin{bmatrix}(1+i\zeta)e^{ikd}&i\zeta\\#3&(1-i\zeta)e^{-ikd}\end{bmatrix}}\,.$$ Once again, it is apparent that $M$ has unit determinant. This property is crucial, for it allows us to write [@Yeh2005], for the case of real $\zeta$, $$M^N={\begin{bmatrix}(1+i\chi)e^{i(kd+\mu)}&i\chi\\#3&(1-i\chi)e^{-i(kd+\mu)}\end{bmatrix}}\,,$$ where $\chi\equiv\zeta U_{N-1}(a)$, with $U_n(x)$ being the $n$^th^ Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind, $a=\cos(kd)-\zeta\sin(kd)$, and $$e^{i\mu}=\frac{1-i\zeta
U_{N-1}(a)}{(1-i\zeta)U_{N-1}(a)-e^{ikd}U_{N-2}(a)}\,.$$ The matrix $M^N$ has an extra ‘padding’ of $d/2$ on either side. We remove this padding to obtain, finally, the transfer matrix describing the $N$-element array: $$M_N\equiv M_\mathrm{p}[\mu/(2k)]\cdot M_\mathrm{m}(\chi)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}[\mu/(2k)]\,.$$ What is remarkable about $M_N$ is that the $N$ (lossless) elements behave as a single collective ‘superelement’ of polarizability $\chi$, supplemented with a ‘padding’ equivalent to a phase-shift of $\mu/2$ on either side of the array. This fact not only aids interpretation of the optical properties of the stack, but also simplifies the algebra involved considerably.
Generically, the transfer matrix of any optical system can be related to the (amplitude) transmissivity and reflectivity of that same system. For concreteness, let us suppose that the system at hand can be described by a transfer matrix of the form $${\begin{bmatrix}m_{11}&m_{12}\\#3&m_{22}\end{bmatrix}}\,,$$ where the four entries are determined by the optical properties of the system at hand. The complex transmissivity of the system can then be written down as $$\label{eq:TransGeneral}
\mathcal{T}=\frac{1}{m_{22}}\,.$$ Correspondingly, its reflectivity is $$\mathcal{R}=\frac{m_{12}}{m_{22}}\,,$$
![Optical properties of a stack of $N=6$ non-absorbing elements. The intensity reflectivity of the stack (blue curve) varies strongly, from $0$% to about $99$%, as the distance between the elements is scanned; this curve is periodic with a period of $\lambda/2$. By way of comparison, we show the corresponding reflectivity for a single element as the dotted green line. We mark three important values of $d$ in this figure: $d=d_1$ and $d=d_5$, where the reflectivity is zero, and $d=d_0$, where the reflectivity attains its largest value.[]{data-label="fig:Reflectivity"}](fig2.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
These quantities are used throughout this paper to characterize the optical properties of our system. A plot of the intensity reflectivity of a lossless $6$-element ensemble as the spacing between pairs of elements is varied is shown in [Fig. \[fig:Reflectivity\]]{}. Note that, despite each element having a reflectivity of $20$%, the reflectivity of the entire ensemble ranges from $0$% (e.g., at $d=d_1$) to about $99$% (at $d=d_0$). Moreover, an ensemble of $N$ elements possesses $N-1$ points $d_l$ ($l=1,\dots,N-1$) at which the transmission is zero; in the figure we label only the outermost two of these points, $d_1$ and $d_5$. Unlike a standard distributed Bragg reflector, rather than choosing the ratio of the refractive indices between the two dielectrics making up the structure (one of the dielectrics being vacuum in our case), we control the optical path length of the vacuum layers through $d$. In our structure, therefore, the thickness of the elements is completely decoupled from the value of $d$.
Optomechanics of a periodic array of scatterers {#sec:OM}
===============================================
Our next task is to place the array just described inside a near-resonant optical cavity. The interaction of the array with the cavity field will shift the resonances of the main cavity. As is usual in optomechanics, we assume that each element in the array is harmonically trapped, and are interested in one particular figure of merit: the coupling strength defined as the frequency shift incurred by the cavity resonance when the array undergoes a displacement equal to the size of the relevant zero-point-fluctuations. As a yardstick we shall use the quantity $$g\equiv\frac{2\omega_\mathrm{c}x_\mathrm{zpt}}{L}\,,$$ which is the optomechanical coupling strength for a perfectly reflective mirror near the center of a cavity of length $L$ and resonant frequency $\omega_\mathrm{c}$ [@Xuereb2012d]. The size of the zero-point-fluctuations of each element is denoted by $x_\mathrm{zpt}=\sqrt{\hbar/(m\omega_\mathrm{m})}$, where $m$ is the effective mass of the element and $\omega_\mathrm{m}$ its oscillation frequency.
Element stack inside a cavity
-----------------------------
[Figure \[fig:Cavity\]]{} illustrates schematically the periodic element array placed inside a Fabry–Pérot cavity of length $L$, assumed much longer than the array ($L\gg Nd$). The transfer matrix describing this system is then $$\begin{gathered}
M_\mathrm{cav}\equiv M_\mathrm{m}(Z)\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(L/2+x)\\
\cdot M_N\cdot M_\mathrm{p}(L/2-x)\cdot M_\mathrm{m}(Z)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Here $x$ is the displacement of the ensemble with respect to its position at the center of the cavity and $Z$ is the polarizability of the cavity mirrors, assumed equal for both. For good, lossless, cavity mirrors (${\lvertZ\rvert}\gtrsim1$), the finesse of the cavity may be simply written $\mathcal{F}=\pi{\lvertZ\rvert}\sqrt{Z^2+1}$ [@Xuereb2012a]. The transmission of the system, following [Eq. (\[eq:TransGeneral\])]{}, is given by
![A schematic drawing of the generic system we are considering. A periodic array of $N$ elements, each of which is independently harmonically-bound, is positioned at, or very close to, the center of a Fabry–Pérot resonator. Throughout this paper, we shall consider only the case for which $L\gg Nd$.[]{data-label="fig:Cavity"}](fig3.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
$$\mathcal{T}_\mathrm{cav}=\frac{1}{\bigl(M_\mathrm{cav}\bigr)_{22}}\,;$$
the maxima of $\mathcal{T}_\mathrm{cav}$ give the resonances of this system. In order to find these resonances analytically, we consider a simpler system where the cavity mirrors are perfect; we need only solve the relation $$\begin{gathered}
{\begin{pmatrix}\phantom{+}1\\#2\end{pmatrix}}\varpropto{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i\theta}&0\\#3&e^{-i\theta}\end{bmatrix}}\times{\begin{bmatrix}1+i\chi&i\chi\\#3&1-i\chi\end{bmatrix}}\\
\times{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i\phi}&0\\#3&e^{-i\phi}\end{bmatrix}}\cdot{\begin{pmatrix}\phantom{+}1\\#2\end{pmatrix}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ with $\theta\equiv k(L/2+x)+\mu/2$ and $\phi\equiv k(L/2-x)+\mu/2$. We thus obtain $$\label{eq:ResonanceSolution}
e^{ikL}=\frac{e^{-i\mu}}{1+i\chi}\biggl[i\chi\cos(2kx)\pm\sqrt{1+\chi^2\sin^2(2kx)}\biggr]$$ However, we immediately see that this equation is transcendental in $k$, and therefore cannot be solved analytically; this equation is easily solvable for $L$, however, given a fixed operating wavelength.
Center-of-mass coupling: Reflective optomechanics {#sec:OM:Refl}
-------------------------------------------------
It is now a legitimate question to ask: ‘If $d$ (or $x$) shifts by a small amount, how much will the resonant frequency of *this* cavity shift?’ This question is easily answered by expanding [Eq. (\[eq:ResonanceSolution\])]{} in small increments about its solution. Assuming a dominantly linear effect, we replace $k\to k+\delta k$, $x\to x+\delta x$, $\chi\to\chi+\delta\chi$, and $\mu\to\mu+\delta\mu$ in [Eq. (\[eq:ResonanceSolution\])]{}. Around resonance, the result simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GeneratorEquation}
L\delta k+\delta\mu=&\ \biggl[-1\pm\cos(2kx)\Big/\sqrt{1+\chi^2\sin^2(2kx)}\biggr]\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\times\delta\chi/\bigl(1+\chi^2\bigr)\nonumber\\
&\mp\biggl[2\chi\sin(2kx)\Big/\sqrt{1+\chi^2\sin^2(2kx)}\biggr]\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\times(x\delta k+k\delta x)\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the rest of this section, we shall consider the center-of-mass motion of the ensemble, and use [Eq. (\[eq:GeneratorEquation\])]{} to compute the optomechanical coupling strength. For such a uniform displacement, $\partial\mu=\partial\chi=0$, and we assume that ${\lvertL/x\rvert}$ is very large, such that we can write $$L\delta k=\mp\biggl[2\chi\sin(2kx)\Big/\sqrt{1+\chi^2\sin^2(2kx)}\biggr]k\delta x\,.$$ The right-hand-side of this equation is maximized when $\sin(2kx)=\mp1$, whereby $$L\delta k=2k\bigl(-\chi\big/\sqrt{1+\chi^2}\bigr)\delta x\,.$$
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements configured for maximal reflectivity. The dashed lines denote the bare-cavity resonances, which are shifted due to the presence of the ensemble. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N}$, such that the gradient of the bright curves gives directly the linear optomechanical coupling at that point. ($\zeta=-0.5$, $L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$, $d=d_1$, bare-cavity finesse $\approx\,3\times10^4$, corresponding to cavity-mirror reflectivities of $99.99$%.[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionCOM"}](fig4.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
This is, in absolute value, a monotonically-increasing function of ${\lvert\chi\rvert}$ and is therefore maximized when $\chi$ attains its largest value, $\chi_0\equiv\zeta\,U_{N-1}\bigl(\sqrt{1+\zeta^2}\bigr)=-i\sin\bigl[N\cos^{-1}\bigl(\sqrt{1+\zeta^2}\big)\bigr]$. The ensemble attains this reflectivity for when $kd=kd_0\equiv-\tan^{-1}(\zeta)$ (see [Fig. \[fig:Reflectivity\]]{}). The resulting coupling strength can then be shown to be $$g_\mathrm{com}=g\sqrt{\mathcal{R}/N}\,,$$ where $\mathcal{R}=\chi_0^2\big/\bigl(1+\chi_0^2\bigr)$. The factor of $1/\sqrt{N}$ that is introduced into this expression has a natural explanation: The motional mass of $N$ elements is $Nm$, and therefore the scale of the zero-point-fluctuations is $x_\mathrm{zpt}/\sqrt{N}$. We can draw two immediate conclusions regarding $g_\mathrm{com}$: (i) $g_\mathrm{com}\leq g$, and (ii) $g_\mathrm{com}$ is optimized for $\mathcal{R}\to1$. A plot of the transmission spectrum of a cavity with a $6$-element ensemble inside it is shown in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{} as the position of the ensemble is varied. The gradient of the bright curves at each point gives directly the linear optomechanical coupling strength at that point.\
The essential aim of this paper is to outline a mechanism [@Xuereb2012c] whereby coupling strengths much larger than $g$ can be obtained, despite keeping $\omega_\mathrm{c}$ and $L$ fixed. To do this, we shall now explore the coupling strength to the motion of *individual* elements, rather than to the ensemble as a whole.
Coupling to each individual element in the transmissive regime {#sec:OM:Tran}
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the ensemble attains its peak reflectivity for $d=d_0$, we can see from [Fig. \[fig:Reflectivity\]]{} that its reflectivity is zero at $d=d_{l}$, where each $d_l$ (for real $\zeta$), for $l=1,\dots,N-1$ is defined, modulo $\lambda/2$, by $$d_l\equiv\frac{1}{k}\biggl\{\cos^{-1}\Bigl[\cos(l\pi/N)/\sqrt{1+\zeta^2}\Bigr]-\tan^{-1}(\zeta)\biggr\}\,.$$ We now work with one such inter-element separation and obtain the optomechanical coupling strength, i.e., the shift in cavity resonance frequency due to the motion of each element in the ensemble. To allow one element, say the $j$^th^, to move independently of the rest of the ensemble, we conceptually split the ensemble into three sections: the elements to the ‘left’ of $j$, the $j$^th^ element itself, and the elements to the ‘right’ of $j$. With this logic, the matrix $M_N$ representing the ensemble can be written, for $1\leq j\leq N$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i\mu_1/2}&0\\#3&e^{-i\mu_1/2}\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1+i\chi_1&i\chi_1\\#3&1-i\chi_1\end{bmatrix}}\\
\times{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i(\mu_1/2+\nu+k\delta x_j)}&0\\#3&e^{-i(\mu_1/2+\nu+k\delta x_j)}\end{bmatrix}}\\
\times{\begin{bmatrix}1+i\zeta&i\zeta\\#3&1-i\zeta\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i(\mu_2/2+\nu-k\delta x_j)}&0\\#3&e^{-i(\mu_2/2+\nu-k\delta x_j)}\end{bmatrix}}\\
\times{\begin{bmatrix}1+i\chi_2&i\chi_2\\#3&1-i\chi_2\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}e^{i\mu_2/2}&0\\#3&e^{-i\mu_2/2}\end{bmatrix}}\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\nu=kd_l$, $\mu_1$ and $\chi_1$ describe the ensemble formed by the $n_1=j-1$ membranes to the ‘left’ of the $j$^th^, and $\mu_2$ and $\chi_2$ the one formed by the $n_2=N-j$ membranes to its ‘right’. The displacement of the $j$^th^ element is denoted $\delta x_j$; all other membranes are in their equilibrium position. This small displacement shifts the resonance frequency of the cavity $\omega\to\omega-g_j^{(l)}\delta x_j$, defining $g_j^{(l)}$ as the optomechanical coupling strength for the $j$^th^ element when $d=d_l$. In the transmissive regime, to lowest order in $k\delta x_j$ in each entry, the matrix product above can be written, with the above choice for $\nu$, $${\begin{bmatrix}e^{i\mu}+\alpha\,\delta x_j&\beta\,\delta x_j\\#3&e^{-i\mu}+\alpha^\ast\,\delta x_j\end{bmatrix}}\,,$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are increments of first order in the relevant displacement \[note that the (off-)diagonal terms are complex conjugates of each other; this is different to the case where absorption is nonzero\]. When this matrix is substituted into the equation for the resonance condition, the terms involving ${\text{Re}\!\left\{e^{-i\mu}\alpha\right\}}$ and ${\text{Re}\!\left\{\beta\right\}}$ drop out entirely *for a symmetric system*, such that it suffices to consider only the imaginary part of the increment. Let us reiterate that this happens only because the off-diagonal terms are complex conjugates of each other; were absorption to be nonzero, this would no longer be the case. [Eq. (\[eq:GeneratorEquation\])]{} now simplifies to
![Individual coupling strengths for the case of $6$ elements ($l=1,\dots,5$, top to bottom); the dashed curves are drawn as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:Profiles"}](fig5.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Individual coupling strengths for the case of $6$ elements ($l=1,\dots,5$, top to bottom); the dashed curves are drawn as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:Profiles"}](fig6.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Individual coupling strengths for the case of $6$ elements ($l=1,\dots,5$, top to bottom); the dashed curves are drawn as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:Profiles"}](fig7.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Individual coupling strengths for the case of $6$ elements ($l=1,\dots,5$, top to bottom); the dashed curves are drawn as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:Profiles"}](fig8.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Individual coupling strengths for the case of $6$ elements ($l=1,\dots,5$, top to bottom); the dashed curves are drawn as guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:Profiles"}](fig9.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}
$$\frac{\partial k}{\partial\delta x_j}=-\frac{{\text{Im}\!\left\{\beta+e^{-i\mu}\alpha\right\}}}{L+2d\frac{\partial\chi}{\partial\nu}}\,,$$
with $$\alpha=2ik\zeta\Bigl[e^{i\mu_1}(1+i\chi_1)\chi_2-e^{i\mu_2}\chi_1(1+i\chi_2)\Bigr]\,,$$ and $$\beta=2k\zeta\Bigl[\chi_1\chi_2-(1+i\chi_1)(1-i\chi_2)e^{i(\mu_1-\mu_2)}\Bigr]\,,$$ which we can rewrite, by expressing $\chi_{1,2}$ and $\mu_{1,2}$ in terms of Chebyshev polynomials, as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha&=2ik\zeta^2\Biggl[\frac{(1+\zeta^2)U_{n_1-1}^2(a)U_{n_2-1}(a)}{(1-i\zeta)U_{n_1-1}(a)-e^{i\nu}U_{n_1-2}(a)}\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=2ik\zeta^2\Biggl[}\quad-\frac{(1+\zeta^2)U_{n_2-1}^2(a)U_{n_1-1}(a)}{(1-i\zeta)U_{n_2-1}(a)-e^{i\nu}U_{n_2-2}(a)}\Biggr]\,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\beta&=2k\zeta \biggl\{\zeta^2U_{n_1-1}(a)U_{n_2-1}(a)-\bigl[1+\zeta^2U_{n_1-1}^2(a)\bigr]\nonumber\\
&\phantom{=2k\zeta\biggl\{}\qquad\times\frac{(1-i\zeta)U_{n_2-1}(a)-e^{i\nu}U_{n_2-2}(a)}{(1-i\zeta)U_{n_1-1}(a)-e^{i\nu}U_{n_1-2}(a)}\biggr\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ When $d=d_l$, one can show that these two expressions simplify considerably to yield $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{Im}\!\left\{\beta+e^{-i\mu}\alpha\right\}}&\varpropto\sin\biggl(2l\pi\frac{j-\tfrac{1}{2}}{N}\biggr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ This means that the individual membrane linear optomechanical couplings for the $l$-th transmissive point have a sinusoidal dependence with respect to their position in the array: $$\begin{aligned}
g_j^{(l)}&\varpropto\sin\biggl(2l\pi\frac{j-\tfrac{1}{2}}{N}\biggr)\,,\end{aligned}$$
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements close to the five transmission points; from top to bottom, the figures depict $l=1$ to $l=5$. This figure should be compared to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N/2}$. (Parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionSin"}](fig10.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements close to the five transmission points; from top to bottom, the figures depict $l=1$ to $l=5$. This figure should be compared to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N/2}$. (Parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionSin"}](fig11.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements close to the five transmission points; from top to bottom, the figures depict $l=1$ to $l=5$. This figure should be compared to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N/2}$. (Parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionSin"}](fig12.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements close to the five transmission points; from top to bottom, the figures depict $l=1$ to $l=5$. This figure should be compared to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N/2}$. (Parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionSin"}](fig13.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}\
![Transmission through a cavity with $N=6$ immobile elements close to the five transmission points; from top to bottom, the figures depict $l=1$ to $l=5$. This figure should be compared to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}. $x$ is normalized by a factor $\sqrt{N/2}$. (Parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:TransmissionSin"}](fig14.pdf "fig:"){width="\figurewidth"}
We illustrate the ‘profiles’ of the $g_j^{(l)}$ for $N=6$ in [Fig. \[fig:Profiles\]]{}. As we shall show below, the coupling of the collective motion of the membranes to the cavity field close to the $l$-th transmission point is governed by the constant $$g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}\equiv\sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^N\bigl(g_j^{(l)}\bigr)^2}\,.$$ Plots of the type of [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionSin\]]{}, similarly to [Fig. \[fig:TransmissionCOM\]]{} but shown here for the five sinusoidal modes that can be excited in an ensemble with $N=6$, can be used to numerically extract $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}$ by measuring the gradient of the bright curves. Such data agree very well with the analytic results derived below.
Collective motional-mode treatment: Heisenberg–Langevin formalism
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the preceding section we derived coupling constants $g_j^{(l)}$ that relate the motion of the $j$^th^ element to the resonance frequency of the cavity at the $l$^th^ transmission point. A particular feature of multi-element arrays is that the cavity field couples to a *collective* motion of the elements, with the $g_j^{(l)}$ playing the role of choosing the ‘profile’ of the mode that is coupled to the cavity field, in the spirit of [Fig. \[fig:Profiles\]]{}. To see this, let us describe the motion of the $j$^th^ mechanical element ($1\leq j\leq N$) through the annihilation operator $\hat{b}_j^{(l)}$, which obeys the Heisenberg–Langevin equation of motion [@Giovannetti2001; @Genes2008] $$\tfrac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}t}\hat{b}_j^{(l)}=-(i\omega_\mathrm{m}+\Gamma)\hat{b}_j^{(l)}+\hat{F}_j^{(l)}+\sqrt{2\Gamma}\hat{\xi}_j^{(l)}\,,$$ where $\hat{\xi}_j^{(l)}$ is the relevant Langevin noise term whose properties we leave unspecified. For simplicity, we assume that all the oscillators have identical oscillation frequency $\omega_\mathrm{m}$, decay rate $\Gamma$, and temperature $T$, such that in thermal equilibrium they all have the same average occupation. $\hat{F}_j^{(l)}=g_j^{(l)}\hat{F}^{(l)}$ is a force term due to the action of the cavity, whose exact form is not relevant here. To describe the collective motion, we use the vector $(\tilde{g}_j^{(l)}\equiv g_j^{(l)}/g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)})_j$, which is naturally normalized such that $\sum_{j=1}^N{\bigl(\tilde{g}_j^{(l)}\bigr)^2}=1$, and define: $\hat{b}^{(l)}\equiv\sum_{j=1}^N{\tilde{g}_j^{(l)}\hat{b}_j^{(l)}}$ and $\hat{\xi}^{(l)}\equiv\sum_{j=1}^N{\tilde{g}_j^{(l)}\hat{\xi}_j^{(l)}}$. Thus: $$\tfrac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}t}\hat{b}^{(l)}=-(i\omega_\mathrm{m}+\Gamma)\hat{b}^{(l)}+g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}\hat{F}^{(l)}+\sqrt{2\Gamma}\hat{\xi}^{(l)}\,.$$ Under the assumption that the noise terms $\hat{\xi}_j^{(l)}$ are of a similar nature to one another and are independent (i.e., any cross-correlator between $\hat{\xi}_i^{(l)}$ and $\hat{\xi}_j^{(l)}$ is zero for $i\neq j$), then $\hat{\xi}^{(l)}$ obeys the same correlation functions as each *individual* noise term, because of the normalization of $(\tilde{g}_j^{(l)})_j$, whereupon $\hat{b}^{(l)}$ behaves as a single collective oscillator with decay rate $\Gamma$. Let us remark at this point that our description in terms of this collective mode is one where we merely rotate to a different basis for this $N$-dimensional space, and therefore the correct normalization, necessary for the rotation to be a unitary operation, is indeed $\sum_{j=1}^N{\bigl(\tilde{g}_j^{(l)}\bigr)^2}=1$. Therefore, the dynamics of the cavity–mechanical system can be described entirely through an optomechanical Hamiltonian connecting a single cavity mode to a *single collective mechanical mode* with coupling strength $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}$, mechanical frequency $\omega_\mathrm{m}$, decay rate $\Gamma$, and noise operator $\hat{\xi}^{(l)}$.\
In the next section we investigate some properties of this coupling strength $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}$, and draw general conclusions regarding the optomechanical coupling of a transmissive ensemble.
Transmissive optomechanics
==========================
Thus far, we have derived an expression for the coupling strength of a cavity field to a periodic array of elements whose compound reflectivity is zero at the cavity frequency. In this section we shall derive analytical expressions for the resulting collective optomechanical coupling for the two outermost transmission points $l=1,N-1$. We shall then proceed to discuss one further important consequence of this collective coupling: a linewidth-narrowing effect where the effective linewidth of the cavity resonance decreases over its ‘bare’ value as the number of elements, or their reflectivity, is increased. We will then proceed with an investigation of these effects for the other transmission points.
Enhanced optomechanical coupling
--------------------------------
As discussed above, the coupling of the collective motion of the membranes to the cavity field close to the $l$-th transmission point is governed by the constant $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}$. Setting $l=1$ (essentially the same results will be obtained for $l=N-1$) one can show that, when $\zeta<0$, $$\begin{gathered}
g_j^{(1)}=-2\omega_\mathrm{c}x_0\frac{\zeta\csc\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)\Bigl[\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}-\zeta\Bigr]}{L-2Nd\zeta\csc^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}}\\
\times\sin\biggl(2\pi\frac{j-\tfrac{1}{2}}{N}\biggr)\,.\end{gathered}$$ which yields, for $N=2$, $$\label{eq:gsinN2}
g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}=-g\frac{\sqrt{2}\,\zeta\bigl(\sqrt{1+\zeta^2}-\zeta\bigr)}{1-4\tfrac{d}{L}\zeta\sqrt{1+\zeta^2}}\,,$$ and for $N>2$ $$\label{eq:gsin}
g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}=-g\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{\zeta\csc\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)\Bigl[\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}-\zeta\Bigr]}{1-2N\tfrac{d}{L}\zeta\csc^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}}\,.$$ These two expressions do not agree upon setting $N=2$ in the latter; this anomaly is due to the relation $$\label{eq:NormalisationAnomaly}
\sqrt{\sum_{j=1}^N\sin^2\biggl(2\pi\frac{j-\tfrac{1}{2}}{N}\biggr)}=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{2} & \text{for }N=2\\
\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}} & \text{for}\ N>2
\end{cases}\,.$$ The first thing we note is the fact that $g_\mathrm{sin}$ is no longer bounded above by $g$. Indeed, for large $N$ and ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ but small $d/L$, the expression (\[eq:gsin\]) for $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ simplifies considerably to yield $$\label{eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified}
g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}=g\frac{\tfrac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}\,\zeta^2N^{3/2}}{1+\tfrac{2}{\pi^2}\tfrac{d}{L}\zeta^2N^3}\approx\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}\,g\,\zeta^2N^{3/2}\,.$$ We shall provide numerical examples later to show that $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ can be orders of magnitude larger than $g$. To explore the scaling of $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}/g$ with $N$ we begin by considering a very long cavity ($L\ggg d$) and approximate the denominator of [Eq. (\[eq:gsin\])]{} by $1$, obtaining $$g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}=\sqrt{N/2}g{\lvert\zeta\rvert}\bigl[\sqrt{1+(N\zeta/\pi)^2}-(N\zeta/\pi)\bigr]\,,$$ for large $N$. One can now distinguish between two cases: (i) $(N{\lvert\zeta\rvert}/\pi)\ll1$: $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}/g={\lvert\zeta\rvert}\sqrt{N/2}$, yielding the $\sqrt{N}$-scaling observed in, e.g., atom-cavity optomechanics experiments [@Kruse2003; @Murch2008; @Brennecke2008; @Schleier-Smith2011] that involve large ensembles of very low reflectivity scatterers. The coupling strength is also multiplied by a factor of ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$, which amplifies the interaction when ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}>1$; both these features represent a markedly different behavior from the reflective regime. (ii) $(N{\lvert\zeta\rvert}/\pi)\gg1$, which gives the $N^{3/2}$- and $\zeta^2$-scaling shown in [Eq. (\[eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified\])]{}. This scaling with $N^{3/2}$ is a consequence of the modification of the field mode profile inside the cavity. Indeed, as $N$ increases the fraction of the energy density per photon inside the array increases strongly; an increased optomechanical coupling strength is consistent with this increase of energy density [@Cheung2011]. The former case, on the other hand, corresponds to an essentially unperturbed cavity field mode, where there is no such concentration of energy density, and a weaker scaling with $N$ is therefore observed.\
Similarly, in the behavior of $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}/g$ as a function $\zeta$ for $N=2$ and in the same ‘long cavity’ limit, one can distinguish between two regimes \[cf. [Eq. (\[eq:gsinN2\])]{}, setting the denominator to $1$\]. For ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}\ll1$, $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}/g$ grows linearly with ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ as a consequence of the increased reflectivity of each element. For ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}\gg1$, however, the cavity field mode is modified substantially and is strongly concentrated in the region between the two elements. This concentration grows quickly as a function of ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ and gives rise to a quadratic scaling of $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}/g$ with ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$.\
![Collective coupling strength $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ (blue circles, closed red squares, orange triangles) for a cavity of length $L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$ and several choices of scatterer reflectivity, compared to the center-of-mass coupling strength $g_\mathrm{com}$ (open red squares) and $g$ (green line). For the red, orange, and blue data points we choose a per-element intensity reflectivity of $20$%, $50$%, and $99.4$%, respectively. For the center-of-mass data we illustrate the $N^{-1/2}$ scaling law that applies for large $N$, whereas for the first sinusoidal mode we draw a curve through the data points as a guide to the eye. Throughout this plot we take $d=d_1$, except for the data denoted by the open blue circles, for which $d=d_1+20\lambda$.[]{data-label="fig:Coupling"}](fig15.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
The denominator in the full form of [Eq. (\[eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified\])]{} can be interpreted as an effective renormalization of the cavity length from $L$ to $$L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\equiv L-2Nd\zeta\csc^2\biggl(\frac{\pi}{N}\biggr)\sqrt{\sin^2\biggl(\frac{\pi}{N}\biggr)+\zeta^2}\,;$$ in the same regime as for [Eq. (\[eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified\])]{}, $L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\approx L+\tfrac{2}{\pi^2}d\zeta^2N^3$. We shall discuss the regime in which the effective length is significantly larger than $L$, where an interesting linewidth-narrowing effect occurs, in greater detail in [Sec. \[sec:Trans:LN\]]{} below. We have already seen that for $N$, ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$, and $d/L$ small enough that $L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\approx L$ the coupling strength scales as $\zeta^2N^{3/2}$. On the other hand, when the parameters are such that $L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\gg L$, $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ does not depend on $\zeta$ and decreases as $N^{-3/2}$. We say that, in transitioning between the two scaling laws, $g_\mathrm{sin}$ *saturates* (i.e., reaches a maximum value at some finite value for $N$) before it starts decreasing.\
Optimizing $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ over $N$ for arbitrary $L/d$, in this manner, we obtain $g_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}=\tfrac{1}{2}g\sqrt{L/d}{\lvert\zeta\rvert}$. This expression is valid for ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ that is not too large, since the optimal number of elements must be $>2$. This favorable scaling with both $N$ and ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ is a significant improvement over the state of the art. Close inspection reveals that $g_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$ is proportional to $1\big/\sqrt{Ld}$ and therefore can be improved either by making the main cavity smaller (i.e., decreasing $L$) or, independently, by positioning the elements closer together (decreasing $d$ to a smaller value whilst maintaining the condition of zero reflectivity).\
![(a) Optimal number of elements $N_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$, as a function of the single-element reflectivity. For reflectivities close to $100$%, this number decreases rather quickly to $\lesssim10$. (b) The coupling of the first sinusoidal mode, normalized to $g$, optimized as $N=N_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$ (solid blue curve), compared to the case for $N=2$ (dashed-dotted red) and $g_\mathrm{com}$ (dotted orange). For these plots we used $L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$ and $d=d_1$.[]{data-label="fig:OptElts"}](fig16.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
Alternatively, one may optimize the parameters such that the second term in the denominator of [Eq. (\[eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified\])]{} dominates, i.e., where $L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\gg L$. The coupling strength then takes the approximate form $$\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\,g\frac{L}{d}\,N^{-3/2}\xrightarrow[\ N=2\ ]{}\tfrac{\pi}{2}g_\mathrm{sm}\,,$$ where we have taken the optimal ($N=2$) case and defined $g_\mathrm{sm}\equiv\omega_\mathrm{c}x_\mathrm{zpt}/d$ as the optomechanical coupling strength for a (small) cavity of length $d$ with a single moving mirror. In this regime, therefore, the system acts as a small cavity of length $d$ and is sensitive to relative motion between the two elements but not to the length of the main cavity. [Figure \[fig:Coupling\]]{} illustrates, primarily, the enhancement of optomechanical coupling strength that can be obtained by operating in the transmissive regime as compared to coupling to the center-of-mass motion. Several important observations can be made from this figure. The largest value for $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ increases with ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$; in the figure we show data points for $\zeta=-0.5$ ($20$% intensity reflectivity; red data marked with squares), $\zeta=-1.0$ ($50$%; orange, triangles) and $\zeta=-12.9$ ($99.4$%; blue, circles), the first two of which represents a typical reflectivity for SiN membranes used for optomechanical experiments [@Thompson2008], and the last membranes with increased reflectivity due to the use of sub-wavelength patterning [@Kemiktarak2012; @Kemiktarak2012b]. Secondly, the value of $N$ for which the coupling strength is optimized is highly dependent on the value of $d$; the reflectivity of the array depends on $d\mod(\lambda/2)$, so that one is free to increase the element spacing by integer multiples of half a wavelength without affecting its transmission properties (in the limit of a wavelength-independent reflectivity). However, the coupling strength is sensitive to this increase: The larger $d/L$ is, the earlier the *saturation point* is reached, beyond which increasing $N$ lowers the coupling strength. The figure also illustrates two scaling laws that we derived above. The center-of-mass coupling decreases, for $N\gtrsim3$, as $N^{-1/2}$, whereas the sinusoidal coupling strength $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ scales approximately as $N^{3/2}$ for $N$ large enough, but also small enough to avoid the effects of saturation. These two scaling laws are illustrated by the red dotted curves, drawn as guides to the eye. By contrast, the other curves and all the data points are generated using the full analytical formulae, which are in excellent agreement with numeric calculations.\
In [Fig. \[fig:OptElts\]]{} we study (a) the optimal number of elements required for $l=1$, $N_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$, and (b) the resulting coupling, as a function of the polarizability of each element in the array. For weakly reflective elements, as illustrated in [Fig. \[fig:OptElts\]]{}(a), the coupling only saturates for very large values of $N$, whereas as the reflectivity of the elements increases the optimal number of elements decreases, at first steadily and then quite sharply, until it reaches a point where the coupling strength decreases for $N>2$. This curve is sensitive to the ratio $d/L$; smaller values of this ratio result in larger values for $N_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$. In panel (b), we illustrate the optimized sinusoidal coupling strength (solid blue curve), as well as the coupling strength for $N=2$ (dashed-dotted red) and the center-of-mass coupling (dotted orange). Two immediate observations can be made that are quite general. First, $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}$ may exceed $g_\mathrm{com}$ by several orders of magnitude. Second, in the case of weakly-reflective elements, it is necessary to use rather large values for $N$ to achieve this orders-of-magnitude improvement in coupling strength.
![(a) Coupling strength $g_{\mathrm{sin}}^{(1)}$, normalized to $g$, as a function of the number of elements. Four sets of data are shown. The red diamonds (blue circles) correspond to a single-element reflectivity of $20$% ($99.4$%). Closed (open) symbols represent an inter-element spacing of $d=d_1$ ($d=d_1+20\lambda$). We note that the inter-element separation has a much stronger effect for highly-reflective elements. ($L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$, bare-cavity finesse $\approx\,3\times10^4$.) (b) A similar plot showing the effective cavity linewidth, normalized to the bare-cavity linewidth, obtained in each of the cases displayed in the upper plot. (c) Putting these two together we can calculate the cooperativity, normalized to the single-element cooperativity, and demonstrate an enhancement by several orders of magnitude for the chosen parameters.[]{data-label="fig:LineCoop"}](fig17.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
Linewidth narrowing {#sec:Trans:LN}
-------------------
The saturation phenomenon described above reveals another interesting effect as the number of elements is increased beyond $N_\mathrm{opt}^{(1)}$: The presence of the array inside the cavity acts to narrow the cavity linewidth. The physical basis behind this is rather transparent and relies on two observations. First, the fact that the array is transparent at the cavity resonance frequency means that the finesse of the cavity – which is related to the number of round-trips a photon makes inside the cavity on average – *is unchanged* by its presence. The second observation is that, as we have already noted, [Eq. (\[eq:SinusoidalCouplingSimplified\])]{} reveals that the cavity is effectively lengthened to a length $L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}$. Since the bare-cavity linewidth is $\kappa_\mathrm{c}\varpropto1/(\mathcal{F}L)$, it follows that the linewidth of the cavity is reduced to $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}\varpropto1/(\mathcal{F}L_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)})$. By choosing the right parameters, one can optimize for this linewidth-narrowing effect, [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}(b), to narrow the optical resonance substantially. As several mechanisms in optomechanics, e.g., cooling in the linearized regime, are improved in the so-called ‘resolved sideband’ regime, where $\omega_\mathrm{m}\gg\kappa_\mathrm{c}$, the collective mechanism we describe can result in the condition $\kappa_\mathrm{c}>\omega_\mathrm{m}\gg\kappa_\mathrm{eff}^{(1)}$ being satisfied, thereby improving the performance of these mechanisms in the system.
One other figure of merit that is relevant to several mechanisms is the cooperativity $C=g^2/(\kappa\Gamma)$, i.e., the ratio of the square of the optomechanical coupling strength to the product of the optical and mechanical decay rates, $\kappa$ and $\Gamma$, respectively. For a multi-element system composed of independent oscillators and operating in the transmissive regime, $\Gamma$ is independent of $N$, but $g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)}\sim N^{3/2}$ and $\kappa_\mathrm{c}\sim N^3$ in the appropriate regime; this is illustrated in [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}(a) and (b). The result is a competition between these two factors, yielding a constant cooperativity as $N$ is increased. In [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}(c) we plot the *normalized* cooperativity, i.e., the cooperativity for the $N$-element ensemble divided by that for a single element; the enhancement obtained with the parameters used is of almost $10^7$. Even when absorption is included, an enhancement of several orders of magnitude is still possible [@Xuereb2012c].
Other transmission points
-------------------------
![Coupling strength $g_{\mathrm{sin}}^{(l)}$, normalized to $g$, as a function of $\zeta$, for $N=6$. Three curves are shown: $d=d_1$ (solid red), $d=d_2$ (dashed green), and $d=d_3$ (dotted orange). ($L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$, bare-cavity finesse $\approx\,3\times10^4$.)[]{data-label="fig:ScalingCouplingZeta"}](fig18.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
![(a) Coupling strength $g_{\mathrm{sin}}^{(l)}$, normalized to $g$, (b) effective linewidth, normalized to the bare-cavity linewidth, and (c) cooperativity, normalized to the single-element cooperativity, all plotted as functions of $N$, for $\zeta=-12.9$. Four curves are shown in each panel: $d=d_1$ (solid red), $d=d_3$ (dashed green), $d=d_5$ (dotted orange) and $d=d_7$ (long-dashed blue). The red curve in each part is to be compared to the corresponding solid blue data points in [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}. See also [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD20\]]{}. ($L\approx6.3\times10^4\lambda$, bare-cavity finesse $\approx\,3\times10^4$.)[]{data-label="fig:ScalingD0"}](fig19.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
![Similar to [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}, but the four curves shown in each panel are for: $d=20\lambda+d_1$ (solid red), $d=20\lambda+d_3$ (dashed green), $d=20\lambda+d_5$ (dotted orange) and $d=20\lambda+d_7$ (long-dashed blue). The red curve in each part is to be compared to the corresponding open blue data points in [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}. (Other parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:ScalingD20"}](fig20.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
Let us now turn to the other transmissive points, indexed by $1\leq l\leq N-1$. Analytical expressions for the coupling strength at transmission points other than $l=1,N-1$ could not be derived easily. Within the numerical precision of our simulations, however, we found excellent agreement with the expressions ($N>2$) $$g_\mathrm{sin}^{(l)}=-\mathcal{N}_{N,l}g\frac{\zeta\csc\bigl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\bigr)\Bigl[\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}-\zeta\Bigr]}{1-2N\tfrac{d}{L}\zeta\csc^2\bigl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\bigr)\sqrt{\sin^2\bigl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\bigr)+\zeta^2}}\,,$$ where $$\mathcal{N}_{N,l}=\begin{cases}
\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}} & \text{for }N\neq2l\\
\sqrt{N} & \text{for }N=2l\\
\end{cases}\,,$$ thereby yielding an effective length $$L_\mathrm{eff}^{(l)}\equiv L-2Nd\zeta\csc^2\biggl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\biggr)\sqrt{\sin^2\biggl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\biggr)+\zeta^2}\,.$$ The effective linewidth of the system can then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_\mathrm{eff}^{(l)}&=\frac{c}{2L_\mathrm{eff}^{(l)}}\frac{1}{{\lvertZ\rvert}\sqrt{Z^2+1}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We can use these expressions, confirmed fully by numerical simulations, to analyze the behavior of the coupling strength and cooperativity at the different transmission points.\
[Figure \[fig:ScalingCouplingZeta\]]{} illustrates how the coupling strength of each mode increases as the single-element reflectivity is increased. We note that two of the three depicted curves are degenerate, in the sense that the curve for $l=4$ (not shown) coincides with that for $l=3$, and that for $l=5$ (not shown) with $l=2$. Similar observations hold for different $N$, where $(N-1)/2$ (if $N$ is even) or $N/2-1$ (if $N$ is odd) curves are twofold degenerate. The order of the respective curves is determined by the parameter $d/L$. This shows that the scaling of the coupling strength with $\zeta$ is essentially the same for all the transmission points.\
Let us now examine the scaling with the number of elements for a fixed single-element polarizability. The collective coupling strengths, the effective linewidths, and the resulting normalized cooperativities are shown for various transmission points $d=D+d_l$ in [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{} ($D=0\lambda$) and [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD20\]]{} ($D=20\lambda$). When linewidth-narrowing effects are weak, as in [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}, the coupling strength of the inner transmission points ($1<l<N-1$) is smaller and saturates more slowly than that of the outer ones ($l=1,N-1$) as $N$ increases; see [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}(a). This is due to the fact that the effective cavity length is smaller for these modes, as confirmed by [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}(b). When linewidth-narrowing effects are more pronounced, [Fig. \[fig:ScalingD20\]]{}, this situation can be reversed: the coupling can be stronger for the inner transmission points than for the outer ones. The normalized cooperativity, however, remains largest for the outer transmission points in most such cases.\
One notable feature in these curves is a local maximum, occurring when $N=2l$. A close inspection reveals that these modes are precisely the (only) ones where the direction of motion of the elements alternates, as shown explicitly in the profile for $N=6$ and $l=3$ in [Fig. \[fig:Profiles\]]{}. Mathematically, the feature that gives rise to this anomalous coupling strength is analogous to that pointed out in [Eq. (\[eq:NormalisationAnomaly\])]{} for $l=1$. Our investigation therefore reveals that the excitation of such modes produces a stronger effect on the cavity field than modes with similar $N$ but otherwise identical parameters. A larger spacing between pairs of elements also affects the effective linewidth of the cavity \[see [Figs. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}(b) and \[fig:ScalingD20\](b)\]; the larger the factor $d/L$, the stronger the linewidth-narrowing effect is. Finally, [Figs. \[fig:ScalingD0\]]{}(c) and \[fig:ScalingD20\](c) put these two factors together to show the single-photon cooperativity, normalized to that of a single element inside the same cavity, for the same group of transmission points. We note, in particular, that the abnormally large coupling strengths when $N=2l$ are reflected in the larger cooperativities obtained at these points.
Resilience to imperfections and absorption {#sec:Imp}
==========================================
In this section we address questions regarding the resilience of the mechanism with respect to absorption. The effects of inhomogeneities in the positioning and reflectivity of the individual elements on the achievable couplings and cooperativities were numerically investigated in the Supplemental Information of Ref. [@Xuereb2012c] in the case of the first transmission point. We have checked that a similar sensitivity to deviations from the ideal system is obtained for the other transmission points. The case for absorption, however, is different, since it depends strongly on the transmission point considered.
![Reflectivity (red), transmission (green), and absorption (orange) for $N=6$ elements with an individual reflectivity of ca. $20$% and an absorption of ca. $1.6$% per element. The dashed blue curve is identical to the solid blue curve in [Fig. \[fig:Reflectivity\]]{}. Note that the absorption around the transmissive points is lowest close to $d_{N-1}=d_5$ and highest close to $d_1$.[]{data-label="fig:AbsorptionScan"}](fig21.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
For a nonzero per-element absorption, the largest amount of absorption appears close to the points where the ensemble is transparent. This is shown in [Fig. \[fig:AbsorptionScan\]]{}, where we plot the reflectivity, transmission, and absorption of an ensemble of $6$ elements as the spacing between the elements is scanned; this figure is meant to complement [Fig. \[fig:Reflectivity\]]{}. A general feature is that the absorption is largest at $d_{N-1}$ and rather smaller at $d_1$.\
A systematic study of the effect of absorption on the cavity linewidth is shown in [Fig. \[fig:Absorption\]]{}. The cavity linewidth, both in the presence of absorption and in its absence, is calculated numerically by scanning over, and fitting a Lorentzian to, the cavity resonance. An approximate expression for the linewidth in the presence of absorption can be given by taking into account the optical losses in the ensemble through a *small* nonzero ${\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_\mathrm{eff,abs}^{(l)}&=\frac{c}{2L_\mathrm{eff}^{(l)}}\Biggl(\frac{1}{{\lvertZ\rvert}\sqrt{Z^2+1}}+2A_l\Biggr)\nonumber\\
&=\kappa_\mathrm{eff}^{(l)}\bigl(1+2A_l{\lvertZ\rvert}\sqrt{Z^2+1}\bigr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $A_l$ corresponds to the single-pass absorption for the ensemble around the working point considered, and $\kappa_\mathrm{eff}$ is evaluated with $\zeta\to-{\lvert\zeta\rvert}$. For $d=d_1$, ${\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}\lll1$, $N\geq2$, and $l=1$, $A_1$ is given approximately by $$\begin{aligned}
&2{\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}\sin(\nu)\bigl[\zeta\cos(\nu)+\sin(\nu)\bigr]U_{N-1}^\prime\bigl[\cos(\pi/N)\bigr]\nonumber\\
&\ \approx\frac{2N{\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}}{1-\cos\bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N}\bigr)}\Biggl(\sqrt{1+{\lvert\zeta\rvert}^2}\sin\Biggl\{2\Biggl[\arccos\Biggl(\frac{\cos\bigl(\frac{\pi}{N}\bigr)}{\sqrt{1+{\lvert\zeta\rvert}^2}}\Biggr)\nonumber\\
&\phantom{\!\!\frac{2N{\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}}{1-\cos\bigl(\frac{2\pi}{N}\bigr)}\Biggl(}-\arctan({\lvert\zeta\rvert})\Biggr]-\operatorname{arccot}({\lvert\zeta\rvert})\Biggr\}+1\Biggr)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu=kd_1$ and $U_n^\prime(x)$ is the first derivative of the $n$^th^ Chebyshev polynomial with respect to its argument. Upon substituting this expression for $A_1$, $\kappa_\mathrm{eff,abs}^{(1)}$ agrees with the corresponding numerically-calculated data shown in [Fig. \[fig:Absorption\]]{}. This figure shows explicitly that the effect of absorption decreases for larger inter-element separation, and is stronger for $l=N-1$ than for $l=1$. Indeed, as hinted at by [Fig. \[fig:AbsorptionScan\]]{}, the effect of absorption on the linewidth increases monotonically with $l$; for $l\neq1,N-1$, the respective curve lies in the envelope created by dashed green and dotted orange curves in [Fig. \[fig:Absorption\]]{}. For large $N$ and ${\lvert\zeta\rvert}$ (but ${\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}\lll1$) we find $A_1\approx N{\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}$.
![Effect of absorption on the linewidth, shown normalized to the bare-cavity linewidth, in the case of a single-element reflectivity of $99.4$%. We show $d=D+d_1$ (solid red and dashed green curves), and $d=D+d_{N-1}$ for each $N$ (dotted orange curve), where (a) $D=0\lambda$ and (b) $D=20\lambda$. The solid red curve represents non-absorbing scatterers (${\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}=0$), and the other two curves ${\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}=10^{-5}$. The curves for the two values of $d$ coincide in the absence of absorption. Larger inter-element separations make the system more tolerant to higher levels of absorption. The linewidth of the bare cavity is represented by the horizontal dashed black line. (Bare-cavity finesse $\approx\,3\times10^4$, other parameters as in [Fig. \[fig:LineCoop\]]{}.)[]{data-label="fig:Absorption"}](fig22.pdf){width="\figurewidth"}
For $l\neq1$ we could not derive analytical expressions for $A_l$, but our numerical data is fully consistent with the approximate expression $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{2N{\text{Im}\!\left\{\zeta\right\}}}{1-\cos\bigl(\frac{2l\pi}{N}\bigr)}\Biggl(\sqrt{1+{\lvert\zeta\rvert}^2}\sin\Biggl\{2\Biggl[\arccos\Biggl(\frac{\cos\bigl(\frac{l\pi}{N}\bigr)}{\sqrt{1+{\lvert\zeta\rvert}^2}}\Biggr)\\
-\arctan({\lvert\zeta\rvert})\Biggr]-\operatorname{arccot}({\lvert\zeta\rvert})\Biggr\}+1\Biggr)\,.\end{gathered}$$\
To stay within the frame of the 1D model considered here, a small misalignment in the individual elements can be modeled similarly to absorption, since both effects represent a loss channel for the cavity field. Other detrimental effects of absorption, such as heating, are mitigated by the large coupling strengths obtained, which allow much smaller photon numbers to be used \[$(g_\mathrm{sin}^{(1)})^2\varpropto N^3$ increases faster than the absorbed power as $N$ increases\]. We note also that at large input powers it might be possible to exploit photothermal forces to further enhance, or change the nature of, the collective optomechanical interaction [@Pinard2008; @Restrepo2011; @Metzger2004; @Usami2012; @Xuereb2012b].
Concluding remarks
==================
Transmissive optomechanics presents a departure from traditional optomechanical systems in that the reflectivity of a compound element is purposely engineered to be as close to zero as possible. A wealth of interesting effects exist in this regime, not least (i) the possibility of strongly increasing the optomechanical cooperativity and obtaining strong coupling between a single photon and a single phonon, (ii) the existence of a linewidth-narrowing mechanism that renders the resolved-sideband regime of optomechanics more accessible, (iii) the existence of long-range interactions within optomechanical arrays [@Xuereb2012c], and (iv) the possibility to enhance optomechanical nonlinearities [@Genes2013]. The system we described may be composed of any periodic array of linearly-interacting polarizable scatterers, e.g, an ensemble of macroscopic dielectric scatterers, or even atoms in an optical lattice, and therefore presents a widely-configurable and robust basis for investigating strong and collective effects in optomechanical or electromechanical setups.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge support from the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 (A.X.), Austrian Science Fund (FWF): P24968-N27 and an STSM grant from the COST Action MP1006 “Fundamental problems in quantum physics” (C.G.), and the EU CCQED and PICC projects, and Danish Council for Independent Research under the Sapere Aude program (A.D.). We would also like to thank J. Bateman, K. Hammerer, I. D. Leroux, M. Paternostro, and H. Ritsch for fruitful discussions.
[79]{}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 10.1002/andp.201200226) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10261) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature10461) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10787) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.033602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.133601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature11325) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature12307) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1231282) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature08524) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature08171) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.053603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.053602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083030) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.107.063601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.107.063602) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.051803) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.253601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.063601) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.013603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.013847) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.043809) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.88.120401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.013808) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.91.130401) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physrevlett.93.190402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1209/epl/i2005-10317-6) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/S14) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/10/9/095009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physreva.77.033819) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physreva.78.041801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.101.200503) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physreva.82.012333) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physrevlett.103.100402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.104.033901) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physreva.86.063829) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.87.013839) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.033855) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physrevlett.105.220501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/13/2/023003) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/14/2/023042) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.011801) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.043603) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/055005) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/physreva.86.042306) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.073603) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.104.083901) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nphoton.2010.5) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/ncomms1201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2277) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature10628) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physrevlett.108.240405) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.153001) @noop [ ()]{}, [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.223601) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physreva.52.1394) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.79.053810) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.84.043822) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/095027) [**](\doibase 10.1007/978-3-642-29715-1), Springer Theses (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.023812) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.77.033804) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.67.051802) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys965) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1163218) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.143005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/physreva.84.023812) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature06715) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3684248) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/125010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/10/9/095012) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.crhy.2011.02.005) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature03118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nphys2196) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/14/8/085024)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct a family of iterations for computing the principal square root of a square matrix $A$ using Zolotarev’s rational minimax approximants of the square root function. We show that these rational functions obey a recursion, allowing one to iteratively generate optimal rational approximants of $\sqrt{z}$ of high degree using compositions and products of low-degree rational functions. The corresponding iterations for the matrix square root converge to $A^{1/2}$ for any input matrix $A$ having no nonpositive real eigenvalues. In special limiting cases, these iterations reduce to known iterations for the matrix square root: the lowest-order version is an optimally scaled Newton iteration, and for certain parameter choices, the principal family of Padé iterations is recovered. Theoretical results and numerical experiments indicate that the iterations perform especially well on matrices having eigenvalues with widely varying magnitudes.'
author:
- 'Evan S. Gawlik[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Zolotarev Iterations for the Matrix Square Root[^2]'
---
Matrix square root, rational approximation, Zolotarev, minimax, matrix iteration, Chebyshev approximation, Padé approximation, Newton iteration, Denman-Beavers iteration
65F30, 65F60, 41A20, 49K35
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A well-known method for computing the square root of an $n \times n$ matrix $A$ with no nonpositive real eigenvalues is the Newton iteration [@higham1986newton] $$\label{newton}
X_{k+1} = \frac{1}{2}(X_k + X_k^{-1}A), \quad X_0 = A.$$ In exact arithmetic, the matrix $X_k$ converges quadratically to $A^{1/2}$, the principal square root of $A$ [@higham2008functions Theorem 6.9]. (In floating point arithmetic, mathematically equivalent reformulations of (\[newton\]), such as the Denman-Beavers iteration [@denman1976matrix], are preferred for stability reasons [@higham2008functions Section 6.4].)
If $A$ is diagonalizable, then each eigenvalue $\lambda^{(i)}_k$ of $X_k$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$, obeys a recursion of the form $$\lambda_{k+1}^{(i)} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda_k^{(i)} + \frac{\lambda_0^{(i)}}{\lambda_k^{(i)}}\right),$$ which is the Newton iteration for computing a root of $z^2-\lambda_0^{(i)}=0$. One can thus think of (\[newton\]) as an iteration that, in the limit as $k \rightarrow \infty$, implicitly maps a collection of scalars $\lambda_0^{(i)}$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$, to $\sqrt{\lambda_0^{(i)}}$ for each $i$. In order for each scalar to converge rapidly, it is necessary that the rational function $f_k(z)$ defined recursively by $$\label{rationalnewton}
f_{k+1}(z) = \frac{1}{2}\left(f_k(z) + \frac{z}{f_k(z)}\right), \quad f_0(z) = z$$ converges rapidly to $f(z) = \sqrt{z}$ on the set $\bigcup_{i=1}^n \{\lambda_0^{(i)}\} \subset \mathbb{C}$.
To generalize and improve the Newton iteration, it is natural to study other recursive constructions of rational functions, with the aim of approximating $\sqrt{z}$ on a subset $S \subset \mathbb{C}$ containing the spectrum of $A$. Of particular interest are rational functions that minimize the maximum relative error $$\label{maxerr}
\max_{z \in S} \left|(r(z)-\sqrt{z})/\sqrt{z}\right|$$ among all rational functions $r(z)$ of a given type $(m,\ell)$. By type $(m,\ell)$, we mean $r(z)=p(z)/q(z)$ is a ratio of polynomials $p$ and $q$ of degree at most $m$ and $\ell$, respectively. We denote the set of rational functions of type $(m,\ell)$ by $\mathcal{R}_{m,\ell}$.
On a positive real interval $S$, explicit formulas for the minimizers $r \in \mathcal{R}_{m,m-1}$ and $r \in \mathcal{R}_{m,m}$ of (\[maxerr\]) are known for each $m$. The formulas, derived by Zolotarev [@zolotarev1877applications], are summarized in Section \[sec:background\]. We show in this paper that, remarkably, the minimizers obey a recursion analogous to (\[rationalnewton\]). This fact is intimately connected to (and indeed follows from) an analogous recursion for rational minimax approximations of the function $\mathrm{sign}(z) = z/\sqrt{z^2}$ recently discovered by Nakatsukasa and Freund [@nakatsukasa2016computing].
The lowest order version of the recursion for square root approximants has been known for several decades [@rutishauser1963betrachtungen; @ninomiya1970best] [@braess1986nonlinear Section V.5.C]. Beckermann [@beckermann2013optimally] recently studied its application to matrices. In this paper, we generalize these ideas by constructing a family of iterations for computing the matrix square root, one for each pair of integers $(m,\ell)$ with $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$. We prove that these *Zolotarev iterations* are stable and globally convergent with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$. By writing Zolotarev’s rational functions in partial fraction form, the resulting algorithms are highly parallelizable. Numerical examples demonstrate that the iterations exhibit good forward stability.
The Zolotarev iterations for the matrix square bear several similarities to the Padé iterations studied in [@higham1997stable pp. 231-233], [@higham2005functions Section 6], and [@higham2008functions Section 6.7]. In fact, the Padé iterations can be viewed as a limiting case of the Zolotarev iterations; see Proposition \[prop:pade\]. One of the messages we hope to convey in this paper is that the Zolotarev iterations are often preferable to the Padé iterations when the eigenvalues of $A$ have widely varying magnitudes. Roughly, this can be understood by noting that the Padé approximants of $\sqrt{z}$ are designed to be good approximations of $\sqrt{z}$ near a point, whereas Zolotarev’s minimax approximants are designed to be good approximations of $\sqrt{z}$ over an entire interval. For more details, particularly with regards to how these arguments carry over to the complex plane, see Section \[sec:scalar\].
This paper builds upon a stream of research that, in recent years, has sparked renewed interest in the applications of Zolotarev’s work on rational approximation to numerical linear algebra. These applications include algorithms for the SVD, the symmetric eigendecomposition, and the polar decomposition [@nakatsukasa2016computing]; algorithms for the CS decomposition [@gawlik2018backward]; bounds on the singular values of matrices with displacement structure [@beckermann2017singular]; computation of spectral projectors [@kressner2017fast; @guttel2015zolotarev; @li2017spectrum]; and the selection of optimal parameters for the alternating direction implicit (ADI) method [@wachspress2013adi; @bailly2000optimal]. Zolotarev’s functions have even been used to compute the matrix square root [@hale2008computing], however, there is an important distinction between that work and ours: In [@hale2008computing], Zolotarev’s functions are not used as the basis of an iterative method. Rather, a rational function of $A$ is evaluated once and for all to approximate $A^{1/2}$. As we argue below, recursive constructions of Zolotarev’s functions offer significant advantages over this strategy. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:results\], we state our main results without proof. In Section \[sec:proofs\], we prove these results. In Section \[sec:practical\], we discuss the implementation of the Zolotarev iterations and how they compare with other known iterations. In Section \[sec:numerical\], we evaluate the performance of the Zolotarev iterations on numerical examples.
Statement of Results {#sec:results}
====================
In this section, we state our main results and discuss some of their implications. Proofs are presented in Section \[sec:proofs\].
#### Recursion for rational approximations of $\sqrt{z}$
We begin by introducing a recursion satisfied by Zolotarev’s best rational approximants of the square root function. For each $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, and $\alpha \in (0,1)$, let $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ denote the rational function of type $(m,\ell)$ that minimizes (\[maxerr\]) on $S=[\alpha^2,1]$. Let $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ be the unique scalar multiple of $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ with the property that $$\min_{z \in [\alpha^2,1]} (\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)-\sqrt{z})/\sqrt{z} = 0.$$ The following theorem, which is closely related to [@nakatsukasa2016computing Corollary 4] and includes [@beckermann2013optimally Lemma 1] as a special case, will be proved in Section \[sec:proofs\].
\[thm:rationalzolo\] Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Define $f_k(z)$ recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{k+1}(z) &= f_k(z) \hat{r}_{m,m-1}\left( \frac{z}{f_k(z)^2}, \alpha_k \right), & f_0(z) &= 1, \label{rationalzoloA1} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \frac{\alpha_k}{\hat{r}_{m,m-1}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k)}, & \alpha_0 &= \alpha. \label{rationalzoloA2}\end{aligned}$$ Then, for every $k \ge 1$, $$f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{q,q-1}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1+\alpha_k}{2\alpha_k} r_{q,q-1}(z,\alpha), \quad q = \frac{1}{2}(2m)^k.$$ If instead $$\begin{aligned}
f_{k+1}(z) &= f_k(z) \hat{r}_{m,m}\left( \frac{z}{f_k(z)^2}, \alpha_k \right), & f_0(z) &= 1, \label{rationalzoloB1} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \frac{\alpha_k}{\hat{r}_{m,m}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k)}, & \alpha_0 &= \alpha, \label{rationalzoloB2}\end{aligned}$$ then, for every $k \ge 1$, $$f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{q,q}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1+\alpha_k}{2\alpha_k} r_{q,q}(z,\alpha), \quad q = \frac{1}{2}((2m+1)^k-1).$$
The remarkable nature of these recursions is worth emphasizing with an example. When $m=7$, three iterations of (\[rationalzoloA1\]-\[rationalzoloA2\]) generate (up to rescaling) the best rational approximation of $\sqrt{z}$ of type $(1372,1371)$ on the interval $[\alpha^2,1]$. Not only is this an efficient way of computing $r_{1372,1371}(z,\alpha)$, but it also defies intuition that an iteration involving so few parameters could deliver the solution to an optimization problem (the minimization of (\[maxerr\]) over $\mathcal{R}_{1372,1371}$) with thousands of degrees of freedom.
#### Zolotarev iterations for the matrix square root
Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\] leads to a family of iterations for computing the square root of an $n \times n$ matrix $A$, namely, $$\begin{aligned}
X_{k+1} &= X_k \hat{r}_{m,\ell}(X_k^{-2}A, \alpha_k), & X_0 &= I, \label{zolo1} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \frac{\alpha_k}{\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k)}, & \alpha_0 &= \alpha, \label{zolo2}\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is a positive integer and $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$. We will refer to each of these iterations as a *Zolotarev iteration* of type $(m,\ell)$. (Like the Newton iteration, these iterations are ill-suited for numerical implementation in their present form, but a reformulation renders them numerically stable; see the end of this section). A priori, these iterations would appear to be suitable only for Hermitian positive definite matrices (or, more generally, diagonalizable matrices with positive real eigenvalues) that have been scaled so that their eigenvalues lie in the interval $[\alpha^2,1]$, but in fact they converge for any $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ with no nonpositive real eigenvalues. This is made precise in the forthcoming theorem, which is a generalization of [@beckermann2013optimally Theorem 4] and is related to [@hale2008computing Theorem 4.1].
To state the theorem, we introduce some notation, following [@beckermann2013optimally]. A compact set $S \subseteq \mathbb{C}$ is called $L$-spectral for $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ if $$\|f(A)\|_2 \le L \sup_{z \in S} |f(z)|$$ for every function $f$ analytic in $S$ [@hogben2016handbook Chapter 37]. For instance, the spectrum of $A$ is $1$-spectral for every normal matrix $A$, and the closure of the pseudospectrum $\Lambda_{\epsilon}(A) = \{z \in \mathbb{C} \mid \|(A-zI)^{-1}\|_2 > 1/\epsilon\}$ is $C_\epsilon$-spectral with $C_\epsilon = \mathrm{length}(\partial\Lambda_\epsilon(A))/(2\pi\epsilon)$ for every $A$ [@hogben2016handbook Fact 23.3.5].
For each $\alpha \in (0,1)$, define $$\label{phi}
\varphi(z,\alpha) = \exp\left( \frac{ \pi \mathrm{sn}^{-1}(\sqrt{z}/\alpha; \alpha) }{ K(\alpha') } \right),$$ where $\mathrm{sn}(\cdot;\alpha)$, $\mathrm{cn}(\cdot;\alpha)$, and $\mathrm{dn}(\cdot;\alpha)$ denote Jacobi’s elliptic functions with modulus $\alpha$, $K(\alpha) = \int_0^{\pi/2} (1-\alpha^2 \sin^2\theta)^{-1/2} \, d\theta$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and $\alpha' = \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}$ is the complementary modulus to $\alpha$. Note that the function $\varphi(z,\alpha)$ supplies a conformal map from $\mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])$ to the annulus $\{z \in \mathbb{C} : 1 < |z| < \rho(\alpha)\}$ [@akhiezer1990elements pp. 138-140], where $$\label{rho}
\rho(\alpha) = \exp\left( \frac{\pi K(\alpha)}{K(\alpha')} \right).$$
\[thm:convergence\] Let $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ have no nonpositive real eigenvalues. Suppose that $S \subseteq \mathbb{C} \setminus (-\infty,0]$ is $L$-spectral for $A$. Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, $\alpha \in (0,1)$, and $\gamma = \inf_{z \in S} |\varphi(z,\alpha)|$. For every $k \ge 1$ such that $\max\{2\gamma^{-2(m+\ell+1)^k},4\rho(\alpha)^{-2(m+\ell+1)^k}\} < 1$, the matrix $X_k$ defined by (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\left\| \left( \frac{2\alpha_k}{1+\alpha_k} \right) X_k A^{-1/2} - I \right\|_2 &\le 4 L \gamma^{-(m+\ell+1)^k} + O\left( \gamma^{-2(m+\ell+1)^k} \right). \label{matest}\end{aligned}$$ If $S \subseteq [\alpha^2,1]$, then (\[matest\]) holds with $O\left( \gamma^{-2(m+\ell+1)^k} \right)$ replaced by zero, $\gamma = \rho(\alpha)$, and $k \ge 1$.
\[cor:hermitian\] Let $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ be Hermitian positive definite. If the eigenvalues of $A$ lie in the interval $[\alpha^2,1]$, then $$\left\| \left( \frac{2\alpha_k}{1+\alpha_k} \right) X_k A^{-1/2} - I \right\|_2 \le 4 \rho(\alpha)^{-(m+\ell+1)^k} $$ for every $k \ge 1$.
Note that the error estimates above imply estimates for the relative error in the computed square root $\widetilde{X}_k := 2\alpha_k X_k / (1+\alpha_k)$, since $$\frac{\|\widetilde{X}_k-A^{1/2}\|_2}{\|A^{1/2}\|_2} = \frac{\|(\widetilde{X}_k A^{-1/2} - I) A^{1/2}\|_2}{\|A^{1/2}\|_2} \le \|\widetilde{X}_k A^{-1/2} - I\|_2.$$
#### Connections with existing iterations
It is instructive to examine the lowest order realization of the iteration (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]). When $(m,\ell)=(1,0)$, one checks (using either elementary calculations or the explicit formulas in Section \[sec:background\]) that $$\hat{r}_{1,0}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1}{2}(\alpha^{1/2} + \alpha^{-1/2}z),$$ so that the iteration (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
X_{k+1} &= \frac{1}{2}(\alpha_k^{1/2} X_k + \alpha_k^{-1/2} X_k^{-1} A), & X_0 &= I, \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \frac{2}{\alpha_k^{1/2}+\alpha_k^{-1/2}}, & \alpha_0 &= \alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Equivalently, in terms of $\mu_k := \alpha_k^{1/2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
X_{k+1} &= \frac{1}{2}(\mu_k X_k + \mu_k^{-1} X_k^{-1} A), & X_0 &= I, \label{scaledNewton1} \\
\mu_{k+1} &= \sqrt{\frac{2}{\mu_k+\mu_k^{-1}}}, & \mu_0 &= \alpha^{1/2}. \label{scaledNewton2}\end{aligned}$$ This is precisely the scaled Newton iteration with a scaling heuristic studied in [@beckermann2013optimally]. (In [@beckermann2013optimally], starting values $X_0=A$ and $\mu_0=\alpha^{-1/2}$ are used, but it easy to check that this generates the same sequences $\{X_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ and $\{\mu_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ as (\[scaledNewton1\]-\[scaledNewton2\]).) This iteration has its roots in early work on rational approximation of the square root [@rutishauser1963betrachtungen; @ninomiya1970best], and it is closely linked to the scaled Newton iteration for the polar decomposition introduced in [@byers2008new]. As with the unscaled Newton iteration, reformulating (\[scaledNewton1\]-\[scaledNewton2\]) (e.g., as a scaled Denman-Beavers iteration) is necessary to ensure its numerical stability.
Another class of known iterations for the matrix square root is recovered if one examines the limit as $\alpha \uparrow 1$. Below, we say that a family of functions $\{r(\cdot,\alpha) \in \mathcal{R}_{m,\ell} : \alpha \in (0,1)\}$ converges *coefficient-wise* to a function $p \in \mathcal{R}_{m,\ell}$ as $\alpha \uparrow 1$ if the coefficients of the polynomials in the numerator and denominator of $r(z,\alpha)$, appropriately normalized, approach the corresponding coefficients in $p(z)$ as $\alpha \uparrow 1$.
\[prop:pade\] Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$. As $\alpha \uparrow 1$, $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ converges coefficient-wise to $p_{m,\ell}(z)$, the type $(m,\ell)$ Padé approximant of $\sqrt{z}$ at $z=1$.
Since $p_{m,\ell}(1)=1$, the iteration (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]) formally reduces to $$\label{pade}
X_{k+1} = X_k p_{m,\ell}(X_k^{-2}A), \quad X_0 = A$$ as $\alpha \uparrow 1$. To relate this to an existing iteration from the literature, define $Y_k = X_k^{-1}A$ and $Z_k = X_k^{-1}$. Then, using the mutual commutativity of $X_k$, $Y_k$, $Z_k$, and $A$, we arrive at the iteration $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k+1} &= Y_k q_{\ell,m}( Z_k Y_k), & Y_0 &= A, \label{padecoupled1} \\
Z_{k+1} &= q_{\ell,m}( Z_k Y_k ) Z_k, & Z_0 &= I, \label{padecoupled2}\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{\ell,m}(z) = p_{m,\ell}(z)^{-1}$. Since $q_{\ell,m}(z)$ is the type $(\ell,m)$ Padé approximant of $z^{-1/2}$ at $z=1$, this iteration is precisely the Padé iteration studied in [@higham2005functions Section 6], [@higham1997stable p. 232], and [@higham2008functions Section 6.7]. There, it is shown that $Y_k \rightarrow A^{1/2}$ and $Z_k \rightarrow A^{-1/2}$ with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$ for any $A$ with no nonpositive real eigenvalues. Moreover, the iteration (\[padecoupled1\]-\[padecoupled2\]) is stable [@higham2008functions Theorem 6.12].
#### Stable reformulation of the Zolotarev iterations
In view of the well-established stability theory for iterations of the form (\[padecoupled1\]-\[padecoupled2\]), we will focus in this paper on the following reformulation of the Zolotarev iteration (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]): $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k+1} &= Y_k h_{\ell,m}( Z_k Y_k, \alpha_k), & Y_0 &= A, \label{zolocoupled1} \\
Z_{k+1} &= h_{\ell,m}( Z_k Y_k, \alpha_k ) Z_k, & Z_0 &= I, \label{zolocoupled2} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \alpha_k h_{\ell,m}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k), & \alpha_0 &= \alpha, \label{zolocoupled3}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{\ell,m}(z,\alpha) = \hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)^{-1}$. In exact arithmetic, $Y_k$ and $Z_k$ are related to $X_k$ from (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]) via $Y_k = X_k^{-1}A$, $Z_k = X_k^{-1}$. The following theorem summarizes the properties of this iteration.
\[thm:stability\] Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, and $\alpha \in (0,1)$. For any $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ with no nonpositive real eigenvalues, the iteration (\[zolocoupled1\]-\[zolocoupled3\]) is stable, and $Y_k \rightarrow A^{1/2}$, $Z_k \rightarrow A^{-1/2}$, and $\alpha_k \rightarrow 1$ with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$.
Note that although Theorem \[thm:stability\] places no restrictions on the spectral radius of $A$ nor the choice of $\alpha \in (0,1)$, it should be clear that it is preferable to scale $A$ so that its spectral radius is 1 (or approximately 1), and set $\alpha = \sqrt{|\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}/\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}|}$ (or an estimate thereof), where $\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}$ are the eigenvalues of $A$ with the largest and smallest magnitudes, respectively. See Section \[sec:scalar\] for more details.
Proofs {#sec:proofs}
======
In this section, we present proofs of Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\], Theorem \[thm:convergence\], Proposition \[prop:pade\], and Theorem \[thm:stability\].
Background {#sec:background}
----------
We begin by reviewing a few facts from the theory of rational minimax approximation. For a thorough presentation of this material, see, for example, [@akhiezer1956theory Chapter II] and [@akhiezer1990elements Chapter 9].
#### Rational minimax approximation
Let $S = [a,b]$ be a finite interval. A function $g(z)$ is said to *equioscillate* between $N$ extreme points on $S$ if there exist $N$ points $z_1 < z_2 < \cdots < z_N$ in $S$ at which $$g(z_j) = \sigma (-1)^j \max_{z \in S} |g(z)|, \quad j=1,2,\dots,N,$$ for some $\sigma \in \{-1,1\}$.
Let $f$ and $w$ be continuous, real-valued functions on $S$ with $w>0$ on $S$. Consider the problem of finding a rational function $r \in \mathcal{R}_{p,q}$ that minimizes $$\max_{z \in S} |(r(z)-f(z))w(z)|$$ among all rational functions of type $(p,q)$. It is well-known that this problem admits a unique solution $r^*$ [@akhiezer1956theory p. 55]. Furthermore, the following are sufficient conditions guaranteeing optimality: If $r \in \mathcal{R}_{p,q}$ has the property that $(r(z)-f(z))w(z)$ equioscillates between $p+q+2$ extreme points on $S$, then $r=r^*$ [@akhiezer1956theory p. 55]. (If $S$ is a union of two disjoint intervals, then this statement holds with $p+q+2$ replaced by $p+q+3$ [@nakatsukasa2016computing Lemma 2].)
#### Rational approximation of the sign function
Our analysis will make use of a connection between rational minimax approximants of $\sqrt{z}$ and rational minimax approximants of the function $\mathrm{sign}(z) = z/\sqrt{z^2}$. For $\alpha \in (0,1)$, define $$s_{p,q}(z,\alpha) = \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{s \in \mathcal{R}_{p,q}} \max_{z \in [-1,-\alpha] \cup [\alpha,1]} |s(z)-\mathrm{sign}(z)|$$ and $$\label{errsign}
E_{p,q}(\alpha) = \max_{z \in [-1,-\alpha] \cup [\alpha,1]} |s_{p,q}(z,\alpha)-\mathrm{sign}(z)|.$$ We will be primarily interested in the functions $s_{p,q}$ with $p \in \{2m-1,2m+1\}$ and $q=2m$, for which explicit formulas are known thanks to the seminal work of Zolotarev [@zolotarev1877applications]. Namely, for $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, we have [@akhiezer1956theory p. 286] $$s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha) = M(\alpha) z \frac{\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} (z^2+c_{2j}(\alpha))}{\prod_{j=1}^m (z^2+c_{2j-1}(\alpha))},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_j(\alpha) &= \alpha^2 \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2\left( \frac{jK(\alpha')}{m+\ell+1}; \alpha' \right)}{\mathrm{cn}^2 \left( \frac{jK(\alpha')}{m+\ell+1}; \alpha' \right)}, \label{cj}\end{aligned}$$ and $M(\alpha)$ is a scalar uniquely defined by the condition that $$\min_{z \in [\alpha,1]} \left( s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha) - 1 \right) = -\max_{z \in [\alpha,1]} \left( s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha) - 1 \right).$$
For $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, we denote $$\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha) = E_{2\ell+1,2m}(\alpha),$$ and we use the abbreviation $\varepsilon := \varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)$ whenever there is no danger of confusion. For each $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, it can be shown that on the interval $[\alpha,1]$, $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ takes values in $[1-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon]$ and achieves its extremal values at exactly $m+\ell+2$ points $\alpha = z_0 < z_1 < \dots < z_{m+\ell+1} = 1$ [@akhiezer1956theory p. 286]: $$\label{equipts}
s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z_j,\alpha) - 1 = (-1)^{j+1} \varepsilon, \quad z_j = \alpha \bigg/ \mathrm{dn}\left( \frac{jK(\alpha')}{m+\ell+1}; \alpha' \right), \, j=0,1,\dots,m+\ell+1.$$ Since $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ is odd, it follows that $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z)-\mathrm{sign}(z)$ equioscillates between $2m+2\ell+4$ extreme points on $[-1,-\alpha] \cup [\alpha,1]$, confirming its optimality.
An important role in what follows will be played by the scaled function $$\label{shat}
\hat{s}_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1}{1+\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)} s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha),$$ which has the property that $$\max_{z \in [-1,-\alpha] \cup [\alpha,1]}
|\hat{s}_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)| = 1.$$
#### Rational approximation of the square root function
For each $m$ and each $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, define $$r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha) = (1-\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)) (1+\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)) \frac{\sqrt{z}}{s_{2\ell+1,2m}(\sqrt{z},\alpha)}$$ and $$\label{rhat}
\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1}{1-\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)} r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha).$$ We claim that these definitions are consistent with those in Section \[sec:intro\]. That is, $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ minimizes $$\max_{z \in [\alpha^2,1]} |r(z)/\sqrt{z}-1|$$ among all $r \in \mathcal{R}_{m,\ell}$, and $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ is scaled in such a way that $$\min_{z \in [\alpha^2,1]} (\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z}-1) = 0.$$ Indeed, it is easy to see from the properties of $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ that (denoting $\varepsilon := \varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)$):
1. $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ is a rational function of type $(m,\ell)$.
2. On the interval $[\alpha^2,1]$, $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z}$ takes values in $[1-\varepsilon,1+\varepsilon]$ and achieves its extremal values at exactly $m+\ell+2$ points in $[\alpha^2,1]$ in an alternating fashion.
3. On the interval $[\alpha^2,1]$, $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z}$ takes values in $[1,(1+\varepsilon)/(1-\varepsilon)]$.
It follows, in particular, that $$\max_{z \in [\alpha^2,1]} |r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z}-1| = \varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha).$$ Note that the scaled function $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ is related to the scaled function $\hat{s}_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ in a simple way: $$\label{shatrhat}
\hat{s}_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha) = \frac{z}{\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z^2,\alpha)}.$$
#### Error estimates
The errors (\[errsign\]) are known to satisfy $$E_{p,p}(\alpha) = \frac{2\sqrt{Z_p(\alpha)}}{1+Z_p(\alpha)}$$ for each $p$, where $$Z_p(\alpha) = \inf_{r \in \mathcal{R}_{p,p}} \frac{\sup_{z \in [\alpha,1]}|r(z)|}{\inf_{z \in [-1,-\alpha]}|r(z)|}$$ is the *Zolotarev number* of the sets $[-1,-\alpha]$ and $[\alpha,1]$ [@beckermann2017singular p. 9]. An explicit formula for $Z_p(\alpha)$ is given in [@beckermann2017singular Theorem 3.1]. For our purposes, it is enough to know that $Z_p(\alpha)$ obeys an asymptotically sharp inequality [@beckermann2017singular Corollary 3.2] $$Z_p(\alpha) \le 4 \rho(\alpha)^{-2p},$$ where $\rho(\alpha)$ is given by (\[rho\]). This, together with the fact that $E_{p,p}=E_{2\floor{(p-1)/2}+1,2\floor{p/2}}$ for every $p$ [@beckermann2017singular p. 22], shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{m,m-1}(\alpha) &= E_{2m-1,2m}(\alpha) = E_{2m,2m}(\alpha) \le 2\sqrt{Z_{2m}(\alpha)} \le 4 \rho(\alpha)^{-2m}, \label{epsilonmm-1} \\
\varepsilon_{m,m}(\alpha) &= E_{2m+1,2m}(\alpha) = E_{2m+1,2m+1}(\alpha) \le 2\sqrt{Z_{2m+1}(\alpha)} \le 4 \rho(\alpha)^{-(2m+1)}, \label{epsilonmm}\end{aligned}$$ and these bounds are asymptotically sharp. (The upper bound for $\varepsilon_{m,m-1}(\alpha)$ also appears in [@braess1986nonlinear p. 151, Theorem 5.5].)
Proofs {#proofs}
------
#### Proof of Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\]
To prove Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\], it will be convenient to introduce the notation $$\hat{s}_{2m} := \hat{s}_{2m-1,2m}, \quad \hat{r}_{2m} := \hat{r}_{m,m-1}, \quad \varepsilon_{2m} := \varepsilon_{m,m-1},$$ and $$\hat{s}_{2m+1} := \hat{s}_{2m+1,2m}, \quad \hat{r}_{2m+1} := \hat{r}_{m,m}, \quad \varepsilon_{2m+1} := \varepsilon_{m,m}.$$ In this notation, the relation (\[shatrhat\]) takes the form $$\hat{s}_p(z,\alpha) = \frac{z}{\hat{r}_p(z^2,\alpha)}$$ for every $p$. Equivalently, $$\hat{r}_p(z,\alpha) = \frac{\sqrt{z}}{\hat{s}_p(\sqrt{z},\alpha)}.$$ In addition, the relation (\[rhat\]) takes the form $$\label{rhat2}
\hat{r}_p(z,\alpha) = \frac{1}{1-\varepsilon_p(\alpha)} r_p(z,\alpha).$$
It has been shown in [@nakatsukasa2016computing Corollary 4] that if $p$ is odd and a sequence of scalars $\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\dots$ is defined inductively by $$\label{alphaupdate}
\alpha_{k+1} = \hat{s}_{p}(\alpha_k,\alpha_k), \quad \alpha_0 = \alpha,$$ then $$\label{shatrecursion}
\hat{s}_{p^{k+1}}(z,\alpha) = \hat{s}_p(\hat{s}_{p^k}(z,\alpha), \alpha_k)$$ for every $k \ge 1$. As remarked in [@nakatsukasa2016computing], a nearly identical proof shows that this holds also if $p$ is even.
Now suppose that $f_k(z)$ is defined recursively by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{k+1}(z) &= f_k(z) \hat{r}_p\left( \frac{z}{f_k(z)^2}, \alpha_k \right), & f_0(z) &= 1, \label{rationalzoloAB1} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \frac{\alpha_k}{\hat{r}_p(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k)}, & \alpha_0 &= \alpha. \label{rationalzoloAB2}\end{aligned}$$ We will show that $f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{p^k}(z,\alpha) = \sqrt{z}/\hat{s}_{p^k}(\sqrt{z},\alpha)$ for every $k \ge 1$ by induction. Note that (\[rationalzoloAB2\]) generates the same sequence of scalars as (\[alphaupdate\]), and clearly $f_1(z) = \hat{r}_{p}(z,\alpha)$. If $f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{p^k}(z,\alpha)$ for some $k$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{r}_{p^{k+1}}(z,\alpha)
&= \frac{\sqrt{z}}{\hat{s}_{p^{k+1}}(\sqrt{z},\alpha)} \\
&= \frac{\sqrt{z}}{\hat{s}_p(\hat{s}_{p^k}(\sqrt{z},\alpha),\alpha_k)} \\
&= \frac{\sqrt{z}}{\hat{s}_{p}(\sqrt{z}/f_k(z),\alpha_k)} \\
&= \frac{\sqrt{z}}{\frac{\sqrt{z}/f_k(z)}{\hat{r}_{p}(z/f_k(z)^2,\alpha_k)}} \\
&= f_k(z) \hat{r}_{p}(z/f_k(z)^2,\alpha_k) \\
&= f_{k+1}(z),\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
If $p$ is even, i.e. $p=2m$ for some $m$, then $\hat{r}_p = \hat{r}_{m,m-1}$, and (\[rationalzoloAB1\]-\[rationalzoloAB2\]) is equivalent to (\[rationalzoloA1\]-\[rationalzoloA2\]). Letting $q = \frac{1}{2}(2m)^k$ so that $2q = (2m)^k = p^k$, we conclude that $$f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{2q}(z,\alpha) = \hat{r}_{q,q-1}(z,\alpha), \quad q = \frac{1}{2}(2m)^k.$$
On the other hand, if $p$ is odd, i.e. $p=2m+1$ for some $m$, then $\hat{r}_p = \hat{r}_{m,m}$, and (\[rationalzoloAB1\]-\[rationalzoloAB2\]) is equivalent to (\[rationalzoloB1\]-\[rationalzoloB2\]). Letting $q = \frac{1}{2}((2m+1)^k-1)$ so that $2q+1 = (2m+1)^k = p^k$, we conclude that $$f_k(z) = \hat{r}_{2q+1}(z,\alpha) = \hat{r}_{q,q}(z,\alpha), \quad q = \frac{1}{2}((2m+1)^k-1).$$
It remains to prove that $\hat{r}_{p^k}(z,\alpha) = \left(\frac{1+\alpha_k}{2\alpha_k}\right) r_{p^k}(z,\alpha)$ for every $k \ge 1$. In view of (\[rhat2\]), this is equivalent to proving that $$\label{alphaeps}
\alpha_k = \frac{1-\varepsilon_{p^k}(\alpha)}{1+\varepsilon_{p^k}(\alpha)}.$$ From (\[equipts\]) and (\[shat\]), we know that $$\hat{s}_{p^k}(\alpha,\alpha) = \frac{1-\varepsilon_{p^k}(\alpha)}{1+\varepsilon_{p^k}(\alpha)},$$ so it suffices to show that $$\label{alphakformula}
\alpha_k = \hat{s}_{p^k}(\alpha,\alpha)$$ for every $k \ge 1$. We prove this by induction. The base case is clear, and if (\[alphakformula\]) holds for some $k$, then, upon applying (\[alphaupdate\]) and (\[shatrecursion\]) with $z=\alpha$, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{k+1}
&= \hat{s}_{p}(\alpha_k,\alpha_k) \\
&= \hat{s}_{p}(\hat{s}_{p^k}(\alpha,\alpha), \alpha_k) \\
&= \hat{s}_{p^{k+1}}(\alpha,\alpha).\end{aligned}$$
#### Proof of Theorem \[thm:convergence\]
Theorem \[thm:convergence\] is a consequence of the following lemma, which we will prove in nearly the same way that Beckermann proves [@beckermann2013optimally Theorem 4].
\[lemma:scalarerr\] Let $m \in \mathbb{N}$, $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$, $\alpha \in (0,1)$, and $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])$. If $\max\{2|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-2(m+\ell+1)},4\rho(\alpha)^{-2(m+\ell+1)}\} < 1$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z}-1| &\le \frac{4|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-(m+\ell+1)} + 8\rho(\alpha)^{-2(m+\ell+1)}}{\left(1-2|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-2(m+\ell+1)}\right)\left(1-4\rho(\alpha)^{-2(m+\ell+1)} \right)} \\&= 4|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-(m+\ell+1)} + O\left(|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-2(m+\ell+1)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi(z,\alpha)$ and $\rho(\alpha)$ are given by (\[phi\]) and (\[rho\]).
#### Remark
When $z \in [\alpha^2,1]$, the slightly sharper bound $$|r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z} - 1| \le 4\rho(\alpha)^{-(m+\ell+1)}$$ holds in view of (\[epsilonmm-1\]-\[epsilonmm\]).
With $Z:=Z_{m+\ell+1}(\alpha)$, let $$R(z) = \frac{1 - \left(\frac{1+Z}{1-Z}\right)s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)}{1 + \left(\frac{1+Z}{1-Z}\right)s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)}.$$ Since $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ takes values in $[1-2\sqrt{Z}/(1+Z),1+2\sqrt{Z}/(1+Z)]$ on the interval $[\alpha,1]$, $R(z)$ takes values in $[-\sqrt{Z},\sqrt{Z}]$ on $[\alpha,1]$. On the other hand, since $s_{2\ell+1,2m}(z,\alpha)$ is purely imaginary for $z \in i\mathbb{R}$, $|R(z)|=1$ for $z \in i\mathbb{R}$.
Recall that $\varphi(z,\alpha)$ supplies a conformal map from $\mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])$ to the annulus $\{z \in \mathbb{C} : 1 < |z| < \rho(\alpha)\}$. Thus, by the maximum principle, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])} |\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{m+\ell+1} |R(\sqrt{z})|
&= \sup_{z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])} |\varphi(z,\alpha)^{m+\ell+1} R(\sqrt{z})| \\
&= \sup_{w \in i\mathbb{R} \cup [\alpha,1]} |\varphi(w^2,\alpha)^{m+\ell+1} R(w)| \\
&\le \max\{1,\rho(\alpha)^{m+\ell+1} \sqrt{Z}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\label{Zbound}
Z = Z_{m+\ell+1}(\alpha) \le 4\rho(\alpha)^{-2(m+\ell+1)},$$ it follows that $$\label{Rbound}
|R(\sqrt{z})| \le 2|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-(m+\ell+1)}$$ for every $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus ((-\infty,0] \cup [\alpha^2,1])$.
Now observe that $$r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha) = \frac{\sqrt{z}}{s_{2\ell+1,2m}(\sqrt{z},\alpha)} = \left( \frac{1+Z}{1-Z} \right) \left( \frac{1+R(\sqrt{z})}{1-R(\sqrt{z})} \right) \sqrt{z},$$ so $$\begin{aligned}
r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z} - 1
&= \frac{2(R(\sqrt{z})+Z)}{(1-Z)(1-R(\sqrt{z}))}.\end{aligned}$$ Invoking (\[Zbound\]-\[Rbound\]) completes the proof.
#### Proof of Proposition \[prop:pade\]
It is straightforward to deduce from [@higham2008functions Theorem 5.9] the following explicit formula for the type $(m,\ell)$ Padé approximant of $\sqrt{z}$ at $z=1$ for $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$: $$p_{m,\ell}(z) = \sqrt{z} \frac{(1+\sqrt{z})^{m+\ell+1} + (1-\sqrt{z})^{m+\ell+1}}{(1+\sqrt{z})^{m+\ell+1} - (1-\sqrt{z})^{m+\ell+1}}.$$ It is then easy to check by direct substitution that the roots and poles of $p_{m,\ell}(z)$ are $\left\{ -\tan^2\left(\frac{(2j-1)\pi}{2(m+\ell+1)}\right) \right\}_{j=1}^m$ and $\left\{ -\tan^2\left(\frac{j\pi}{m+\ell+1}\right) \right\}_{j=1}^\ell$, respectively. On the other hand, the roots and poles of $$\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha) = \frac{1+\varepsilon_{m,\ell}(\alpha)}{M(\alpha)} \frac{\prod_{j=1}^{m} (z+c_{2j-1}(\alpha))}{\prod_{j=1}^{\ell} (z+c_{2j}(\alpha))}$$ are $\{c_{2j-1}(\alpha)\}_{j=1}^m$ and $\{c_{2j}(\alpha)\}_{j=1}^\ell$, respectively, where $c_j(\alpha)$ is given by (\[cj\]). These approach the roots and poles of $p_{m,\ell}(z)$, since the identities $K(0)=\pi/2$, $\mathrm{sn}(z,0)=\sin z$, and $\mathrm{cn}(z,0)=\cos z$ imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\alpha \uparrow 1} c_j(\alpha) &= \tan^2\left(\frac{j\pi}{2(m+\ell+1)}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The proof is completed by noting that $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}$ is scaled in such a way that $\lim_{\alpha \uparrow 1} \hat{r}_{m,\ell}(1,\alpha)=1=p_{m,\ell}(1)$.
#### Remark
Alternatively, Proposition \[prop:pade\] can be proved by appealing to a general result concerning the convergence of minimax approximants to Padé approximants [@trefethen1985convergence]. We showed above that $p_{m,\ell}(z)$ is nondegenerate (it has exactly $m$ roots and $\ell$ poles), so Theorem 3b of [@trefethen1985convergence] implies that $r_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$ (and hence $\hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)$) converges coefficient-wise to $p_{m,\ell}(z)$ as $\alpha \uparrow 1$.
#### Proof of Theorem \[thm:stability\]
It is clear from (\[alphaeps\]) and (\[epsilonmm-1\]-\[epsilonmm\]) that $\alpha_k \rightarrow 1$ with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$. Now let $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ have no nonpositive real eigenvalues. For $\epsilon > 0 $ sufficiently small, the pseudo-spectrum $\Lambda_\epsilon(A)$ is compactly contained in $\mathbb{C} \setminus (\infty,0]$, so $\sup_{z \in \overline{\Lambda_\epsilon(A)}} |\varphi(z,\alpha)| > 1$. Since $\overline{\Lambda_\epsilon(A)}$ is a spectral set for $A$, we conclude from Theorem \[thm:convergence\] that $X_k \rightarrow A^{1/2}$ with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$ in the iteration (\[zolo1\]-\[zolo2\]). Since $Y_k = X_k^{-1} A$ and $Z_k = X_k^{-1}$ in (\[zolocoupled1\]-\[zolocoupled3\]), it follows that $Y_k \rightarrow A^{1/2}$ and $Z_k \rightarrow A^{-1/2}$ with order of convergence $m+\ell+1$. Stability follows easily from the fact that (\[zolocoupled1\]-\[zolocoupled3\]) reduces to the stable Padé iteration (\[padecoupled1\]-\[padecoupled2\]) as $\alpha_k \rightarrow 1$. (Indeed, in finite-precision arithmetic, there is an integer $K$ such that the computed $\alpha_k$ is rounded to $1$ for every $k \ge K$.)
Practical Considerations {#sec:practical}
========================
In this section, we discuss the implementation of the Zolotarev iterations, strategies for terminating the iterations, and computational costs.
Implementation
--------------
To implement the Zolotarev iteration (\[zolocoupled1\]-\[zolocoupled3\]), we advocate the use of a partial fraction expansion of $h_{\ell,m}(\cdot,\alpha)$. since it enhances parellelizability and, in our experience, tends to improve stability. In partial fraction form, $h_{\ell,m}(z,\alpha) = \hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)^{-1}$ for $\ell \in \{m-1,m\}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
h_{m-1,m}(z,\alpha) &= \hat{M}(\alpha) \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{a_j(\alpha)}{z+c_{2j-1}(\alpha)}, \label{hm-1m} \\
h_{m,m}(z,\alpha) &= \hat{N}(\alpha) \left( 1 + \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{a_j(\alpha)}{z+c_{2j-1}(\alpha)} \right), \label{hmm}\end{aligned}$$ where $$a_j(\alpha) = -\prod_{p=1}^{\ell} (c_{2p}(\alpha) - c_{2j-1}(\alpha)) \bigg/ \prod_{\substack{p=1\\p\neq j}}^{m} (c_{2p-1}(\alpha)-c_{2j-1}(\alpha)),$$ and $\hat{M}(\alpha)$ and $\hat{N}(\alpha)$ are scalars determined uniquely by the condition that $$\min_{z \in [\alpha^2,1]} (h_{\ell,m}(z,\alpha)^{-1}/\sqrt{z} - 1) = 0.$$ For the reader’s benefit, we recall here that $$c_j(\alpha) = \alpha^2 \frac{\mathrm{sn}^2\left( \frac{jK(\alpha')}{m+\ell+1}; \alpha' \right)}{\mathrm{cn}^2 \left( \frac{jK(\alpha')}{m+\ell+1}; \alpha' \right)},$$ where $\mathrm{sn}(\cdot;\alpha)$, $\mathrm{cn}(\cdot;\alpha)$, and $\mathrm{dn}(\cdot;\alpha)$ denote Jacobi’s elliptic functions with modulus $\alpha$, $K(\alpha) = \int_0^{\pi/2} (1-\alpha^2 \sin^2\theta)^{-1/2} \, d\theta$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and $\alpha' = \sqrt{1-\alpha^2}$ is the complementary modulus to $\alpha$. Note that $c_j(\alpha)$ and $a_j(\alpha)$ depend implicitly on $m$ and $\ell$. In particular, $a_j(\alpha)$ and $c_{2j-1}(\alpha)$ have different values in (\[hm-1m\]) (where $\ell=m-1$) than they do in (\[hmm\]) (where $\ell=m$).
Since the locations of the minima of $h_{\ell,m}(z,\alpha)^{-1}/\sqrt{z} = \hat{r}_{m,\ell}(z,\alpha)/\sqrt{z} = \linebreak \hat{s}_{2\ell+1,2m}(\sqrt{z},\alpha)^{-1}$ follow from (\[equipts\]), one can obtain explicit expressions for $\hat{M}(\alpha)$ and $\hat{N}(\alpha)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{M}(\alpha) &= \left( \sqrt{\zeta} \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{a_j(\alpha)}{\zeta+c_{2j-1}(\alpha)} \right)^{-1}, \quad \zeta = \alpha^2 \bigg/ \mathrm{dn}^2\left( \frac{K(\alpha')}{2m}; \alpha' \right), \\
\hat{N}(\alpha) &= \left( 1 + \sum_{j=1}^m \frac{a_j(\alpha)}{1+c_{2j-1}(\alpha)} \right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
Note that accurate evaluation of $K(\alpha')$, $\mathrm{sn}(\cdot;\alpha')$, $\mathrm{cn}(\cdot;\alpha')$, and $\mathrm{dn}(\cdot;\alpha')$ in floating point arithmetic is a delicate task when $\alpha' \approx 1 \iff \alpha \approx 0$ [@nakatsukasa2016computing Section 4.3]. Rather than using the built-in MATLAB functions `ellipj` and `ellipke` to evaluate these elliptic functions, we recommend using the code described in [@nakatsukasa2016computing Section 4.3], which is tailored for our application.
Written in full, the Zolotarev iteration (\[zolocoupled1\]-\[zolocoupled3\]) of type $(m,m-1)$[^3] reads $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k+1} &= \hat{M}(\alpha_k) \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) Y_k (Z_k Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I)^{-1}, & Y_0 &= A, \label{zoloA1full} \\
Z_{k+1} &= \hat{M}(\alpha_k) \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) (Z_k Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I)^{-1} Z_k, & Z_0 &= I, \label{zoloA2full} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \alpha_k h_{m-1,m}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k), & \alpha_0 &= \alpha, \label{zoloA3full}\end{aligned}$$ and the Zolotarev iteration of type $(m,m)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k+1} &= \hat{N}(\alpha_k) \left( Y_k + \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) Y_k (Z_k Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I)^{-1} \right), & Y_0 &= A, \label{zoloB1full} \\
Z_{k+1} &= \hat{N}(\alpha_k) \left(Z_k + \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) (Z_k Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I)^{-1} Z_k \right), & Z_0 &= I, \label{zoloB2full} \\
\alpha_{k+1} &= \alpha_k h_{m,m}(\alpha_k^2,\alpha_k), & \alpha_0 &= \alpha. \label{zoloB3full}\end{aligned}$$ As alluded to earlier, a suitable choice for $\alpha$ is $\alpha = \sqrt{|\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}(A) / \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A)|}$ (or an estimate thereof), and it important to scale $A$ so that its spectral radius is $1$ (or approximately 1).
Floating Point Operations
-------------------------
The computational costs of the Zolotarev iterations depend on the precise manner in which they are implemented. One option is compute $Z_k Y_k$ (1 matrix multiplication), obtain $h_{\ell,m}(Z_k Y_k,\alpha_k)$ by computing $(Z_k Y_k + c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I)^{-1}$ for each $j$ ($m$ matrix inversions), and multiply $Y_k$ and $Z_k$ by $h_{\ell,m}(Z_k Y_k,\alpha_k)$ (2 matrix multiplications). An alternative that is better suited for parallel computations is to compute $Z_k Y_k$ (1 matrix multiplication), compute the LU factorization $L_j U_j = Z_k Y_k + c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)I$ for each $j$ ($m$ LU factorizations), and perform $m$ “right divisions by a factored matrix” $Y_k (L_j U_j)^{-1}$ and $m$ “left divisions by a factored matrix” $(L_j U_j)^{-1} Z_k$ via forward and back substitution. In parallel, all $m$ LU factorizations can be performed simultaneously, and all $2m$ divisions by factored matrices can be performed simultaneously, so that the effective cost per iteration is $\frac{14}{3}n^3$ flops. In the first iteration, the cost reduces to $\frac{8}{3}n^3$ flops since $Z_0=I$. The total effective cost for $k$ iterations is $(\frac{8}{3}+\frac{14}{3}(k-1))n^3$ flops, which is less than the (serial) cost of a direct method, $28\frac{1}{3}n^3$ flops [@higham2008functions p. 136], whenever $k \le 6$. Yet another alternative is to write (\[zoloA1full\]-\[zoloA2full\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{k+1} &= \hat{M}(\alpha_k) \left( \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) Y_k (Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)Z_k^{-1})^{-1} \right) Z_k^{-1}, & Y_0 &= A, \label{zoloA1alt} \\
Z_{k+1} &= \hat{M}(\alpha_k) \sum_{j=1}^m a_j(\alpha_k) (Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)Z_k^{-1})^{-1}, & Z_0 &= I, \label{zoloA2alt}\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for (\[zoloB1full\]-\[zoloB2full\]). Interestingly, this form of the iteration has exhibited the best accuracy in our numerical experiments, for reasons that are not well understood. It can be parallelized by performing the $m$ right divisions $Y_k (Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)Z_k^{-1})^{-1}$ and $m$ inversions $(Y_k+c_{2j-1}(\alpha_k)Z_k^{-1})^{-1}$ simultaneously, recycling LU factorizations in the obvious way. Moreover, the final multiplication by $Z_k^{-1}$ in (\[zoloA1alt\]) can be performed in parallel with the inversion of $Z_{k+1}$. The effective cost in such a parallel implementation is $\frac{14}{3}kn^3$ flops.
Termination Criteria
--------------------
We now consider the question of how to terminate the iterations. Define $\widetilde{X}_k = 2\alpha_k X_k / (1+\alpha_k)$, $\widetilde{Y}_k = (1+\alpha_k) Y_k / (2\alpha_k)$, and $\widetilde{Z}_k = (1+\alpha_k) Z_k / (2\alpha_k)$. Since $\widetilde{X}_k$, $\widetilde{Y}_k$, $\widetilde{Z}_k$, and $A$ commute with one another, and since $\widetilde{Y}_k = \widetilde{X}_k^{-1} A$ and $\widetilde{Z}_k = \widetilde{X}_k^{-1} = \widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1}$, it is easy to verify that $$(\widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I) + (\widetilde{Z}_k A^{1/2}-I) = (\widetilde{Z}_k \widetilde{Y}_k - I) - (\widetilde{Z}_k A^{1/2}-I) (\widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I)$$ and $$\widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I = (I - \widetilde{X}_k A^{-1/2}) + (\widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I) (I - \widetilde{X}_k A^{-1/2}).$$ By dropping second order terms, we see that near convergence, $$\label{err_relations}
I - \widetilde{X}_k A^{-1/2}.\approx \widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I = \widetilde{Z}_k A^{1/2}-I \approx \frac{1}{2} (\widetilde{Z}_k \widetilde{Y}_k - I).$$ The relative errors $\frac{\|\widetilde{Y}_k-A^{1/2}\|}{\|A^{1/2}\|} \le \|\widetilde{Y}_k A^{-1/2}-I\|$ and $\frac{\|\widetilde{Z}_k-A^{-1/2}\|}{\|A^{-1/2}\|} \le \|\widetilde{Z}_k A^{1/2}-I\|$ will therefore be (approximately) smaller than a tolerance $\delta>0$ so long as $$\label{ZY-I}
\|\widetilde{Z}_k \widetilde{Y}_k - I\| \le 2\delta.$$
While theoretically appealing, the criterion (\[ZY-I\]) is not ideal for computations for two reasons. It costs an extra matrix multiplication in the last iteration, and, more importantly, (\[ZY-I\]) may never be satisfied in floating point arithmetic. A cheaper, more robust option is to approximate $\|\widetilde{Z}_k \widetilde{Y}_k - I\|$ based on the value of $\|\widetilde{Z}_{k-1} \widetilde{Y}_{k-1} - I\|$ as follows. In view of (\[err\_relations\]) and Theorem \[thm:convergence\], we have $$\|\widetilde{Z}_k \widetilde{Y}_k - I\|_2 \lessapprox 8 L \gamma^{-(m+\ell+1)^k}$$ for some constants $L \ge 1$ and $\gamma > 1$. Denoting $e_k := 8 L \gamma^{-(m+\ell+1)^k}$, we have $$e_k \le 2\delta \iff e_{k-1} \le 8L \left( \frac{\delta}{4L} \right)^{1/(m+\ell+1)}.$$ This suggests that we terminate the iteration and accept $\widetilde{Y}_k$ and $\widetilde{Z}_k$ as soon as $$\|\widetilde{Z}_{k-1} \widetilde{Y}_{k-1} - I\|_2 \le 8L \left( \frac{\delta}{4L} \right)^{1/(m+\ell+1)}.$$ In practice, $L$ is not known, and it may be preferable to use a different norm, so we advocate terminating when $$\label{termination1}
\|\widetilde{Z}_{k-1} \widetilde{Y}_{k-1} - I\| \le 8 \left( \frac{\delta}{4} \right)^{1/(m+\ell+1)},$$ where $\delta$ is a relative error tolerance with respect to a desired norm $\|\cdot\|$. Note that this test comes at no additional cost if the product $\widetilde{Z}_{k-1} \widetilde{Y}_{k-1}$ was computed at iteration $k-1$. If $\widetilde{Z}_{k-1}^{-1}$ is known but $\widetilde{Z}_{k-1} \widetilde{Y}_{k-1}$ is not (as is the case when (\[zoloA1alt\]-\[zoloA2alt\]) is used), then we have found the following criterion, which is inspired by [@higham2008functions Equation 6.31], to be an effective alternative: $$\label{termination2}
\|\widetilde{Y}_k-\widetilde{Y}_{k-1}\| \le \left( \delta \frac{\|\widetilde{Y}_k\|}{\|A^{-1}\|\|\widetilde{Z}_{k-1}^{-1}\|} \right)^{1/(m+\ell+1)}.$$ In either case, we recommend also terminating the iteration if the relative change in $\widetilde{Y}_k$ is small but fails to decrease significantly, e.g., $$\label{reldiff}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{\|\widetilde{Y}_{k-1}-\widetilde{Y}_{k-2}\|}{\|\widetilde{Y}_{k-1}\|} \le \frac{\|\widetilde{Y}_k-\widetilde{Y}_{k-1}\|}{\|\widetilde{Y}_k\|} \le 10^{-2}.$$
Numerical Examples {#sec:numerical}
==================
In this section, we study the performance of the Zolotarev iterations with numerical experiments.
Scalar Iteration {#sec:scalar}
----------------
To gain some intuition behind the behavior of the Zolotarev iteration for the matrix square root, we begin by investigating the behavior of its scalar counterpart.
Lemma \[lemma:scalarerr\] shows that if $f_k(z)$ and $\alpha_k$ are defined as in Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\], then $$\left| \left(\frac{2\alpha_k}{1+\alpha_k}\right) f_k(z)/\sqrt{z}-1 \right| \le 4|\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-(m+\ell+1)^k} + O\left( |\varphi(z,\alpha)|^{-2(m+\ell+1)^k} \right),$$ where $\ell=m-1$ if (\[rationalzoloA1\]-\[rationalzoloA2\]) is used, and $\ell=m$ if (\[rationalzoloB1\]-\[rationalzoloB2\]) is used. Thus, for a given $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus (\infty,0]$ and a given relative tolerance $\delta > 0$, we can estimate the smallest $k$ for which $|2\alpha_k f_k(z)/((1+\alpha_k)\sqrt{z})-1| \le \delta$: we have $k \approx \lceil \kappa(z,\alpha) \rceil$ with $$\kappa(z,\alpha) = \frac{\log\log(4/\delta) - \log\log|\varphi(z,\alpha)|}{\log(m+\ell+1)}.$$
Fig. \[fig:contours\] plots the integer level sets of $\kappa(z,\alpha)$ for $(m,\ell) \in \{(1,0),(4,4),(8,8)\}$, $\delta = 10^{-16}$, and $\alpha \in \{10^{-2},10^{-5},10^{-8}\}$ in the slit annulus $\mathcal{A} = \{z \in \mathbb{C} \mid \alpha^2 \le |z| \le 1, \, -\pi < \arg z < \pi\}$. To improve the clarity of the plots, we have plotted the level sets in the $(\log_{10}|z|,\arg z)$ coordinate plane rather than the usual $({\operatorname{Re}}z, {\operatorname{Im}}z)$ coordinate plane. The level sets have the following interpretation: If $z_0 \in \mathbb{C}$ lies within the region enclosed by the level set $\kappa(z,\alpha)=c \in \mathbb{N}$, then the sequence $\{2\alpha_k f_k(z_0)/(1+\alpha_k)\}_{k=0}^\infty$ generated by the type $(m,\ell)$ Zolotarev iteration from Theorem \[thm:rationalzolo\] converges to $\sqrt{z_0}$ in at most $c$ iterations with a relative tolerance of $\approx 10^{-16}$.
Observe that when $(m,\ell)=(8,8)$ and $z_0$ lies in the right half-annulus $\{z : {\operatorname{Re}}z \ge 0, \, \alpha^2 \le |z| \le 1 \}$ (which corresponds to the horizontal strip $\{z : 2\log_{10} \alpha \le \log_{10} |z| \le 0, -\pi/2 < \arg z < \pi/2 \}$ in Fig. \[fig:contours\]), convergence of the scalar iteration is achieved in just 2 iterations whenever $\alpha \ge 10^{-5}$. For nearly all other $z_0 \in \mathcal{A}$, 3 iterations suffice.
#### Comparison with Padé iterations
For comparison, Fig. \[fig:contourspade\] plots the integer level sets of $\kappa(z/\alpha,1)$ for the same values of $(m,\ell)$, $\delta$, and $\alpha$ as above. In view of Proposition \[prop:pade\], these level sets dictate the convergence of the type $(m,\ell)$ Padé iteration with the initial iterate $z_0$ scaled by $1/\alpha$. For $\alpha = 10^{-2}$ (the leftmost column), the behavior of the Padé iteration is not significantly different from the behavior of the Zolotarev iteration. However, as $\alpha$ decreases, a clear pattern emerges. The level sets $\kappa(z/\alpha,1)=c$ do not begin to enclose scalars $z$ with extreme magnitudes ($|z| \approx \alpha^2$ and $|z| \approx 1$) until $c$ is relatively large. For example, when $\alpha=10^{-8}$ and $(m,\ell)=(8,8)$, the smallest integer $c$ for which the level set $\kappa(z/\alpha,1)=c$ encloses both $z = \alpha^2$ and $z=1$ is $c=5$ (see the lower right plot of Fig. \[fig:contourspade\]). In contrast, for the Zolotarev iteration with the same $(m,\ell)$ and $\alpha$, the smallest integer $c$ for which $\kappa(z,\alpha)=c$ encloses both $z=\alpha^2$ and $z=1$ is $c=2$ (see the lower right plot of Fig. \[fig:contours\]). The situation is similar when $|z| \in \{\alpha^2,1\}$ and $z$ has nonzero imaginary part.
#### Implications
The preceding observations have important implications for computing the square root of a matrix $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$ with no nonpositive real eigenvalues. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $A$ has been scaled in such a way that its spectrum $\Lambda(A)$ is contained the slit annulus $\{z \in \mathbb{C} \mid \alpha^2 \le |z| \le 1, \, -\pi < \arg z < \pi\}$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$. Then, if $A$ is normal, the number of iterations needed for the Zolotarev iteration of type $(m,\ell)$ to converge to $A^{1/2}$ (i.e. $\|2\alpha_k X_k A^{-1/2}/(1+\alpha_k)-I\| \lessapprox 10^{-16}$) in exact arithmetic is given by the smallest integer $c$ for which the level set $\kappa(z,\alpha)=c$ encloses $\Lambda(A)$. For the Padé iteration (with $A$ rescaled by $1/\alpha$) the same statement holds with $\kappa(z,\alpha)$ replaced by $\kappa(z/\alpha,1)$.
We conclude from the preceding discussion that the Zolotarev iterations are often preferable when $A$ has eigenvalues with widely varying magnitudes (assuming $A$ is normal). For instance, if $|\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A)| / |\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}(A)| =\alpha^{-2} \le 10^{10}$ and the spectrum of $A$ lies in the right half plane, then the Zolotarev iteration of type $(8,8)$ converges in at most 2 iterations, whereas the Padé iteration of type $(8,8)$ converges in at most 4 (see row 3, columns 1-2 of Figs. \[fig:contours\]-\[fig:contourspade\]). When considering non-normal $A$ and/or the effects of round-off errors, the situation is of course more difficult to analyze, but we address this situation with numerical experiments in Section \[sec:numerical\_matrix\].
Note that in the Padé iteration (\[pade\]), it is common to scale not only the initial iterate $X_0$, but also subsequent iterates $X_k$, by $\mu_k = |\det (X_k)^{-1/n}|$. (More precisely, this is accomplished in a mathematically equivalent, numerically stabler way by scaling $Y_k$ and $Z_k$ by $\mu_k^{-1} = |(\det Y_k \det Z_k)^{-1/(2n)}|$ in (\[padecoupled1\]-\[padecoupled2\]) [@higham1997stable Equation (3.2)]). These scalars will of course depend on the distribution of the eigenvalues of $A$, but in the case in which $m=\ell$ and $A$ has real eigenvalues with logarithms uniformly distributed in $[2\log_{10}\alpha,0]$, one finds that $\mu_0 = 1/\alpha$ and $\mu_k=1$ for $k \ge 1$, showing that Fig. \[fig:contourspade\] is a fair representation of the behavior of the scaled Padé iteration.
Matrix Iteration {#sec:numerical_matrix}
----------------
[ ]{} [ ]{}\
[ ]{} [ ]{}
In what follows, we compare the Zolotarev iterations of type $(m,\ell)$ (hereafter referred to as Z-$(m,\ell)$) with the following other methods: the Denman-Beavers iteration (DB) [@higham2008functions Equation (6.28)] (see also [@denman1976matrix]), the product form of the Denman-Beavers iteration (DBp) [@higham2008functions Equation (6.29)], the incremental Newton iteration (IN) [@higham2008functions Equation (6.30)][^4] (see also [@meini2004matrix; @iannazzo2003note]), the principal Padé iterations of type $(m,\ell)$ (P-$(m,\ell)$) [@higham2008functions Equation (6.34)] (see also [@higham1997stable; @higham2005functions]), and the MATLAB function `sqrtm`. In the Padé and Zolotarev iterations, we focus on the iterations of type $(1,0)$, $(4,4)$, and $(8,8)$ for simplicity.
In all of the iterations (except the Zolotarev iterations), we use determinantal scaling (as described in [@higham2008functions Section 6.5] and [@higham1997stable Equation (3.2)]) until the $\infty$-norm relative change in $X_k$ falls below $10^{-2}$. In the Zolotarev iterations, we use $\alpha = \sqrt{|\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}(A)/\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A)|}$, and we scale $A$ so that its spectral radius is 1. In the Zolotarev and Padé iterations, we use the formulation (\[zoloA1alt\]-\[zoloA2alt\]) and its type-$(m,m)$ counterpart, and we terminate the iterations when either (\[termination2\]) or (\[reldiff\]) is satisfied in the $\infty$-norm with $\delta = u\sqrt{n}$, where $u = 2^{-53}$ is the unit round-off. To terminate the DB and IN iterations, we use the following termination criterion [@higham2008functions p. 148]: $\|X_k-X_{k-1}\|_\infty \le (\delta\|X_k\|_\infty/\|X_{k-1}^{-1}\|_\infty)^{1/2}$ or $\frac{1}{2}\|X_{k-1}-X_{k-2}\|_\infty/\|X_{k-1}\|_\infty \le \|X_k-X_{k-1}\|_\infty/\|X_k\|_\infty \le 10^{-2}$. To terminate the DBp iteration, we replace the first condition by $\|M_k-I\|_\infty \le \delta$, where $M_k$ is the “product” matrix in [@higham2008functions Equation (6.29)]. We impose a maximum of 20 iterations for each method.
#### Four test matrices in detail
We first consider 4 test matrices studied previously in [@higham2008functions Section 6.6]:
1. $A_1 = I + wv^*$, where $w = \left( 1^2 \; 2^2 \; \dots \; n^2 \right)^*$ and $v = \left( 0^2 \; 1^2 \; 2^2 \; \dots \; (n-1)^2 \right)^*$.
2. $A_2 =$ `gallery('moler',16)`.
3. $A_3 =$ `Q*rschur(8,2e2)*Q'`, where `Q=gallery('orthog',8)` and `rschur` is a function from the Matrix Computation Toolbox [@Higham:MCT].
4. $A_4 =$ `gallery('chebvand',16)`.
Table \[tab:matstats\] lists some basic information about these matrices, including:
- The condition number of the $\infty$-norm relative residual of $A^{1/2}$ [@higham2008functions Equation (6.4)]: $$\alpha_\infty(A^{1/2}) = \frac{\|A^{1/2}\|_\infty^2}{\|A\|_\infty}.$$
- The Frobenius-norm relative condition number of the matrix square root at $A$ [@higham2008functions Equation (6.2)]: $$\kappa_{\mathrm{sqrt}}(A) = \frac{\|(I \otimes A^{1/2}) + (A^{1/2} \otimes I)\|_2 \|A\|_F}{\|A^{1/2}\|_F}.$$
- The 2-norm condition number of $A^{1/2}$: $$\kappa_2(A^{1/2}) = \|A^{1/2}\|_2 \|A^{-1/2}\|_2.$$
Table \[tab:4tests\] reports the number of iterations $k$, relative error $\|\hat{X}-A^{1/2}\|_{\infty} / \|A^{1/2}\|_{\infty}$, and relative residual $\|\hat{X}^2-A\|_{\infty} / \|A\|_{\infty}$ in the computed square root $\hat{X}$ of $A$ for each method. (We computed the “exact” $A^{1/2}$ using variable precision arithmetic in MATLAB: `vpa(A,100)^(1/2)`.) In these tests, the Zolotarev and Padé iterations of a given type $(m,\ell)$ tended to produce comparable errors and residuals, but the Zolotarev iterations almost always took fewer iterations to do so. With the exception of $A_3$, the Zolotarev, Padé, and incremental Newton iterations achieved forward errors less than or comparable to the MATLAB function `sqrtm`. On $A_3$, `sqrtm` performed best, but it is interesting to note that the type $(8,8)$ Zolotarev iteration produced the smallest forward error and smallest residual among the iterative methods.
table \[x=0, y=1\] ; +\[only marks,mark=\*,black,mark options=[fill=black]{}\] table \[x=0, y=2\] ; +\[only marks,mark=\*,black,mark options=[fill=white]{}\] table \[x=0, y=3\] ; +\[only marks,mark=triangle,blue,mark options=[scale=1.5]{}\] table \[x=0, y=4\] ; +\[only marks,mark=diamond,green,mark options=[scale=1.5]{}\] table \[x=0, y=5\] ; +\[only marks,mark=square,red\] table \[x=0, y=6\] ; +\[only marks,mark=x,olive\] table \[x=0, y=7\] ; ;
#### Additional tests
We performed tests on an additional 44 matrices from the Matrix Function Toolbox [@Higham:MCT], namely those matrices in the toolbox of size $10 \times 10$ having 2-norm condition number $\kappa_2(A) \le u^{-1}$, where $u = 2^{-53}$ is the unit round-off. For each matrix $A$, we rescaled $A$ by $e^{i\theta}$ if $A$ had any negative real eigenvalues, with $\theta$ a random number between $0$ and $2\pi$.
Fig. \[fig:err\] shows the relative error $\|\hat{X}-A^{1/2}\|_{\infty} / \|A^{1/2}\|_{\infty}$ committed by each method on the 44 tests, ordered by decreasing condition number $\kappa_{\mathrm{sqrt}}(A)$. To reduce clutter, the results for the non-Zolotarev iterations (DB, DBp, IN, P-(1,0), P-(4,4), and P-(8,8)) are not plotted individually. Instead, we identified in each test the smallest and largest relative errors committed among the DB, DBp, IN, P-(1,0), P-(4,4), and P-(8,8) iterations, and plotted these minima and maxima (labelled “Best iterative” and “Worst iterative” in the legend). In almost all tests, the Zolotarev iterations achieved relative errors less than or comparable to $u \kappa_{\mathrm{sqrt}}(A)$. In addition, the Zolotarev iterations tended to produce relative errors closer to the best of the non-Zolotarev iterations than the worst of the non-Zolotarev iterations. Table \[tab:iter\] summarizes the number of iterations used by each method in these tests. The table reveals that on average, the Zolotarev iteration of type $(m,\ell)$ converged more quickly than the Padé iteration of type $(m,\ell)$ for each $(m,\ell) \in \{(1,0),(4,4),(8,8)\}$.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a new family of iterations for computing the matrix square root using recursive constructions of Zolotarev’s rational minimax approximants of the square root function. These iterations are closely related to the Padé iterations, but tend to converge more rapidly, particularly for matrices that have eigenvalues with widely varying magnitudes. The favorable behavior of the Zolotarev iterations presented here, together with the favorable behavior of their counterparts for the polar decomposition [@nakatsukasa2016computing], suggests that other matrix functions like the matrix sign function and the matrix $p^{th}$ root may stand to benefit from these types of iterations.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I wish to thank Yuji Nakatsukasa for introducing me to this topic and for sharing his code for computing the coefficients of Zolotarev’s functions.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of California, San Diego ()
[^2]: Submitted to the editors March 31, 2018.
[^3]: Although $h_{m-1,m}(z,\alpha)$ is a rational function of type $(m-1,m)$, we continue to refer to this iteration as the type $(m,m-1)$ Zolotarev iteration since $\hat{r}_{m,m-1}(z,\alpha) = h_{m-1,m}(z,\alpha)^{-1}$ is of type $(m,m-1)$.
[^4]: Note that Equation (6.30) in [@higham2008functions] contains a typo in the last line: $E_{k+1} = -\frac{1}{2}E_k X_{k+1}^{-1} E_k$ should read $E_{k+1} = -\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{E}_k X_{k+1}^{-1} \widetilde{E}_k$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work, we demonstrate post-compression of 1.2 picosecond laser pulses to 13fs via gas-based multi-pass spectral broadening. Our results yield a single-stage compression factor of about 40 at 200 W in-burst average power and a total compression factor $>$90 at reduced power. The employed scheme represents a route towards compact few-cycle sources driven by industrial-grade Yb:YAG lasers at high average power.'
author:
- Prannay Balla
- Ammar Bin Wahid
- Ivan Sytcevich
- Chen Guo
- 'Anne-Lise Viotti'
- Laura Silletti
- Andrea Cartella
- Skirmantas Alisauskas
- Hamed Tavakol
- 'Uwe Grosse-Wortmann'
- Arthur Schönberg
- Marcus Seidel
- Andrea Trabattoni
- Bastian Manschwetus
- Tino Lang
- Francesca Calegari
- Arnaud Couairon
- 'Anne L’Huillier'
- 'Cord L. Arnold'
- Ingmar Hartl
- 'Christoph M. Heyl'
title: 'Post-compression of picosecond pulses into the few-cycle regime'
---
Few-cycle laser pulses are nowadays employed for a variety of applications including attosecond physics [@Calegari2016jopbamaop], light-wave electronics [@Sommer2016n] as well as particle acceleration [@Faure2018ppacf]. Their generation relies either on complex laser systems employing parametric amplification or post-compression. Ti:Sapphire (Ti:Sa) lasers have been the working horses of ultrafast laboratories for many years. Whereas Ti:Sa amplifiers readily provide sub-30fs pulses, their average power is limited to only a few watts. In contrast, ultrafast Yb-based amplifiers are power-scalable into the kW regime [@Nubbemeyer2017ol; @Mueller2018ol], however, their output pulse duration is not shorter than 100 fs or even 1 ps. External spectral broadening and pulse-post compression offer the possibility to combine ultrashort pulse durations and high repetition rates with mJ-level pulse energies [@Nagy2019o; @Fan2016o]. Pulses at the few-mJ level are routinely post-compressed via spectral broadening in gas-filled hollow-core fibers (HCFs) [@Bohle2014lpl; @Fan2016o]. While HCF-based post-compression setups extend to large scales at multi-mJ pulse energies and/or high compression ratios [@Jeong2018sr; @Nagy2019o], a more recent scheme, multi-pass cell (MPC) -based post-compression [@Schulte2016ol; @Hanna2017jotosoab], allows compact setups and compression factors $>$30 [@Kaumanns2018ol]. Especially when using a gas as nonlinear medium [@Lavenu2018ol; @Ueffing2018ol], MPC-based post-compression offers great prospects for peak-power scaling [@Heyl2016o; @Kaumanns2018ol; @Russbueldt2019ol]; the gas filling is immune to damage and the nonlinearity is easily adapted via the pressure. However, in contrast to hollow-core fiber compression setups, which are commonly employed to reach the few-cycle regime [@Bohle2014lpl; @Louisy2015o; @Fan2016o; @Jarque2018sr], MPC-based pulse-compression yielded typically sub-100 [@Schulte2016ol; @Hanna2017jotosoab; @Weitenberg2017oe; @Weitenberg2017ijoqe; @Lavenu2018ol; @Ueffing2018ol; @Kaumanns2018ol; @Russbueldt2019ol; @Jargot2018ol; @Tsai2019ol; @Vicentini2020oe] down to sub-20fs pulses [@Fritsch2018ola]. Broader spectra supporting few- to single-cycle pulses have been generated by multi-plate arrangements [@Lu2014o; @Lu2019oe; @Seo2020ol]. The approach is similar to the MPC method. However, the refocusing of the beam is accomplished by the nonlinear media themselves. The drawbacks of the multi-plate approach are the practically limited number of passes and the required higher nonlinear phase accumulation per pass which results in imperfect spectral homogeneity of the beam [@Milosevic2000ol; @Seidel2016oe].
We here extend MPC-based post-compression into the few-cycle regime via a dual-stage setup, driven with 1.2ps pulses. In a first compression stage, we spectrally broaden and compress 2 mJ pulses at 200 W in-burst average power to 32 fs, followed by further compression to 13 fs at reduced pulse energy in the second stage. These results demonstrate, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time few-cycle pulse generation via direct post-compression of picosecond pulses, opening a route towards high-average power few-cycle sources driven by kW-class industrial-grade diode pumped Yb:YAG lasers. In addition, we push the single-stage compression ratio achieved via mJ-level post-compression close to 40 with $>$80% throughput, surpassing recent compression factors achieved using stretched hollow-core fibers [@Jeong2018sr; @Nagy2019o] and MPCs [@Kaumanns2018ol].
{width=".9\linewidth"}
The experimental setup is depicted in Figure \[fig:setup\]. It consists of two broadening and compression stages containing gas-filled MPCs, mode-matching units and dispersion compensating mirrors (DCMs). The employed Innoslab laser amplifier provides 1.2ps (FWHM) pulses centered at 1030 nm at an M$^2$ of 1.1x1.2, operated at a pulse energy of 2mJ at the entrance of the first spectral broadening unit [@Lang20192colaeeeqecc]. The laser runs in burst-mode, i.e. pulse-trains of about 100 pulses at 100 kHz intra-burst repetition rate are emitted at 10 Hz. The pulses are coupled to a first MPC, which consists of two dielectric concave mirrors (1 m radius of curvature, 100 mm diameter, GDD <10 fs$^2$ within a 980-1080 nm bandwidth), set-up in a vacuum chamber flooded with krypton at 0.9 bar. The laser beam is mode-matched to the MPC eigenmode using a mode-matching telescope.
![(a) Reconstructed spectral and temporal intensity (solid) and phase (dashed) profiles together with the corresponding spectra measured after the first MPC (dotted) and at the laser output (gray line/area). (b) Corresponding FROG traces (logarithmic color scale). (c) Beam profiles measured after the first MPC.[]{data-label="fig:results1"}](fig2.pdf){width=".5\linewidth"}
In- and out-coupling is realized through an anti-reflection coated window and a rectangular pick-off mirror placed in front of one of the concave mirrors. The same mirror is also used to couple the beam out after 44 passes though the MPC. The pulses are compressed using 32 bounces on DCMs with a total GDD of -6200fs$^2$ in a bandwidth of 980-1080nm. The throughput of the first MPC is 85% (80% including the DCM compressor), yielding compressed pulses at 1.6 mJ and 160 W in-burst average power. The broadened spectrum has a -10 dB bandwidth of 90 nm, corresponding to a Fourier-limited pulse duration (FWHM) of 30 fs. The pulses are compressed to 32 fs, measured via second harmonic frequency resolved optical gating (Figure \[fig:results1\](a,b)). The beam profiles of the collimated and focused beam measured after the DCM compressor (c) indicate good beam quality.
To further compress the pulses while mitigating bandwidth limitation imposed by the mirror coating of the first MPC, we send the laser beam to a second MPC consisting of two silver mirrors with enhanced reflectivity (1 m radius of curvature, 75 mm diameter). In order to avoid MPC mirror damage, the laser pulses are attenuated to about 0.8 mJ. The second MPC is filled with krypton at a pressure of 1 bar. The laser beam enters the second MPC chamber via an anti-reflection coated window and leaves through an uncoated window. In order to reduce the fluence at the in-coupling window, the converging input beam is propagated about 2m through the vacuum chamber before in-coupling into the MPC. Separate mirrors are used for in-coupling and out-coupling after 12 passes. The measured throughput of the second MPC is 46%, limited mainly by losses at the MPC mirrors, yielding a pulse energy of 0.37 mJ at an in-burst average power of 37 W after the out-coupling window. To avoid nonlinear propagation effects in air, only a wedge reflection of the pulses exiting the MPC is compressed using matched-pair DCMs with a total GDD of -1900 fs$^2$ in 16 double bounces. The measured output spectrum has a bandwidth of 195 nm at -10 dB, corresponding to a Fourier limit of 10.8 fs. The attenuated pulses are characterized using a D-scan setup yielding a pulse duration (FWHM) of 13 fs (Figure \[fig:results2\] (a,b)). While we achieve good agreement between measured and retrieved D-scan traces (b), the measured traces clearly show intensity fluctuation of the second harmonic signal, which we attribute to laser pulse duration fluctuations. The beam profiles of the collimated and focused beam measured after the second MPC (Figure \[fig:results2\] (c)) indicate a reduced beam quality compared to the first cell output. A possible reason for this could be heating of the silver mirrors caused by absorption or unwanted nonlinear propagation effects, which could arise in the attenuator before the second MPC.
![(a) Reconstructed spectral and temporal intensity (solid) and phase (dashed) profiles together with the corresponding spectra measured after both MPCs (dotted). (b) Corresponding D-scan traces (linear color scale). (c) Beam profiles measured after the second MPC.[]{data-label="fig:results2"}](fig3.pdf){width=".6\linewidth"}
Because of the great power-scalability offered by gas-filled MPCs, the compression of laser pulses with higher pulse energies seems feasible in the first compression stage of our setup. While the nonlinearity could easily be adjusted by a decreased gas density at increased pulse energy [@Kaumanns2018ol], limitations are expected due to laser induced damage. In our experimental configuration, the use of 2 mJ pulses corresponds to a fluence of 30mJ/cm$^2$ at the mirrors of the first MPC. Limitation caused by ionization, which are prevented in our experiment by an appropriate choice of the MPC geometry, may arise at higher pulse energies. However, they can easily be circumvented by employing a gas with higher ionization potential and/or by increasing the MPC size.
The overall transmission through our setup was severely limited by the employed mirrors in the second MPC. While silver mirrors typically provide a flat GDD over a large bandwidth, their reflectivity limits the transmission. In addition, in our experiment, observed laser induced damage of the silver mirrors at full pulse energy (1.6 mJ) demanded the operation of the second MPC at reduced power. The use of high-damage threshold multi-layer mirrors in the second MPC could circumvent this limitation. Also, optimization of the broadening process in the second MPC could be realized via dispersion engineering e.g. to mitigate temporal pulse broadening induced by linear dispersion (approximately 800fs$^2$ in the second MPC). Taking into account the compressor parameters and applying them to the measured pulse, we estimate a temporal pulse broadening to about 200fs in the second MPC. Such a severe temporal broadening effectively restricts spectral broadening to the first few passes through the MPC. This effect might also contribute to a reduced spatial beam quality.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated post-compression of picosecond laser pulses into the few-cycle regime yielding a reduction in pulse duration by about two orders of magnitude. Moreover, we achieve a record single-stage compression factor of about 40 at the mJ level employing a 2.5 m long setup. Our proof-of-principle demonstration was limited mainly by damage threshold, reflectivity and the lack of dispersion control imposed by the silver mirrors employed in the second compression stage. We expect that the use of dispersion engineered, high damage threshold, dielectric mirrors in a second broadening stage together with gas-based nonlinear spectral broadening will unfold further pulse duration down-scaling and pulse energy up-scaling options. As the employed laser and compression scheme is known for compactness as well as excellent pulse energy and average power scalability [@Schmidt2017oe; @Kaumanns2018ol], our methods promises further pulse energy upscaling potential and may thus enable future TW-class, few-cycle laser sources driven by industrial-grade kW-scale picosecond lasers. Such laser sources will not only open completely new parameter regimes for attosecond physics and strong-field science, they also provide a viable route for next generation laser-driven electron accelerators.
Funding Information {#funding-information .unnumbered}
===================
This work is supported by a PIER Seed Projects grant (partnership of Universität Hamburg and DESY, PIF-2018-85), the Cluster of Excellence ’CUI: Advanced Imaging of Matter’ of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - EXC 2056 (390715994), the Swedish Research Council and the European Research Council (339253 PALP).
Disclosures {#disclosures .unnumbered}
===========
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.\
+ These authors contributed equally to this work
[10]{}
F. Calegari, G. Sansone, S. Stagira, C. Vozzi, and M. Nisoli, [*[Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics]{}*]{} **49**, 062001 (2016).
A. Sommer, E. M. Bothschafter, S. A. Sato, C. Jakubeit, T. Latka, O. Razskazovskaya, H. Fattahi, M. Jobst, W. Schweinberger, V. Shirvanyan, V. S. Yakovlev, R. Kienberger, K. Yabana, N. Karpowicz, M. Schultze, and F. Krausz, [*[Nature]{}*]{} **534**, 86 (2016).
J. Faure, D. Gustas, D. Gu[é]{}not, A. Vernier, F. Böhle, M. Ouill[é]{}, S. Haessler, R. Lopez-Martens, and A. Lifschitz, [*[Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion]{}*]{} **61**, 014012 (2018).
T. Nubbemeyer, M. Kaumanns, M. Ueffing, M. Gorjan, A. Alismail, H. Fattahi, J. Brons, O. Pronin, H. G. Barros, Z. Major, T. Metzger, D. Sutter, and F. Krausz, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **42**, 1381 (2017).
M. Müller, A. Klenke, A. Steinkopff, H. Stark, A. Tünnermann, and J. Limpert, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 6037 (2018).
T. Nagy, S. Hädrich, P. Simon, A. Blumenstein, N. Walther, R. Klas, J. Buldt, H. Stark, S. Breitkopf, P. J[ó]{}j[á]{}rt, I. Seres, Z. V[á]{}rallyay, T. Eidam, and J. Limpert, [*[Optica]{}*]{} **6**, 1423 (2019).
G. Fan, T. Bal[č]{}i[ū]{}nas, T. Kanai, T. Flory, G. Andriukaitis, B. E. Schmidt, F. L[é]{}gar[é]{}, and A. Baltu[š]{}ka, [*[Optica]{}*]{} **3**, 1308 (2016).
F. Böhle, M. Kretschmar, A. Jullien, M. Kovacs, M. Miranda, R. Romero, H. Crespo, U. Morgner, P. Simon, R. Lopez-Martens, and T. Nagy, [*[Laser Physics Letters]{}*]{} **11**, 095401 (2014).
Y.-G. Jeong, R. Piccoli, D. Ferachou, V. Cardin, M. Chini, S. Hädrich, J. Limpert, R. Morandotti, F. L[é]{}gar[é]{}, B. E. Schmidt, and L. Razzari, [*[Scientific Reports]{}*]{} **8** (2018).
J. Schulte, T. Sartorius, J. Weitenberg, A. Vernaleken, and P. Russbueldt, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **41**, 4511 (2016).
M. Hanna, X. D[é]{}len, L. Lavenu, F. Guichard, Y. Zaouter, F. Druon, and P. Georges, [*[Journal of the Optical Society of America B]{}*]{} **34**, 1340 (2017).
M. Kaumanns, V. Pervak, D. Kormin, V. Leshchenko, A. Kessel, M. Ueffing, Y. Chen, and T. Nubbemeyer, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 5877 (2018).
L. Lavenu, M. Natile, F. Guichard, Y. Zaouter, X. Delen, M. Hanna, E. Mottay, and P. Georges, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 2252 (2018).
M. Ueffing, S. Reiger, M. Kaumanns, V. Pervak, M. Trubetskov, T. Nubbemeyer, and F. Krausz, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 2070 (2018).
C. Heyl, H. Coudert-Alteirac, M. Miranda, M. Louisy, K. Kovacs, V. Tosa, E. Balogh, K. Varju, A. L’Huillier, A. Couairon, and C. Arnold, [*[Optica]{}*]{} **3**, 75 (2016).
P. Russbueldt, J. Weitenberg, J. Schulte, R. Meyer, C. Meinhardt, H. D. Hoffmann, and R. Poprawe, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **44**, 5222 (2019).
M. Louisy, C. Arnold, M. Miranda, E. Larsen, S. Bengtsson, D. Kroon, M. Kotur, D. Guenot, L. Rading, P. Rudawski, F. Brizuela, F. Campi, B. Kim, A. Jarnac, A. Houard, J. Mauritsson, P. Johnsson, A. L’Huillier, and C. Heyl, [*[Optica]{}*]{} **2**, 563 (2015).
E. C. Jarque, J. S. Roman, F. Silva, R. Romero, W. Holgado, M. A. Gonzalez-Galicia, B. Alonso, I. J. Sola, and H. Crespo, [*[Scientific Reports]{}*]{} **8** (2018).
J. Weitenberg, A. Vernaleken, J. Schulte, A. Ozawa, T. Sartorius, V. Pervak, H.-D. Hoffmann, T. Udem, P. Russb[ü]{}ldt, and T. W. H[ä]{}nsch, [*[Optics Express]{}*]{} **25**, 20502 (2017).
J. Weitenberg, T. Saule, J. Schulte, and P. Ru[ß]{}b[ü]{}ldt, [*[IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics]{}*]{} **53**, 1 (2017).
G. Jargot, N. Daher, L. Lavenu, X. Delen, N. Forget, M. Hanna, and P. Georges, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 5643 (2018).
C.-L. Tsai, F. Meyer, A. Omar, Y. Wang, A.-Y. Liang, C.-H. Lu, M. Hoffmann, S.-D. Yang, and C. J. Saraceno, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **44**, 4115 (2019).
E. Vicentini, Y. Wang, D. Gatti, A. Gambetta, P. Laporta, G. Galzerano, K. Curtis, K. McEwan, C. R. Howle, and N. Coluccelli, [*[Optics Express]{}*]{} **28**, 4541 (2020).
K. Fritsch, M. Poetzlberger, V. Pervak, J. Brons, and O. Pronin, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **43**, 4643 (2018).
C.-H. Lu, Y.-J. Tsou, H.-Y. Chen, B.-H. Chen, Y.-C. Cheng, S.-D. Yang, M.-C. Chen, C.-C. Hsu, and A. H. Kung, [*[Optica]{}*]{} **1**, 400 (2014).
C.-H. Lu, W.-H. Wu, S.-H. Kuo, J.-Y. Guo, M.-C. Chen, S.-D. Yang, and A. H. Kung, [*[Optics Express]{}*]{} **27**, 15638 (2019).
M. Seo, K. Tsendsuren, S. Mitra, M. Kling, and D. Kim, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **45**, 367 (2020).
N. Milosevic, G. Tempea, and T. Brabec, [*[Optics Letters]{}*]{} **25**, 672 (2000).
M. Seidel, G. Arisholm, J. Brons, V. Pervak, and O. Pronin, [*[Optics Express]{}*]{} **24**, 9412 (2016).
T. Lang, S. Alisauskas, U. Gro[ß]{}e-Wortmann, T. H[ü]{}lsenbusch, B. Manschwetus, C. Mohr, J. M[ü]{}ller, F. Peters, N. Schirmel, S. Schulz *et al.*., CLEO/Europe-EQEC, DOI:10.1109/CLEOE-EQEC.2019.8871596 (2019)
B. E. Schmidt, A. Hage, T. Mans, F. Légaré, and H. J. W[ö]{}rner, [*[Optics Express]{}*]{} **25**, 17549 (2017).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'S Mus is the Cepheid with the hottest known companion. The large ultraviolet flux means that it is the only Cepheid companion for which the velocity amplitude could be measured with the echelle mode of the HST GHRS. Unfortunately, the high temperature is difficult to constrain at wavelengths longer than 1200 Å because of the degeneracy between temperature and reddening. We have obtained a FUSE spectrum in order to improve the determination of the temperature of the companion. Two regions which are temperature sensitive near 16,000 K but relatively unaffected by H$_2$ absorption (940 Å, and the Ly $\beta$ wings) have been identified. By comparing FUSE spectra of S Mus B with spectra of standard stars, we have determined a temperature of 17,000 $\pm$ 500 K. The resultant Cepheid mass is 6.0 $\pm$ 0.4 M$_\odot$. This mass is consistent with main sequence evolutionary tracks with a moderate amount of convective overshoot.'
author:
- 'Nancy Remage Evans,'
- Derck Massa
- Alexander Fullerton
- George Sonneborn and Rosina Iping
title: 'Cepheid Masses: FUSE Observations of S Mus '
---
Introduction
============
Observational determinations of Cepheid masses are a long-standing goal both in order to have a thorough understanding of these primary distance indicators and also because they provide an excellent benchmark for stellar evolutionary calculations. The most important uncertainty in evolutionary tracks of massive stars near the main sequence is the importance of core convective overshoot, which determines the lifetime on the main sequence and the luminosity in subsequent phases. When the mass of a Cepheid can be measured, it can be combined with an accurate luminosity, and compared with theoretical predictions.
Ultraviolet high resolution spectroscopy has provided a group of double-lined spectroscopic binaries containing a Cepheid. Specifically, the orbital velocity amplitudes of the hot companions of Cepheids could be measured originally with IUE, and until recently with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) or Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS). This orbital velocity amplitude can be combined with the orbital velocity amplitude of the Cepheid from a ground-based orbit and the mass of the companion to produce the mass of the Cepheid. Typically, a very accurate temperature or spectral type for the hot companion can be obtained from IUE low resolution spectra from 1200 to 3200 Å, from which a mass can be accurately inferred.
For the S Mus system, the orbit of the Cepheid S Mus A has been determined several times with increasing accuracy as more data have been obtained (Evans, 1990; Böhm-Vitense et al. 1997; and Petterson et al. 2004).
The hot companion of the Cepheid, S Mus B, is sufficiently bright at 1720 [Å]{} that it could be observed with the echelle mode of HST/GHRS which provided a resolution of 80,000 (Böhm-Vitense et al. 1997). The orbital velocity amplitude of S Mus B they found from two GHRS observations is 30.6 km s$^{-1}$ with an uncertainty of 5%. The uncertainty is dominated by the centering of the star in the large science aperture for the first observation. This is the most accurate velocity amplitude measured for a Cepheid companion.
The high temperature of S Mus B, however, means that its temperature (and hence its inferred mass) is less accurately determined than that for cooler companions in other systems. For late B stars, the energy distribution turns over between 1200 and 1400 Å, making that region of the spectrum extremely temperature sensitive. For an early B star, the spectrum rises monotonically toward shorter wavelengths to the end of the IUE spectral range ($\sim$1200 Å). This means the effects of reddening and temperature are much more difficult to disentangle, and hence the temperature is less accurately determined. The reddening of the system is E(B-V) = 0.21 mag (Evans, Massa and Teays 1994), which is large enough that it must be taken into account.
A number of approaches to determining the temperature in the wavelength range 1200 to 3200 Å have been used, as summarized by Böhm-Vitense et al (1997), including energy distributions from IUE low resolution spectra, and Si lines near 1300 Å from IUE high resolution spectra (Evans, Massa and Teays, 1994). In addition, two Voyager spectra were obtained to extend the energy distribution to 950 Å (Evans, Holberg and Polidan, 1996). The difficulty in interpreting these spectra comes from the heavy absorption by H$_2$ molecular absorption bands. In the low resolution Voyager spectra, approximate corrections had to be incorporated to compensate for this absorption.
As a substantial refinement to this basic approach, we obtained a high-resolution FUSE spectrum of S Mus B in order to determine its temperature more precisely, with the ultimate goal of improving the estimated mass of its Cepheid companion.
[*FUSE*]{} Observations
=======================
[*FUSE*]{} consists of four coaligned, prime-focus telescopes and Rowland-circle spectrographs that provide high-resolution ($\sim$15,000) spectra of the wavelength region between 905 and 1187 [Å]{}. To maximize throughput across this waveband, two of the telescope/spectrograph channels have SiC coatings to cover the range $\sim$905 – 1105 [Å]{}, while the other two have LiF coatings to cover $\sim$980 – 1187 [Å]{}. The spectra from all four channels are recorded simultaneously by two photon-counting detectors. Details of the design and performance of these instruments are provided by Moos et al. (2000) and and Sahnow et al. (2000), respectively.
The S Mus system was observed by [*FUSE*]{} on 2002 March 2 as the only target in Guest Investigator program C011. The observations were obtained through the [30$\times$ 30]{} (LWRS) aperture in time-tag (TTAG) mode. The total integration time was 16.26 ks, which was divided into four exposures taken during four consecutive orbital viewing windows. Thus, the observation spans the interval from 6:42 to 12:35 UT; or MJD 52335.2798 to 52335.5242.
The photon lists from the four exposures were concatenated for each detector segment before the spectra were extracted and calibrated by means of CalFUSE version 2.2.3. These processing steps included application of corrections for small, thermally-induced motions of the diffraction gratings; removal of extraneous counts due to “event bursts"; removal of detector and scattered-light backgrounds; removal of thermal and electronic distortions in the detectors; correction of residual astigmatism in the spectrograph optics; extraction of a one-dimensional spectrum by summing over the astigmatic height of the two-dimensional image; correction for the minor effects of detector dead time; and application of flux and wavelength calibrations. These manipulations produced four spectra from the two SiC channels, and four spectra from the two LiF channels, which are characterized by signal-to-noise ratios of 20–25 in the stellar continuum.
In addition, archival [*FUSE*]{} spectra of the comparison stars listed in Table 1 were retrieved from MAST[^1]. Since the comparison stars are bright, they were observed in histogram (HIST) mode through the LWRS aperture, with substantially shorter integration times than was used for S Mus. All these data were processed uniformly with CalFUSE version 2.4.1 on an exposure-by-exposure basis, before being aligned and coadded for comparison with the far-UV spectrum of S Mus.
Comparisons
===========
The approach outlined in §1 is to use FUSE spectra of B-type stars with well-determined temperatures to constrain the temperature of S Mus B. We therefore sought spectral regions that are sensitive to temperature in the spectral range of B3 V to B5 V, which are also lightly contaminated by H$_2$ absorption lines. For comparison purposes we used FUSE spectra of stars with temperatures and gravities determined by one of us (DM) from Strömgren photometry, using the calibration of Napiwotzki et al (1993), listed in Table 1. The observed spectra were $\it reddened$ to match the E(B-V) of S Mus \[E(B-V) = 0.23 mag\]. We used the Fitpatrick (1999) $R(V) = 3.1$ curve, extrapolated into the Far-UV. Such an extrapolation has been demonstrated by Sofia et al. (2005) to be a reasonable approximation for the Far-UV extinction. They were then overplotted on the S Mus spectrum using the flux in the wavelength range 1140 to 1170 Å to normalize them. Figs. 1 and 2 show two examples of the comparisons for HD 51013 (B3 V) and HD 37332 (B5 V) respectively. The E(B-V) of S Mus corresponds to a column density of $N_{H\,I}$ = 1.4 x 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. H$_2$ absorption for this column density has been overplotted to assess how severely the stellar spectrum is affected in different wavelength regions. Standard values for the ISM provided a column density of H$_2$ a little less than 10$^{20}$cm$^{-2}$, for example Evans et al. (1996).
In this temperature range two regions were identified from these comparisons as being both temperature sensitive and relatively unaffected by H$_2$: (1) the wings of Ly$\beta$ ($\simeq$ 1010 to 1040 Å) and (2) the two shortest wavelength regions with measurable flux, 945 and 960 Å. The core of Ly$\beta$ is strongly absorbed by H$_2$, but the wings are only lightly absorbed. The wings of Ly$\beta$ are gravity sensitive, but we have restricted our comparisons to main sequence stars, so this should not be a problem.
Enlarged versions of these regions of the same two standard stars (HD 51013 and HD 37332) are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 with the spectrum of S Mus and an H$_2$ absorption template overplotted.
All 4 figures show that S Mus B is a very good match to HD 51013 (B3 V) and distinctly different from HD 37332 (B5 V) in the temperature sensitive wavelength regions in Figs. 3 and 4. Figures such as 1 and 2 were examined for all the stars in Table 1. S Mus B is also clearly different (hotter) than HD 35899 (B5 V) in these regions. Based on the temperatures for the two stars in Table 1 which most closely match S Mus B (HD51013, T = 17,100K, and HD 35899, T = 16,700K), we adopt T = 17,000K for S Mus B with an uncertainty of $\pm$ 500K.
Subsequent to the FUSE S Mus observation we have been obtaining FUSE spectra of the massive stars in eclipsing binaries (Andersen, 1991) in order to determine their temperatures by the same approach (Evans et al., 2005). We have come to realize that evolution beyond the zero age main sequence results in enhanced contrast in lines. We suspect there may be a modest amount of evolution in S Mus B based on the line strength in Figs 1-4. We will revisit the S Mus spectrum when we have completed the analysis of the eclipsing binaries.
Discussion
==========
In order to determine the mass of S Mus B corresponding to this temperature, we used masses from the compilation by Andersen (1991) derived from very accurate eclipsing binary solutions. We have combined these with recent temperatures from Ribas et al. (2000). These temperatures are based on Strömgren photometry, and should be comparable to the temperatures of the standard stars. In Fig. 5 we show the relation between temperature and mass for the stars in the Anderson list more massive than 2.5 M$_\odot$ (O and B stars). In order to obtain a mass corresponding to the temperature of S Mus B, we did a linear fit to the data for $\log T_{\rm eff}$ 4.27 to 4.17 (T 18,500 to 14,800 K). The resulting mass for 17,000 K is 5.3 M$_\odot$. A change of 500 K results in a change of 0.26 M$_\odot$.
The orbital velocity amplitude ratio of the Cepheid to the hot companion was found to be 1.14 $\pm$ 0.06 from the GHRS echelle observations of the companion and the ground-based Cepheid orbit (Böhm-Vitense et al. 1997). Combining this with the companion mass found here results in a Cepheid mass of 6.0 $\pm$ 0.4 M$_\odot$. This value only differs slightly from the previous determination (5.9 $\pm$ 0.7 M$_\odot$ Böhm-Vitense et al., 1997) but the error bars are significantly reduced.
This temperature and mass determination supersedes previous estimates, because it lifts the degeneracy in the energy distribution longward of 1200 [Å]{} and avoids the need for the approximate corrections for H$_2$ absorption required to interpret Voyager spectra.
Fig. 6 summarizes the information currently available for Cepheid masses. (Luminosities are taken from Evans et al, 1998). For comparison, the luminosity predicted for the tips of the blue loops the evolutionary tracks from several several groups is shown. The two lines in the center are from the Padua and Geneva groups for moderate overshoot. To the left is prediction from the Padua tracks for their maximum overshoot. The line on the right is from Becker (1981) with no overshoot. The mass we have determined for S Mus clearly favors moderate overshoot.
Summary
=======
We have used a FUSE spectrum of the hot companion of the Cepheid S Mus to determine the temperature of S Mus B. By combining the mass corresponding to the temperature with the previously determined orbital velocity ratio of the two stars results in a mass of the Cepheid of 6.0 $\pm$ 0.4 M$_\odot$.
Acknowledgments It is a pleasure to thank FUSE staff for assistance in obtaining this data. Comments from an anonymous referee improved the discussion. This research was supported by NASA FUSE grant NAG5-11946 (to NRE) and Chandra X-ray Center NASA Contract NAS8-03060
Andersen, J. 1991, , 3, 91
Becker, S. 1981, , 45, 475
Bertelli, G. Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., and Angerer, K. 1986, , 66, 191
Bertelli, G. Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Fagatto, F., and Nasi, E. 1994, , 106, 275
Böhm-Vitense, E., Evans, N. R., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., and Robinson, R. 1997, , 477, 916
Evans, N. R. 1990, , 102, 551
Evans, N. R., Massa, D., and Teays, T. J. 1994, , 108, 2251
Evans, N. R., Holberg, J. B., and Polidan, R. S. 1996, , 112, 264
Evans, N. R., Böhm-Vitense, E., Carpenter, K., Beck-Winchatz, B., and Robinson, R. 1998, , 494, 768
Evans, N. R., Mendygral, P., Nichols, J., Fullerton, A. W., Massa, D., Guinan, E. F., Fitzpatrick, E., and Ribas, I. 2005, BAAS, 37, 495
Fitzpatrick, E.L. 1999, , 111, 63
Moos, H. W., et al. 2000, , 538, L1
Napiwotzki, R., Schönberner, D., and Wenske, V. 1993, , 268, 653
Petterson, O. K. L., Cottrell, P. L., and Albrow, M. D. 2004, , 350, 95
Ribas, I. Jordi, C., Torra, J., Gimenez, A., 2000, , 313, 99
Sahnow, D. J., et al. 2000, , 538, L7
Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., and Maeder, A. 1992, , 96, 269
Sofia, U,J., Wolff, M.J., Rachford, B., Gordon, K.D., Clayton, G.C., Cartledge, S.I.B., Martin, P.G., Draine, B.T., Mathis, J.S., Snow, T.P., and Whittet, D.C.B. 2005, , 625, 167
[lrlrrlccc]{} HD 97991 & P1013001 & Savage & 2000-05-29 & 59 & B1 V & 0.02 & 25,500 & 4.00\
HD 121800 & P1014401 & Savage & 2000-03-17 & 3987 & B1.5 V & 0.07 & 20,300 & 1.30\
HDE 233622 & P1012102 & Savage & 2000-01-12 & 4662 & B2 V & 0.03 & 21,000 & 3.60\
HD 51013 & A0630902 & Witt & 2001-04-05 & 4080 & B3 V & 0.00 & 17,100 & 4.30\
HD 261878 & P1310301 & Friedman & 2001-02-20 & 1572 & B3 V & 0.04 & 15,500 & 4.50\
HD 72350 & A1290305 & Nichols & 2001-05-15 & 806 & B4 IV & 0.16 & 15,650 & 3.00\
HD 35899 & B0600101 & Fitzpatrick & 2001-01-03 & 972 & B5 V & 0.03 & 16,700 & 4.30\
HD 37332 & B0601201 & Fitzpatrick & 2001-01-05 & 2309 & B5 V & 0.02 & 15,600 & 4.50\
HD 37641 & B0601501 & Fitzpatrick & 2001-01-03 & 4011 & B6 V & 0.05 & 12,800 & 4.40\
[^1]: The archiving of non-HST data at MAST is supported by the NASA Office of Space Science via grant NAG5-7584 and by other grants and contracts. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Light extra U(1) gauge bosons, so called hidden photons, which reside in a hidden sector have attracted much attention since they are a well motivated feature of many scenarios beyond the Standard Model and furthermore could mediate the interaction with hidden sector dark matter. We review limits on hidden photons from past electron beam dump experiments including two new limits from such experiments at KEK and Orsay. In addition, we study the possibility of having dark matter in the hidden sector. A simple toy model and different supersymmetric realisations are shown to provide viable dark matter candidates in the hidden sector that are in agreement with recent direct detection limits.'
author:
- Sarah Andreas
- 'Mark D. Goodsell'
- Andreas Ringwald
title: |
\
\
Hidden Photons in connection to Dark Matter
---
[ address=[Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany]{} ]{}
[ address=[CPhT, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France]{} ]{}
[ address=[Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Hamburg, Germany]{} ]{}
There are various motivations both from a theoretical and a phenomenological point of view for gauge bosons of an extra U(1) symmetry in a hidden sector. These new gauge bosons are called hidden photons. They arise naturally in scenarios beyond the Standard Model (SM) like string theory and supersymmetry. Furthermore, the hidden photon is of interest since it provides a solution to the discrepancy in the muon anomalous magnetic moment between the SM prediction and the experimentally measured value [@Pospelov:2008zw]. In addition, models that contain a dark matter (DM) candidate in the hidden sector which interacts with the SM through a light hidden photon attracted much attention in the context of recent astrophysical observations [@Fayet:2007ua:ArkaniHamed:2008qn:Cheung:2009qd; @Pospelov:2007mp:Chun:2010ve:Mambrini:2011dw:Hooper:2012cw].
The dominant interaction at low energies between the hidden photon $\gamma'$ and the visible sector is through kinetic mixing with the ordinary photon. Generated, for example, by loops of heavy particles charged under both U(1)s [@Holdom:1985ag], a reasonable estimate for the size of the kinetic mixing is of the order of a loop factor $\mathcal{O}(10^{-3}-10^{-4})$ from integrating out those particles. We therefore impose a relation between the hidden gauge coupling $g_h$ and the kinetic mixing as $$\chi_Y = \frac{g_Y g_h}{16 \pi^2} \ \kappa \, ,\label{eq-kappa}$$ with $\kappa$ being $\sim\mathcal{O}(1)$ and depending logarithmically on the masses of the particles in the loop. In supersymmetric theories, this relation is also enforced by holomorphy.
For the most simple hidden sector with an extra U(1) symmetry and the hidden photon $\gamma'$, the low energy effective Lagrangian describing the kinetic mixing with the photon at masses much below the $Z$ mass is given by $${\cal L} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{4}X_{\mu \nu}X^{\mu \nu}
+ \frac{\chi}{2} X_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu} + \frac{m_{\gamma^{\prime}}^2}{2} X_{\mu}X^\mu + e j^\mu_{\mathrm{em}} A_\mu \, ,$$ where $\chi \equiv \chi_Y c_W$ with the cosine $c_W$ of the Weinberg angle, $F_{\mu\nu}$ and $X_{\mu\nu}$ are the field strengths and $A_\mu$ and $X_\mu$ the gauge fields of the ordinary and hidden U(1), respectively. The kinetic mixing with the photon generates an effective coupling of the hidden photon with the electromagnetic current $j^\mu_{\mathrm{em}}$ of the SM and allows the hidden photon to be probed experimentally. The mass $m_{\gamma'}$ of the hidden photon can result either from the Higgs or Stückelberg mechanism. Masses around the GeV scale are obtained naturally in both cases but also much smaller values are possible [@Goodsell:2009xc:Cicoli:2011yh]. For these GeV-scale hidden photons, an important class of constraints arises from electron beam dump experiments. Limits from past beam dump experiments at SLAC and Fermilab were studied in [@Bjorken:2009mm] and further in [@Andreas:2012mt] which additionally considered two other experiments at KEK and in Orsay and took the experimental acceptances into account. An overview of all current experimental constraints on the hidden photon for the MeV to GeV mass range is given in [@Andreas:2012mt; @Andreas:2012xh:Hewett:2012ns:Andreas:2011xf]. In general, hidden sectors can not only contain gauge but also matter fields. In particular, in various models the interaction of DM in the hidden sector through a GeV-scale hidden photon has been studied [@Fayet:2007ua:ArkaniHamed:2008qn:Cheung:2009qd; @Pospelov:2007mp:Chun:2010ve:Mambrini:2011dw:Hooper:2012cw; @Andreas:2011in; @GeVscale].
This paper summarises the current status of limits on hidden photons from electron beam dump experiments, based on the results presented in [@Andreas:2012mt]. Furthermore, a toy-model as well as different supersymmetric models for hidden sectors with DM interacting via a hidden photon are discussed regarding the DM relic density and constraints from recent direct detection experiments, following and updating the analysis of [@Andreas:2011in].
Hidden photons in electron beam dump experiments {#sec-HP}
================================================
Hidden photons can be produced in a process similar to ordinary bremsstrahlung by an electron beam incident on a target. The production cross section scales as $\sigma_{\gamma'} \propto \alpha^3 Z^2 (\chi/m_{\gamma'})^2$ and is $\mathcal{O}(10\ \mathrm{pb})$ for typical values. Carrying most of the initial beam energy, the hidden photons are highly boosted and emitted at small angles in forward direction. Due to the weak interactions with the SM the hidden photons traverse the dump and can be observed in a detector through their decay into leptons. The number of events of, e.g., $e^+ e^-$ from hidden photons decaying behind the dump and before the detector has been estimated in [@Bjorken:2009mm; @Andreas:2012mt], where detailed calculations and expressions are given. Comparing this predicted number of events with the observed one allows us to derive exclusion limits for different experiments. These limits also include the experimental acceptances in order to account for the geometry and finite size of the detector as well as possible energy cuts applied in the data analysis. The acceptances are obtained by analysing simulations, preformed with the MadGraph Monte Carlo generator, for the bremsstrahlung production and the subsequent decay of hidden photons in view of the specific experimental set-ups, cf. [@Andreas:2012mt]. With these acceptances, we derive new limits for experiments at KEK in Japan [@Konaka:1986cb] and at Orsay in France [@Davier:1989wz] and additionally reanalyse the limits presented in [@Bjorken:2009mm] from E141 and E137 at SLAC as well as E774 at Fermilab. All our limits are shown in Fig. \[fig-HPbeamdump\] (*left*). This type of experiment can not probe the upper right corner of the parameter space since there the decay length $l_{\gamma'} \propto E_{\gamma'}/ (\chi m_{\gamma'})^2$ is so short that the hidden photons decay inside the dump and can not be observed. At small values of $\chi$, the reach of the experiments is limited by statistics and the exclusion lines scale roughly as $\propto \chi^4 L_\mathrm{dec}$, independently of $m_{\gamma'}$. Further limits and sensitivities of future searches for hidden photons are shown in Fig. \[fig-HPbeamdump\] (*middle & right*), see [@Andreas:2012mt; @Andreas:2012xh:Hewett:2012ns:Andreas:2011xf] for details.
Hidden sectors with dark matter interacting via hidden photons {#sec-DM}
==============================================================
In the following, we consider models that contain besides the hidden photon also DM in the hidden sector. For a toy model and more complete supersymmetric realisations, we require the DM relic density to agree within $3\sigma$ with the value measured by Planck [@Ade:2013lta] ($\Omega_\mathrm{DM} h^2 = 0.1196 \pm 0.0031$) and the scattering cross sections to fulfil the most recent direct detection (DD) constraints. Furthermore, we explore whether the spin-independent scattering can explain the events observed by CDMS [@Agnese:2013rvf]. These results are an update of the ones in [@Andreas:2011in] where more details on the models and computations are given. The DM annihilation in these models should be safe from indirect constraints especially when it proceeds via the hidden photon to four SM particles in the final state, but we will return to this in future work.
Toy model: Dirac fermion as dark matter candidate
-------------------------------------------------
Here we consider the most simple hidden sector containing in addition to the hidden photon only one Dirac fermion as DM candidate; similar models were studied in [@Pospelov:2007mp:Chun:2010ve:Mambrini:2011dw:Hooper:2012cw]. The DM annihilation proceeds either in the $s$-channel through a hidden photon into SM fermions or in the $t$-channel into two real hidden photons. Fixing the hidden gauge coupling $g_h$ via Eq. as a function of the kinetic mixing $\chi$ and the parameter $\kappa$, the model gives the correct relic abundance for a DM mass of $6.5\ \mathrm{GeV}$ and $\kappa=0.1$ in the dark green band in Fig. \[fig-HPbeamdump\] (*middle*) and a subdominant DM candidate in the light green area. Decreasing (increasing) $\kappa$ moves the dark green band downwards (upwards). The resonance at $m_{\gamma'} = 13\ \mathrm{GeV}$ results from the $s$-channel annihilation. The $t$-channel is kinematically only accessible for $m_\mathrm{DM}>m_{\gamma'}$ where it is dominant and roughly independent of $m_{\gamma'}$, thus leading to the horizontal green line at small $m_{\gamma'}$. For direct detection, the elastic scattering mediated by the hidden photon is spin-independent and occurs mostly on protons. Cross sections obtained with micrOMEGAs are rescaled by the DM abundance in the subdominant region and compared to the most recent DD bounds [@Barreto:2011zu:Angle:2011th:Aprile:2012nq]. The strongest limits are shown in Fig. \[fig-HPbeamdump\] (*middle*) for XENON10 (black), XENON100 (blue) and DAMIC (brown) and exclude a large region of the parameter space. A part of the magenta band in which according to [@Kai; @Frandsen:2013cna] the cross sections can account for the three events observed by CDMS is in agreement with all constraints. The grey shaded areas are excluded by the electron beam dump experiments discussed above and various other constraints summarised in [@Andreas:2012mt; @Andreas:2012xh:Hewett:2012ns:Andreas:2011xf]. A scan over the DM mass for fixed $\kappa=1$ gives the scatter plot in Fig. \[fig-HPDM\] (*left*). Again dark green represents models which give the correct relic abundance and light green those with a subdominant DM candidate. In the magenta regions the scattering cross sections can explain the CDMS events (lighter shades for subdominant DM, darker shades for the total relic abundance). The plot only contains models that are in agreement with all updated DD limits. Thus, the Dirac fermion of the toy model is a viable DM candidate for a wide range of parameters with the total or a subdominant relic abundance and the capability to explain the CDMS events.
Supersymmetric model: Majorana and Dirac fermion as dark matter candidates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
To obtain the simplest anomaly-free supersymmetric realisation of a dark sector model, we consider the three chiral superfields $S$, $H_+$ and $H_-$, where $H_\pm$ have charges $\pm 1$ under the hidden U(1), as well as the superpotential $W \supset \lambda_S S H_+ H_-$ with the Yukawa coupling $\lambda_S$. We study the DM phenomenology for two different scenarios in which the hidden gauge symmetry is broken by two different mechanisms, as described in the following and in more detail in [@Andreas:2011in]. All results assume the MSSM in the visible sector but are mostly independent of this choice.
One possibility is to break the hidden gauge symmetry by the effective Fayet–Iliopoulos term induced by kinetic mixing with the visible Higgs D-term. In this case, the DM particle is either a Dirac or a Majorana fermion. As in the toy model, the Dirac fermion scatters spin-independently and is constrained by XENON10, XENON100 and DAMIC. The scattering of the Majorana fermion, due to its axial coupling, is mainly spin-dependent and limits arise from SIMPLE, PICASSO and COUPP for scattering on protons [@Felizardo:2011uw:Archambault:2012pm:Behnke:2012ys] and from XENON100 for scattering on neutrons [@Aprile:2013doa]. The Majorana fermion has also some spin-independent scattering arising from the Higgs-portal term, but the cross sections are well below the reach of current experiments. Applying the different constraints on both particles, the viable models are shown in the scatter plot of Fig. \[fig-HPDM\] (*middle*) where we scanned both over the DM mass and $\kappa$ in the range $0.1\leq\kappa\leq 10$. Models in the dark green regions provide the correct relic abundance and those in the light green regions have a subdominant DM candidate. The Dirac fermion has a similar phenomenology as in the previous section and can explain the events observed by CDMS in the magenta regions of the parameter space (in contrast to the toy model, however, only as subdominant DM). Unlike in the toy model, the DM particle in the supersymmetric cases can not be heavier than the hidden photon so that the $t$-channel annihilation is not possible and there are no viable models in the lower part of the plot. A scatter plot of a scan for low hidden photon and DM masses is shown in Fig. \[fig-HPbeamdump\] (*right*).
In the second scenario, the hidden gauge symmetry is broken by the running of the Yukawa coupling $\lambda_S$. The DM candidate is again a Majorana fermion with spin-dependent scattering. Applying the corresponding DD constraints, the models in the scatter plot of Fig. \[fig-HPDM\] (*right*) give the total relic abundance or a subdominant contribution as indicated in dark and light green, respectively. Here, we again scanned over the DM mass and $\kappa$ in the range $0.1\leq\kappa\leq10$.
Thus, various supersymmetric models yield viable dark sectors with either a Dirac or a Majorana fermion as DM. They can be probed by DD experiments with spin-independent or spin-dependent scattering, respectively, and give the total or a subdominant relic abundance. Furthermore, the Dirac fermion can explain the events observed by CDMS.
Conclusions
===========
A hidden sector with a dark force is well motivated from a theoretical (string theory, SUSY) and phenomenological ($g-2$, DM) point of view. Past electron beam dump experiments provide an important class of constraints on the mass and kinetic mixing of the hidden photon. We presented different dark sector models, in particular supersymmetric ones with gravity mediation, that provide viable DM candidates with either the right or a subdominant relic abundance. The Dirac fermion DM candidate in a toy model or in supersymmetric models with visible sector induced breaking has spin-independent scattering and can explain the CDMS events while satisfying the DD limits. In these supersymmetric scenarios or other ones with radiative breaking domination, also a Majorana fermion can be obtained as DM particle and can fulfil the DD constraints on spin-dependent scattering. Both particles can be probed in future DD experiments.
[99]{}
M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 095002 (2009) \[arXiv:0811.1030\]. P. Fayet, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 115017 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0702176\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 015014 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.0713\]. C. Cheung, J. T. Ruderman, L. T. Wang and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 035008 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.3246\].
M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B [**662**]{}, 53 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.4866\]. E. J. Chun, J. C. Park and S. Scopel, JHEP [**1102**]{}, 100 (2011) \[arXiv:1011.3300\]. Y. Mambrini, JCAP [**1107**]{}, 009 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.4799\]. D. Hooper, N. Weiner and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 056009 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.2929\].
B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B [**166**]{}, 196 (1986).
M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**0911**]{}, 027 (2009) \[arXiv:0909.0515\]. M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**1107**]{}, 114 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.3705\]. J. D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 075018 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.0580\]. S. Andreas, C. Niebuhr and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 095019 (2012) \[arXiv:1209.6083\]. S. Andreas \[arXiv:1110.2636\]. J. L. Hewett [*et al.*]{} \[arXiv:1205.2671\]. S. Andreas \[arXiv:1211.5160\].
S. Andreas, M. D. Goodsell and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 025007 (2013) \[arXiv:1109.2869\].
D. Feldman, B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 023503 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0610133\]. E. J. Chun and J. C. Park, JCAP [**0902**]{}, 026 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.0308\]. A. Katz and R. Sundrum, JHEP [**0906**]{}, 003 (2009) \[arXiv:0902.3271\]. D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland and K. M. Zurek, JHEP [**0907**]{}, 050 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.2567\]. T. Cohen, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 056001 (2010) \[arXiv:1005.1655\]. Z. Kang, T. Li, T. Liu, C. Tong and J. M. Yang, JCAP [**1101**]{}, 028 (2011) \[arXiv:1008.5243\]. N. Fornengo, P. Panci and M. Regis, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 115002 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.4661\].
A. Konaka [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 659 (1986). M. Davier and H. Nguyen Ngoc, Phys. Lett. B [**229**]{}, 150 (1989).
**Planck** Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1303.5076\].
**CDMS** Collaboration, R. Agnese [*et al.*]{}, \[arXiv:1304.4279\].
**DAMIC** Collaboration, J. Barreto [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**711**]{}, 264 (2012) \[arXiv:1105.5191\]. **XENON10** Collaboration, J. Angle [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 051301 (2011) \[arXiv:1104.3088\]. **XENON100** Collaboration, E. Aprile [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 181301 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.5988\]. We thank K. Schmidt-Hoberg for private communication on this subject. M. T. Frandsen, F. Kahlhoefer, C. McCabe, S. Sarkar and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, \[arXiv:1304.6066\]. **SIMPLE** Collaboration, M. Felizardo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 201302 (2012) \[arXiv:1106.3014\]. **PICASSO** Collaboration, S. Archambault [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**711**]{}, 153 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.1240\]. **COUPP** Collaboration, E. Behnke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 052001 (2012) \[arXiv:1204.3094\]. **XENON100** Collaboration, Aprile [*et al.*]{} \[arXiv:1301.6620\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[**Abstract**]{}
We find a local first law of thermodynamics, $\Delta E = T \Delta S - W$, connecting gravitational entropy, $S$, with matter energy and work. For Einstein gravity $S$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, while for more general theories of gravity $S$ is the Wald entropy, evaluated on the stretched future light cone of any point in an arbitrary spacetime, not necessarily containing a black hole. The equation can also be written as $\rho \Delta V = T \Delta S - p \Delta V$ by regarding the energy-momentum tensor as that of a fluid.
author:
- 'Maulik Parikh[^1^]{}, Sudipta Sarkar[^2^]{}, and Andrew Svesko[^1^]{}'
title: A Local First Law of Gravity
---
*Introduction.* For macroscopic systems of matter, the first law of thermodynamics states that E = T S\_[rev]{} - W , \[firstlawthermo\] where $\Delta S_{\rm rev} = Q/T$ is the reversible component of the change in entropy of the system. A similar equation holds for a semi-classical Schwarzschild black hole [@bardeen]: M = T S . \[bhfirstlaw\] Here $M$ is the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of the black hole, $T$ is its Hawking temperature, and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $S$, is a quarter of the area of the event horizon, measured in Planck units [@Bekenstein:1973ur]: S= . \[SBH\] Equation (\[bhfirstlaw\]) is the famous first law of black hole thermodynamics.
Despite the superficial similarities between (\[firstlawthermo\]) and (\[bhfirstlaw\]), these expressions are rather different in character. First of all, the black hole law only applies, obviously, in the presence of a black hole. Also, unlike (\[firstlawthermo\]), the black hole law is not local: the definition of an event horizon in general relativity involves the global causal structure of spacetime. Moreover, a formal definition of the mass term calls for special asymptotic boundary conditions, in particular asymptotic flatness; generically, energy density cannot simply be integrated over finite regions of space to obtain the total energy. Hence the left-hand side of (\[bhfirstlaw\]) has no exact definition for the realistic case of, say, an astrophysical, uncharged black hole in an expanding universe. Another distinction is that, whereas in equation (\[firstlawthermo\]) the system can exchange energy with a thermal reservoir, there is no physical process [@Gao:2001ut; @Jacobson:2003wv] by which the ADM mass can change because the total energy at spacelike infinity in an asymptotically flat spacetime is a conserved quantity. Instead, the $\Delta M$ in (\[bhfirstlaw\]) refers to differences in the ADM mass under a variation in the space of static uncharged black hole solutions. Finally, the work term is notably absent in (\[bhfirstlaw\]); indeed, neither pressure nor spatial volume admits a straightforward definition for black holes [@Parikh:2005qs; @Dolan:2011xt; @Dolan:2012jh; @Kubiznak:2016qmn; @Padmanabhan:2002sha].
The aim of this paper is to derive a local first law of thermodynamics that also includes gravitational entropy. The main result is the discovery of a hybrid equation, E=T ( )- W , \[localfirst\] combining attributes of (\[firstlawthermo\]) and (\[SBH\]). We find that such an equation applies, within a suitably defined region, to all matter-gravity systems that are significantly smaller than the local curvature scale of spacetime. To arrive at (\[localfirst\]), we shall incorporate three uncommon elements. First, energy will be measured with respect to accelerating observers, rather than with respect to inertial observers. Second, we will consider a two-sphere of accelerating observers with constant uniform radially-outward acceleration [@Parikh:2017]. These observers collectively sweep out a hypersurface that asymptotes to the future light cone of the point at the center of the two-sphere, generating a kind of stretched future light cone (Figure 1). Third, we will use Einstein’s equation to convert the heat flux through the hypersurface into the change in gravitational entropy. But since outward-accelerating observers will spread out even in the absence of heat flux (such as in Minkowski space), we will find that only the reversible part of the change in gravitational entropy is associated with the heat flux. The corresponding area change of the hypersurface is denoted $\Delta A_{\rm rev}$ in (\[localfirst\]). This quite-general construction can be set up about an arbitrary point in an arbitrary spacetime; the only mildly non-trivial assumption is the identification of temperature with acceleration. Amusingly (and somewhat mysteriously), we can express (\[localfirst\]) in terms of fluid properties as V = T ( ) - p V , \[fluidlaw\] where $\rho$ and $p$ are the energy density and pressure measured by inertial observers, and $V$ is the volume of a ball in Euclidean space, namely $\frac{4}{3} \pi r^3$. Lastly, we also find that an analogous expression holds for more general theories of gravity, in which the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is replaced by the Wald entropy [@Wald:1993nt].
*Geometric Set-up.* In the neighborhood of any spacetime point, $P$, the metric can always be expanded around that of flat space. In Riemann normal coordinates, g\_[ab]{}(x) = \_[ab]{} - R\_[acbd]{}(P) x\^c x\^d + … ,\[RNC\] where $x^a$ are Cartesian coordinates with their origin at $P$. Using the local Lorentz symmetry, pick an arbitrary time, $t$, to split spacetime into space and time. The local Poincaré symmetries are generated by approximate Killing vectors, which for a generic spacetime fail to exactly obey the Killing equation because of the quadratic terms in (\[RNC\]). For example, the vector $x \partial^a_t + t \partial^a_x$ generates a Cartesian boost in the $x$-direction, and is an approximate Killing vector [@Jacobson:1995ab]. We will instead use a vector field that generates radial boosts: \^[a]{}=r\^[a]{}\_[t]{}+t\^[a]{}\_[r]{} . \[KV\] Of course, radial boosts are not isometries even in Minkowski space [@DeLorenzo:2017tgx], but notice that $\xi^a$ does, to leading order in Riemann normal coordinates, satisfy some – though not all – components of Killing’s equation:
&\_[t]{}\_[t]{}=0 + [O]{}(x\^2),\_[t]{}\_[i]{}+\_[i]{}\_[t]{}=0 + [O]{}(x\^2),\
&\_[i]{}\_[j]{}+\_[j]{}\_[i]{}=(\_[ij]{}-) + [O]{}(x\^2) , \[Killingfailure\]
where the $x^i$ are Cartesian spatial Riemann normal coordinates and we have $r = \sqrt{x^i x_i}$ and $\partial_r^a = \frac{x^i}{r} \partial^a_i$.
In the absence of spacetime curvature, $\xi^a$ is tangent to the flow lines of observers with constant proper acceleration in the outward radial direction. The congruence of such worldlines with uniform acceleration $1/\alpha$ forms a hyperboloid asymptoting to the light cone at $P$. The hyperboloid is described by $r^2 = \alpha^2 + t^2$; its constant-time sections are two-spheres of radius $r(t)$ bounding a three-ball $B(t)$ (Figure 1). On the hyperboloid, $\xi^2 = -\alpha^2$.
![Consider an arbitrary point $P$ in spacetime and choose a locally inertial time coordinate, $t$. Radially accelerating worldlines $\xi^{a}$ with uniform acceleration generate a timelike congruence, $\Sigma$, with unit outward-pointing normal $n^a$. Two constant-time sections bounded by $\Sigma$ at time $t = 0$ and $t = \epsilon$ are indicated by the three-balls $B(0)$ and $B(\epsilon)$, and have unit normal $N^a$, which is taken to be future-directed. The boundary of the four-volume, $M$, containing our thermodynamic system is $\Sigma \cup B(0) \cup B(\epsilon)$.[]{data-label="hyperboloid"}](figureP.png){width="8.5cm"}
The presence of spacetime curvature necessitates a more careful treatment [@Parikh:2017]. We replace the hyperboloid by a timelike surface $\Sigma$, defined as follows. Let $\alpha$ be a small scale (small compared with the smallest curvature scale at $P$) with dimensions of length. Imagine that the radial boost vector field $\xi^a$, defined in (\[KV\]), describes the unnormalized tangent vectors to the worldlines of a set of observers. Select the subset of observers who have instantaneous proper acceleration $1/\alpha$ at time $t = 0$; this subset forms a small deformation of the coordinate two-sphere $r = \alpha$. Next, choose another dimensionful scale $\epsilon$ and follow the chosen observers from $t = 0$ to $t = \epsilon$. In general, because of spacetime curvature, the observers will not maintain their acceleration. However, by evolving for a very short period of time, $\epsilon \ll \alpha$, the acceleration can be treated as effectively constant. We can therefore, in the presence of spacetime curvature, regard $\Sigma$ as the worldtube of nearly-uniformly accelerated observers (Figure 1). The normal to $\Sigma$ is n\^a = \_t\^a + \_r\^a + … . In general, the effect of spacetime curvature is to make $\Sigma$ a small deformation of the hyperboloid $r^2 = \alpha^2 + t^2$, and to limit its extent in time, $0 \leq t \leq \epsilon \ll \alpha$. The dominant contribution to most calculations will come from taking $\Sigma$ to be the hyperboloid; only for the entropy change will deviations from the hyperboloid be implicitly important.
The motivation for this set-up is two-fold. By the Davies-Unruh effect, proper acceleration is related to temperature: T = . \[temp\] Hence $\Sigma$ has a uniform temperature, $T$. (Technically, to make this identification, the acceleration should not be transient; we therefore imagine the worldlines of $\Sigma$ to continue off $\Sigma$ past $\epsilon$, holding proper acceleration fixed but no longer tracing the integral curves of $\xi^a$.) Also, the compactness of cross-sections of $\Sigma$ means that three-balls at any given time can have finite volume and surface area. Our thermodynamic system consists of the matter and gravity contained within the four-volume, $M$, bounded by $\Sigma$ and the constant-time planes $t = 0$ and $t = \epsilon$.
*A First Law for Matter.* The radially-accelerating observers have a normalized four-velocity vector $u^a \equiv \xi^a/(-\xi^2)^{1/2} \approx \xi^a/\alpha$, to leading order. Let the energy-momentum tensor be $T_{ab}$. Then the energy current measured by the accelerating observers is J\^a =-T\^[ab]{}u\_[b]{} = - T\^[ab]{} \_b . \[energycurrent\] If $\xi^a$ were a Killing vector, this current would be conserved by Killing’s equation. However, since $\xi^a$ is not a Killing vector, we have \_[M]{}d\^[4]{}x\_[a]{}J\^[a]{} = - \_[M]{}d\^[4]{}x T\^[ab]{} \_a \_b . Applying the divergence theorem to the left-hand side and rearranging, we find
& \_[B()]{} dS\_a T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{} - \_[B(0)]{} dS\_a T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{}\
& = \_d\_[a]{}T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{} - \_[M]{}d\^[4]{}xT\^[ab]{}\_[a]{}\_[b]{} , \[stokes\]
where, in accordance with Stokes’ theorem, the signs depend on whether a boundary is timelike or spacelike. Here $dS^{a}=N^{a}d^3x = \partial_t^a r^2 dr d \Omega$ and $d\Sigma^{a}=n^{a}d^3x \approx n^a dt (\alpha/r) r^2(t) d \Omega$, where $dt (\alpha/r)$ is the differential of proper time on the hyperboloid. We now argue that these terms can be interpreted as the change in energy, the heat flow, and the work done, so that (\[stokes\]) is the first law of thermodynamics for matter.
It is evident that $E(t)$, the energy of the system at time $t$, is given by $\frac{1}{\alpha}\int_{B(t)}dS_a T^{ab}\xi_{b}$, where $B(t)$ is the three-ball section of ${\cal M}$ at constant $t$. Not only does this expression have the correct dimension of energy, but $E(t)$ is simply the Noether charge associated with the energy current density, (\[energycurrent\]). We then find that the difference between the energy at $t = \epsilon$ and $t = 0$ is E = \_[B()]{}dS\_a T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{} - \_[B(0)]{}dS\_a T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{} , \[energy\] which is indeed the expression on the left-hand side of (\[stokes\]). It is interesting to evaluate $\Delta E$ explicitly. We first note that, to leading order in Riemann normal coordinates, the energy-momentum tensor $T^{ab}(x) = T^{ab}(P) + {\cal O}(x)$ can be replaced within the integral by its value at $P$. Referring to (\[KV\]), we then see that the off-diagonal pieces of $T^{ab}$ integrate to zero because the integral of a Cartesian spatial coordinate over a ball centered at the origin vanishes. We are therefore left with $E(t) = \frac{4 \pi}{\alpha} T^{tt}(P) \int_0^{r(t)} dr r^2 N_t \xi_t$. We can approximate the radius of the ball by the radius of the hyperboloid. Hence $\Delta E = 2 \pi T^{tt}(P) \alpha \epsilon^2$, using also $\epsilon \ll \alpha$. Similarly, the volume of $B(t)$ is $V(t) = \frac{4}{3} \pi (\alpha^2 + t^2)^{3/2}$. Then the difference between the volume of $B(\epsilon)$ and of $B(0)$ is V = 2 \^2 . \[volume\] Labeling the energy density $\rho \equiv T^{tt}(P)$, we obtain E = V . \[rhodV\] It is amusing that, even though $\Delta E$ is the difference in energies as measured by accelerating observers, it can nevertheless be written in terms of $\rho$ and $\Delta V$, the energy density and volume change measured by inertial observers; it is not the case, though, that $E(t) = \rho V(t)$.
Next, consider the first term on the right in (\[stokes\]). This is clearly the integrated energy flux into the timelike surface $\Sigma$. The sign matches too: the normal to $\Sigma$ is outward-pointing, while the energy current, $J^a$, is defined with a minus sign, (\[energycurrent\]). Now, in thermodynamics, heat is the energy flowing into macroscopically unobservable degrees of freedom. For our observers on the stretched future light cone, the interior of the system is fundamentally unobservable, being causally disconnected. We can therefore interpret the integrated energy flux into the system as heat [@Jacobson:1995ab]: Q=d\_[a]{}T\^[ab]{}\_[b]{} . \[deltaQ\] This interpretation will be confirmed when we incorporate gravity.
Finally, consider the last term in (\[stokes\]). At first sight, this term does not appear to be a work term because it is an integral over a four-volume. To see that it is, consider first for simplicity a diagonal energy-momentum tensor with isotropic pressure, $T^{ij}(P)=p\delta^{ij}$. Then, working as always at leading order, we find \_[M]{}d\^[4]{}xT\^[ab]{}\_[a]{}\_[b]{}\_[M]{}d\^[4]{}x 2p\^[2]{} , where, in the last step, we have evaluated the integral at leading order in $\epsilon$. From (\[volume\]), we see that this is exactly equal to $p \Delta V$, the pressure-volume work done by a system, motivating the identification of the last term in (\[stokes\]) as work.
More generally, consider an arbitrary energy-momentum tensor, for which $T^{ii}(P)=p_{i}$, and $T^{ij}\neq0$ for $i\neq j$. Now from (\[Killingfailure\]), we have $\partial_i \xi_j \sim \frac{t}{r^{3}}x_i x_j$ for $i \neq j$. This is an odd function of the coordinates and therefore $T^{ij} \partial_i \xi_j$ vanishes under integration over the three-ball for $i \neq j$. Moreover, $T^{xx}\partial_{x}\xi_{x}=p_{x}\frac{t}{r^{3}}\left(y^{2}+z^{2}\right)$, and similarly for $T^{yy}$ and $T^{zz}$. Then we find W = \_[M]{}d\^[4]{}xT\^[ab]{}\_[a]{}\_[b]{} = ( \_[i=1]{}\^[3]{}p\_[i]{} ) V , \[work\] which is precisely the pressure-volume work for anisotropic pressures, and is now valid for arbitrary energy-momentum tensors.
Consulting (\[energy\]), (\[deltaQ\]), and (\[work\]), we indeed find that (\[stokes\]) can be interpreted as a first law of thermodynamics for accelerating observers moving along $\Sigma$. Our first law is local in that it is valid near an arbitrary point in a generic spacetime. As it stands though, this equation does not yet involve gravity: there is no Newton’s constant and all the terms involve the energy-momentum tensor of matter, $T^{ab}$. To turn it into a local first law with gravity, we now invoke Einstein’s equation.
*Connecting Matter and Spacetime Thermodynamics.* Using Einstein’s equation, $R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2} R g_{ab} + \Lambda g_{ab} = 8 \pi G T_{ab}$, in (\[deltaQ\]) we find $Q = \frac{1}{8 \pi G \alpha}\int_{\Sigma} d\Sigma_{a} R^a_e \xi^{e}$. The terms proportional to the metric vanish when contracted with $d \Sigma_a$ and $\xi_b$ because $\xi^a$ lies along $\Sigma$ while $n^a$ is normal to it.
Now if $\xi^a$ were a Killing vector, it would obey Killing’s identity: $\nabla_b \nabla_c \xi_d = R_{ebcd} \xi^e$. However, we already know that $\xi^a$ is not exactly a Killing vector. We therefore have $\nabla_b \nabla_c \xi_d - R_{ebcd} \xi^e = f_{bcd}$ where $f_{bcd}$ encodes the failure of Killing’s identity to hold. Then Q =\_d\_[a]{} (g\^[ac]{} g\^[bd]{} - g\^[ad]{}g\^[bc]{}) ( \_[b]{}\_[c]{}\_[d]{} - f\_[bcd]{} ) . \[Qint\] We now show that the integral of the $\nabla_{b}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}$ term evaluates to $T \Delta S$, by essentially reversing the thermodynamic derivation of Einstein’s equations in the Noether charge approach [@Parikh:2009qs; @Guedens:2011dy; @Parikh:2017]. First, we use Stokes’ theorem for an antisymmetric tensor field $A^{ab}$, namely $\int_{\Sigma}d\Sigma_{a}\nabla_{b}A^{ab}=-\oint_{\partial\Sigma}dS_{ab}A^{ab}$, to express that integral as the difference of terms $-\frac{1}{8 \pi G \alpha} \int dS_{ab} \frac{1}{2} (g^{ac} g^{bd} - g^{ad}g^{bc}) \nabla_{c}\xi_{d}$ evaluated over the two-spheres at time $t = 0$ and $t=\epsilon$. Here $dS_{ab} = dA \frac{1}{2} (n_a u_b - u_a n_b)$. Then, since $u^a \approx \xi^a/\alpha$, we have - dA (n\^c \^d - n\^d \^c) \_c \_d = + = T . Here we used the fact, (\[Killingfailure\]), that the projection of $\nabla_c \xi_d$ in the $n-\xi$ plane is antisymmetric. We then made use of our judicious choice of $\Sigma$ as a surface of constant acceleration and thus temperature in writing $\xi^c \nabla_c \xi^d = \alpha n^d$ and in using (\[temp\]). Thus the integral of the $\nabla_{b}\nabla_{c}\xi_{d}$ term is $T \Delta S$.
Now consider the $f_{bcd}$ term in the $Q$ integral, (\[Qint\]). In general, $f_{bcd}$ consists of two types of terms: terms that arise because of spacetime curvature, (\[RNC\]), but also a term of ${\cal O}(x^{-1})$ that exists even in Minkowski space, because radial boosts are not true isometries; explicitly, the latter comes from taking partial derivatives of (\[Killingfailure\]). To lowest order, the integrals of terms of the first type either vanish because they are linear Cartesian spatial terms integrated over a sphere [@Parikh:2017] or, if not, can be canceled by adding quadratic and cubic terms to $\xi^a$ [@Guedens:2012sz; @Guedens:2011dy; @Parikh:2017].
The integral of the term of ${\cal O}(x^{-1})$ in $f_{bcd}$ cannot be eliminated by re-definitions of $\xi^a$. To leading order, we have $f_{bcd}=\partial_{b}\partial_{c}\xi_{d}$. Then, direct calculation yields $\frac{1}{8\pi G \alpha}\int_{\Sigma}d\Sigma_{a} \frac{1}{2} (\eta^{ac} \eta^{bd} - \eta^{ad}\eta^{bc}) (- f_{bcd} ) = - \frac{\epsilon^2}{2 G \alpha}$. Hence Q = T S - . \[delQrev\] To understand the second term, consider the change in entropy of the hyperboloid defined by $r^2 = \alpha^2 + t^2$: TS\_[hyp]{} = (A\_[hyp]{}()-A\_[hyp]{}(0) ) = , \[TDeltaSMink\] where $A_{\rm hyp}(t) = 4 \pi (\alpha^2 + t^2)$ is simply the area of constant-$t$ sections of the hyperboloid. We see that (\[delQrev\]) automatically subtracts off the entropy increase from the background expansion of the hyperboloid. Now, in thermodynamics, $Q$ is equal to $T\Delta S$ only for reversible processes. The expansion of the hyperboloid is, like the free expansion of a gas or of the light cone, an irreversible process unrelated to the presence of any heat flux. Hence Q = T S- TS\_[hyp]{} T S\_[rev]{} . Here $\Delta S_{\rm rev}$ is the reversible part of the change in gravitational entropy. A direct calculation using (\[deltaQ\]) shows that $Q = (\rho + \frac{1}{3}\sum_i p_i) \Delta V$. Hence we have that $\Delta S_{\rm rev} \geq 0$ if the null energy condition holds.
Putting everything together, we arrive at our result: E=T ( )- W . \[localfirstlaw\] We have found a hybrid first law that resembles both the ordinary first law of thermodynamics for matter (in that it is valid locally and has a work term) as well as the first law for black holes (in that it involves gravitational entropy). Using (\[rhodV\]) and (\[work\]), we can also put this in the form (\[fluidlaw\]). In (\[localfirstlaw\]), $\Delta E$ and $W$ refer to the energy of and work done by matter, while the middle term refers to the entropy of gravity. Note the absence of a term corresponding to the entropy of matter. This property is reminiscent of black holes: if one empties a cup of hot coffee into a black hole, the black hole’s entropy increases solely due to the mass-energy of the coffee, with no extra contribution from the coffee’s own thermal entropy.
The result bears some resemblance to recent work [@Jacobson:2015hqa; @Bueno:2016gnv], in which the assumption that the vacuum is maximally entangled leads to the “first law of causal diamond mechanics," including a term that can be interpreted as work. It would be interesting to explore this connection.
Our local first law can be extended to higher-dimensional spacetime; in particular, (\[delQrev\]) always corresponds to subtracting the inherent area increase of the hyperboloid. More significantly, the derivation can also be extended to a broad class of higher-curvature theories of gravity. Consider a diffeomorphism-invariant gravitational theory for which the Lagrangian, $L$, is a polynomial in the Riemann tensor. Define $P^{abcd}=\partial L/\partial R_{abcd}$. The generalization of Einstein’s equation is then $P_a^{cde} R_{bcde} - 2 \nabla^c \nabla^d P_{acdb} - \frac{1}{2} L g_{ab} = 8 \pi G T_{ab}$. Substituting this into $Q$, and replacing $R_{ebcd} \xi^e$ as before with $\nabla_b \nabla_c \xi_d - f_{bcd}$, we again find that the $f_{bcd}$ integral precisely cancels the background increase in gravitational entropy of the hyperboloid. The other term integrates via Stokes’ theorem to give the difference in a formally Wald-like gravitational entropy, S\^[Wald]{}=-dS\_[ab]{}(P\^[abcd]{}\_[c]{}\_[d]{}-2\_[d]{}\_[c]{}P\^[abcd]{}) , \[Waldent\] which would be exactly the Wald entropy [@Wald:1993nt] if $\xi^a$ were a timelike Killing vector in a black hole spacetime. Hence we again find a local first law that takes precisely the form $\Delta E = T \Delta S^{\rm Wald}_{\rm rev} - W$.
[**Acknowledgments**]{}
MP is supported in part by John Templeton Foundation grant 60253 and by the Government of India DST VAJRA Faculty Scheme VJR/2017/000117. SS is supported in part by the Government of India DST under Start-up grant for Young Scientists YSS/2015/001346.
[99]{}
J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. [**31**]{}, 161 (1973). J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**7**]{}, 2333 (1973). S. Gao and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 084020 (2001); gr-qc/0106071. T. Jacobson and R. Parentani, Found. Phys. [**33**]{}, 323 (2003); gr-qc/0302099. M. K. Parikh, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 124021 (2006); hep-th/0508108. B. P. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. [**28**]{}, 235017 (2011); arXiv:1106.6260 \[gr-qc\]. B. P. Dolan, arXiv:1209.1272 \[gr-qc\]. D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and M. Teo, Class. Quant. Grav. [**34**]{}, no. 6, 063001 (2017); arXiv:1608.06147 \[hep-th\]. T. Padmanabhan, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5387 (2002); gr-qc/0204019. M. Parikh and A. Svesko, arXiv:1712.08475 \[hep-th\]. R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, no. 8, R3427 (1993); gr-qc/9307038. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1260 (1995); gr-qc/9504004. T. De Lorenzo and A. Perez, arXiv:1707.00479 \[gr-qc\]. M. K. Parikh and S. Sarkar, Entropy [**18**]{}, 119 (2016); arXiv:0903.1176 \[hep-th\]. R. Guedens, T. Jacobson, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 064017 (2012); arXiv:1112.6215 \[gr-qc\]. R. Guedens, Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 145002 (2012); arXiv:1201.0542 \[gr-qc\]. T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 20, 201101 (2016); arXiv:1505.04753 \[gr-qc\]. P. Bueno, V. S. Min, A. J. Speranza, and M. R. Visser, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 4, 046003 (2017); arXiv:1612.04374 \[hep-th\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[**Background and purpose:**]{} Tumor motion plays a key role in the safe delivery of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) for pancreatic cancer. The purpose of this study was to use tumor motion data measured in patients to establish limits on motion magnitude for safe delivery of pancreatic SBRT, and to help guide motion-management decisions in potential dose-escalation scenarios.\
[**Materials and methods:**]{} Using 91 sets of pancreatic tumor motion data measured in patients, we calculated motion-convolved dose of the gross tumor volume (GTV), the duodenum and the stomach for 25 pancreatic cancer patients. We derived simple linear or quadratic models relating motion to changes in dose, and used these models to establish the maximum amount of motion allowable while satisfying error thresholds on key dose metrics. In the same way, we studied the effects of dose escalation and tumor volume on allowable motion.\
[**Results:**]{} In our patient cohort, the mean \[minimum—maximum\] allowable motion for 33/40/50 Gy to the PTV was 11.9 \[6.3—22.4\], 10.4 \[5.2—19.1\] and 9.0 \[4.2—16.0\] mm, respectively. Maximum allowable motion decreased as dose was escalated, and was smaller in patients with larger tumors. We found significant differences in allowable motion between different plans, suggesting a patient-specific approach to motion management is possible.\
[**Conclusion:**]{} The effects of motion on pancreatic SBRT are highly variable between patients and there is potential to allow more motion in certain patients, even in dose-escalated scenarios. In our dataset, a conservative limit of 6.3 mm would ensure safe treatment of all patients treated to 33 Gy in 5 fractions.\
*This manuscript was submitted to Practical Radiation Oncology*
author:
- 'Yijun Ding, Ph.D.'
- 'Warren G. Campbell, Ph.D.'
- 'Moyed Miften, Ph.D.'
- 'Yevgeniy Vinogradskiy, Ph.D.'
- 'Karyn A. Goodman, M.D.'
- 'Tracey E. Schefter, M.D.'
- 'Bernard L. Jones, Ph.D.'
title: Quantifying allowable motion to achieve safe dose escalation in pancreatic SBRT
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
At the time of diagnosis, approximately 50% of pancreatic cancer patients present with distant metastases and 30% of the patients have locally advanced disease \[1\]. Surgery is the preferred therapeutic option, but cannot be used in patients with either locally advanced or borderline resectable disease due to vascular involvement. Radiation plays a role in this setting, with the goal of either converting patients to surgical candidates or achieving local control of the tumor. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) has demonstrated promising early results \[2, 3, 4\]. However, the proximity of the pancreas to the radiosensitive organs of the abdomen (such as the small bowel, stomach, kidneys, and spinal cord) makes curative radiotherapy difficult.
SBRT delivers large, ablative doses of radiation in only a few treatment fractions. SBRT can maximally spare the surrounding normal tissues by forming sharp dose gradients around the treatment volume \[5, 6\]. In recent years, multiple clinical trials have shown encouraging clinical outcomes of pancreatic cancer patients after SBRT \[2, 7, 8, 3, 4, 9\]. Furthermore, SBRT can potentially improve distant control by inducing immune response \[10, 11, 12\]. Current evidence suggests that dose escalation in SBRT may further improve patient outcomes \[13, 14, 15, 16, 17\], and many institutional trials of dose-escalated pancreatic SBRT are under way \[18\].
However, dose escalation is limited by toxicities to the surrounding organs at risk (OARs). OARs in pancreatic SBRT include stomach and duodenum \[19\], because they are highly sensitive to radiation and adjacent to the pancreas. The location of tumor, duodenum and stomach in one patient are shown in Figure 1. Due to breathing, digestion, and heartbeat, the boundary between the tumor and nearby OARs is blurred. This internal target movement may lead to underdosage in parts of the tumor and overdosage to the OARs. As dose to the tumor escalates, these dose differences will grow larger, potentially increasing toxicity and decreasing local control.
\[htb!\] ![The location of pancreatic tumor (GTV, red), duodenum (purple) and stomach (green) for a patient on a 3D CT scan.[]{data-label="fig:CT_illustration"}](figure1.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
To mitigate the detrimental effects on treatment due to the internal organ motion, techniques such as abdominal compression, respiratory gating, breath-hold, and real-time tumor tracking \[20\] can be applied. Each technique provides different tradeoffs between ease of use, patient comfort, and the magnitude of motion reduction. The AAPM task group 76 has advised an individual approach to respiratory management \[20\]; however, there is little clinical guidance on how to achieve this patient-specific management for pancreatic cancer patients. In this paper, we use tumor motion data measured in patients to a) quantify the effects of pancreatic motion on clinical dose distributions, and b) calculate the allowable tumor motion for individual patients. The purpose of our work is to develop a method for determining patient-specific motion limits. We utilize this method to answer three key clinical questions: How much motion is allowable during treatment while still achieving clinical dose constraints? Does allowable motion change accordingly in larger tumors or with dose escalation? Finally, is there a way to identify treatment plans that are more tolerant to motion, potentially allowing these patients to be treated with less onerous motion mitigation techniques?
Methods and Materials {#sec:methods .unnumbered}
=====================
Patients {#patients .unnumbered}
--------
Between November 2015 and July 2017, we treated 25 newly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma cases with Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) to a dose of 33 Gy in five fractions using 6—10 MV photons. More details regarding these treatments can be found in a prior study \[21\]. Patients underwent two sets of CT scans prior to treatment: a free-breathing three-dimensional computed tomography (3D CT) scan for target definition and dose calculation and a four-dimensional CT (4DCT) scan to assess respiratory motion. Two motion-mitigation techniques were used during simulation and treatment. In 7 patients, abdominal compression was used during simulation and treatment to reduce the amplitude of motion. In the remaining 18 patients, respiratory gating was used. Gross tumor volumes (GTV) were drawn by the radiation oncologist on the planning CT (as shown in red in Figure \[fig:CT\_illustration\]), and expanded to create a Planning Target Volume (PTV). The GTV-to-PTV expansion margins were typically 3-5 mm, and were determined by the oncologist based on local anatomy. PTV volumes were trimmed to avoid overlap with OARs. An Internal Target Volume (ITV) was not used; however, motion was taken into account in the design of the PTV. For this, the PTV contour was overlaid on the 4DCT, and compared against the observed range-of-motion of the tumor boundaries. For patients managed with gating, the range-of-motion included only the 30$\%$ to 70$\%$ phases of the 4DCT (end-exhale phases); whereas for patients managed with compression, this motion included all phases. If needed, the PTV was expanded further to encompass this range of motion. The EclipseTM Treatment Planning System (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) was used for planning and dose calculation. Data from these clinical cases were analyzed under an institutional review board (IRB) approved retrospective research protocol.
Tumor trajectory {#tumor-trajectory .unnumbered}
----------------
We utilized an existing pancreatic tumor motion database measured in patients to quantify the effects of motion on delivered dose. These tumor motion data were collected in a previous study of SBRT for pancreatic cancer \[22\]. This motion library included 91 datasets of daily pancreatic tumor motion derived from 19 patients. Raw CBCT projection images were utilized to calculate tumor motion data \[23, 24, 25\] with a previously developed technique. A summary of the technique is given as follows:
1. In each projection image, the location of implanted intratumoral fiducial markers was determined with an automated template-matching algorithm [@campbell2017automated].
2. A 3D Gaussian probability model of the tumor trajectory was formed with maximum-likelihood estimation.
3. For each projection, the 3D position of the tumor was estimated as the most likely position along the line of detection according to the 3D Gaussian model.
4. For each CBCT scan, a list of 892 tumor positions, which was also referred to as a tumor trajectory, was output in patient geometry. The coordinates of the tumor trajectories were in the anterior-posterior (AP), left-right (LR) and superior-inferior (SI) directions.
In each dataset, we calculated the time-resolved positions of the tumor throughout the CBCT, which were composed of 892 samples of 3D positions over 1 minute. Each sample was a 3D position estimated from one raw CBCT projection image (892 projections per CBCT, each acquired at 125 kVp, 1.5 mAs). These 19 patients were not included in the 25 treatment plans we studied in this paper.
Motion-convolved dose {#motion-convolved-dose .unnumbered}
---------------------
One of the main effects of organ motion in IMRT is, essentially, a blurring of the static dose distribution over the trajectory of the motion \[26\]. Methods based on convolution of the static dose distribution with a function representing the distribution of uncertainties from intratreatment organ motion have been proposed before \[27, 28, 29\]. In this paper, 3D tumor trajectories were used as the function representing internal organ motion. Motion-convolved dose was calculated under two assumptions: (1) the volume containing all structures of interest (the tumor, the duodenum and the stomach) was a rigid volume and there was no rotation of the organs; and (2) the static dose distribution was not affected by the internal organ motion.
Dose volume histograms (DVHs) were calculated for GTV, duodenum and stomach. Note that we utilized coverage of the GTV (rather than the PTV) in our motion-convolved dose calculation, where the GTV is translated within the clinical dose distribution. This reflects the clinical scenario, where the tumor moves, and the ITV/PTV expansion is intended to encompass tumor motion and other uncertainties. The organ boundaries were generated from physician-drawn contours with shape-based interpolation \[30\]. For each patient and each tumor trajectory, the planned and motion-convolved dose distributions and DVHs were calculated and evaluated with several dose metrics.
Relevant dose metrics {#relevant-dose-metrics .unnumbered}
---------------------
To determine the allowable motion for each patient, we computed the differences in dose metrics induced by motion. To date, pancreatic SBRT has been largely implemented at the single-institutional level, and as such there is some heterogeneity in terms of dose constraints and metrics reported in the literature \[31, 32\]. However, there is general agreement that the main constraints involve 1) coverage of the target volume and 2) maximum point dose and/or high dose constraints to the stomach and the duodenum. To understand the effects of motion on pancreatic SBRT, a range of dose metrics were selected to show the potential effects: (1) $D_{98}$, which is the dose covering $98\%$ of the GTV; (2) $D_{0.1cc\_d}$, which is the maximum dose covering at least 0.1 cm$^3$ of the duodenum; (3) $D_{0.1cc\_s}$, which is the maximum dose covering at least 0.1 cm$^3$ of the stomach; (4)$V_{33\_d}$, which is the volume of the duodenum that receives more than 33 Gy; and (5)$V_{33\_s}$, which is the volume of the stomach that receives more than 33 Gy.
To get a broader understanding of the effect of motion on these plans, all 91-tumor trajectories were applied to each of the 25 treatment plans. In this analysis, the differences between the static and motion-convolved dose metrics ($\Delta$DMs, where each $\Delta{\text{DM}} = {\text{DM}}_{\text{motion}} - {\text{DM}}_{\text{static}}$) were calculated. In this paper, we refer to $\Delta$DMs as dosimetric errors. We divided the motion data into four bins (based on the magnitude of motion in SI direction) and calculated the mean and range of dosimetric errors for a group of patients. Prior work \[22\] has shown that the mean \[minimum—maximum\] target apparent motion ranges in SI direction for respiratory gating, abdominal compression and no motion mitigation are 5.5 \[1.5—8.4\], 8.5 \[1.6—17.1\] and 13.9 \[4.7—35.5\], respectively. The boundaries between the motion bins were at 4, 7, and 10 mm, such that the mean apparent motion ranges for respiratory gating, abdominal compression and no motion mitigation are in the second, third and fourth bins.
Personalized motion management requires knowledge about the effects of motion for each individual. To relate motion with dosimetric endpoints, we modeled the relation between $\Delta$DMs and the magnitude of motion in the SI direction for each patient. Based on the data collected from the 25 patients, we deduced a model, either linear or quadratic, for each dose metric. Data from each patient were fitted by the models to derive a set of patient-specific parameters. The models and the patient-specific parameters were used to predict $\Delta$DMs at any motion magnitude. Details of this method are given in the Supplemental Material.
Allowable motion for individual patient {#allowable-motion-for-individual-patient .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
To help guide clinical interpretation of our results, we calculated limits for tumor motion based on a set of representative dosimetric criteria. We first chose a set of threshold values, which represented an excessive error in the dose metrics. The thresholds we chose are 2 Gy for $\Delta D_{98}$, 5 Gy for $\Delta D_{0.1cc\_d}$ and $\Delta D_{0.1cc\_s}$, 0.5 cm$^3$ for $\Delta V_{33\_d}$ and $\Delta V_{33\_s}$. These thresholds were used to calculate the upper limit on allowable motion ($L_{max}$) for each patient, which is the maximum magnitude of motion that satisfies all the above five error thresholds. The motion magnitude is represented by 95$\%$ confidence interval (CI) in the SI direction.
We explored the effects of dose escalation, tumor volume and varying dosimetric-error thresholds on allowable motion.
*Dose escalation:* To study the allowable motion when the dose is escalated, we repeated the calculation for prescription doses of 40 Gy and 50 Gy. We assumed the planned dose distributions did not change and linearly scaled the original dose distribution up to the given value. To test the validity of this assumption, we re-planned 6 cases (the 3 most-sensitive and the 3 lease-sensitive to motion) to 50 Gy and calculated allowable motion using the re-planned dose distributions.
*Tumor volume:* To investigate if there is correlation between the motion sensitivity of $\Delta$DMs and tumor volume $V_{GTV}$, we divided patients into two groups at the median of the 25 tumor volumes, which is 20 cm$^3$, and quantified the effects of motion separately for these two groups. These differences were assessed with an unpaired t-test.
*Sensitivity to dosimetric error thresholds:* In order to understand the effects of varying dosimetric-error thresholds on allowable motion, we performed a sensitivity analysis of the error thresholds on $L_{max}$. We calculated $L_{max}$ under varying dosimetric error thresholds. We fixed the thresholds for two dosimetric errors at our initial choices, which are $\max(\Delta D_{98})=2$ Gy, $\max(\Delta D_{0.1cc})=5$ Gy and $\max(\Delta V_{33})=0.5$ cm$^3$, and varied the third threshold, multiplying the initial choice by 0.5, 1 (no change) and 2.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
*Error in dose metrics ($\Delta$DMs):* The absolute values of the $\Delta$DMs increase with the magnitude of tumor motion and are larger for larger tumors, as shown in Figure \[fig:DM\_two\_groups\], where data from all 25 patients are presented as box plots. The clinical dose distributions of patients with tumors larger than 20 cm$^3$ are affected more than those from smaller tumors by tumor motion. The tumor volume affected $\Delta V_{33\_d}$ more severely than error in other metrics considered in this paper. For reference, the average GTV volume was 20.0$\pm$10.7 cm3 (range 4.8—50.8) and the average PTV volume was 41.8$\pm$18.5 cm3 (range 17.4—94.6).
\[htb!\] ![$\Delta$DMs vs. motion for patients with small tumors (grey) and large tumors (green). From top to bottom, $\Delta D_{98}$, $\Delta D_{0.1cc\_d}$, $\Delta V_{33\_d}$, $\Delta D_{0.1cc\_s}$ and $\Delta V_{33\_s}$ vs. motion are plotted. Lines indicate mean; patches indicate $2.5^{th}$ to $97.5^{th}$ percentile. The data are displayed for three dose levels. The patients were divided into two groups based on tumor volumes, where the small tumor group ($V_{GTV}<20~cm^3$) has 13 patients and the large tumor group ($V_{GTV}\geq20~cm^3$) has 12 patients.[]{data-label="fig:DM_two_groups"}](figure2_new.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
The effects of motion on $\Delta$DMs are highly variable between patients. Figure \[fig:fit\_results\] shows how $\Delta$DMs change as functions of SI motion for 2 representative patients. For each patient, the relations between $\Delta$DMs and SI motion were fitted by a set of models. Each patient had a set of fitting parameters. Details on the mathematical models and a quantitative measure of goodness of fit are discussed in Supplement A. These personalized models, which relate dose metric errors to motion magnitude, provide foundations to calculate allowable motion for individual patient.
\[htb!\] ![$\Delta$DMs vs. magnitude of motion for individual patients. Data calculated from measured patient motion are plotted in black dots. The fitted curves are plotted in red line. []{data-label="fig:fit_results"}](figure3.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\linewidth"}
In general, treatment plans broadly fall into two categories: those that are sensitive to tumor motion (eg. patient $\#$1 as shown in the left column of Figure \[fig:fit\_results\]) and those that were relatively stable as the magnitude of tumor motion increases (eg. patient $\#$5 as shown in the right column of Figure \[fig:fit\_results\]).
*Allowable motion ($L_{max}$):* The allowable motion, $L_{max}$, of all 25 patients are combined into a boxplot in Figure \[fig:mam\_boxplot\] (a). The relation between $L_{max}$ and the prescription dose is presented for each patient in Figure \[fig:mam\_boxplot\] (b), where each color represents one patient. The same boxplot as in Figure \[fig:mam\_boxplot\] (a) is drawn in the background in Figure \[fig:mam\_boxplot\] (b) for reference. The plots show that (1) different patients require different limits on target motion; (2) as prescription dose increases, allowable motion decreases; (3) inter-personal variation is larger than the variation caused by dose escalation.
\[htb!\] ![Allowable motion vs. prescription dose for all 25 patients (a) and for each patient (b). (a): The boxplot shows the median (red center line), \[$25^{th}$—$75^{th}$\] percentile (blue box) and \[minimum—maximum\] range (black whiskers) of the 25 $L_{max}$ at each dose level. (b): Each colored-solid line represents one patient; the same boxplot in (a) is placed in the background for reference.[]{data-label="fig:mam_boxplot"}](figure4_new.eps "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
The allowable motion for patients with tumors larger than 20 cm$^3$ and patients with tumors smaller than 20 cm$^3$ are presented in Table \[tb:mam\_2groups\_ttest\]. As a side note, a $V_{GTV}$ of 20 cm$^3$ on average corresponds to $V_{PTV}$ of 42 cm$^3$. The mean \[minimum—maximum\] of $V_{GTV}$ for the two groups of patients is 28.3 \[20.1—50.8\] and 12.3 \[4.8—19.4\] cm$^3$. Patients with larger tumors on average require a reduced limit on target motion.
(mm) 33 Gy 40 Gy 50 Gy
--------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
$L_{max}$ (all patients) 11.9 \[6.3—22.4\] 10.4 \[5.2—19.1\] 9.0 \[4.2—16.0\]
$L_{max}$ ( $V>20~\text{cm}^3$) 10.0 \[6.3—16.2\] 8.8 \[5.2—15.0\] 7.8 \[4.2—13.9\]
$L_{max}$ ( $V<20~\text{cm}^3$) 13.7 \[6.8—22.4\] 12.0 \[6.2—19.1\] 10.0 \[5.6—16.0\]
p-value 0.03 0.03 0.07
Figure 5 presents the mean and minimum—maximum range of the 25 Lmax for varying $\Delta$D98 (left), $\Delta$D0.1cc (middle) and V33 (right). As stated previously, the error threshold on one metric varies by multiplying the initial choice by 0.5, 1 (no change), and 2; the error thresholds on the remaining two metrics are fixed at our initial choices, which are max($\Delta$D98) = 2 Gy, max($\Delta$D0.1cc) = 5 Gy and max($\Delta$V33) = 0.5 cm$^3$.
*Sensitivity tests:* Figure \[fig:mam\_dmc\] presents the mean and minimum—maximum range of the 25 $L_{max}$ for varying $\Delta D_{98}$ (left), $\Delta D_{0.1cc}$ (middle) and $V_{33}$ (right). As stated previously, the error threshold on one metric varies by multiplying the initial choice by 0.5, 1 (no change), and 2; the error thresholds on the remaining two metrics were fixed at our initial choices, which are $\max(\Delta D_{98})=2$ Gy, $\max(\Delta D_{0.1cc})=5$ Gy and $\max(\Delta V_{33})=0.5$ cm$^3$.
{width="\linewidth"}
In our sensitivity test of tissue deformation, we calculated the difference in the deformation vector field from the average deformation vector of the GTV. Differences in the deformation vector field averaged less than 1 mm at distances as high as 20 cm from the GTV. The standard deviation of the deformation differences were less than 1 mm for duodenum, and less than 2 mm for the stomach.
*Dose scaling:* For the 6 cases that we re-planned to test our assumption of linear dose scaling, the mean difference between allowable motion calculated from re-planned dose distributions and from scaled dose distributions ($L_{max\_scale} –L_{max\_replan}$) is $0.1\pm0.3$ mm, which on a percentage basis equates to $1.3\pm5.7\%$.
Discussion {#sec:discussion .unnumbered}
==========
As more institutions explore dose escalation in pancreatic SBRT, it is necessary to understand the potential risks and benefits. Motion is a first-order driver of uncertainty in abdominal SBRT, and the erratic nature of pancreatic motion \[33, 34\] makes accounting for this uncertainty difficult. A widely available technique to assess respiratory motion of pancreatic tumors is 4DCT; however, numerous studies have demonstrated that 4DCT underestimates the actual range of motion for pancreatic tumors \[35, 36\]. In this study, we developed a method to quantify the sensitivity of a given plan to motion, and tested this method using realistic tumor motion data measured in patients to quantify the effects of motion on our clinical dose distributions. By relating realistic motion data to dosimetric endpoints, we were able to establish limits on the amount of motion that can be allowed in this cohort without exceeding error thresholds. We found that the amount of allowable motion decreased as dose was escalated; however, this effect was small compared to inter-patients variations. We also found an inverse relationship between target volume and allowable motion. This makes intuitive sense, as in general, the boundaries of larger tumors are closer to the boundaries of OARs, and larger tumor volumes require more integral dose to provide adequate tumor coverage. The inverse relationship implies that the limits on motion should be tightened for large tumors (or relaxed for smaller tumors).
In our dataset, a conservative limit of 6.3 mm motion ensured safe treatment of all patients at current dose levels. This value is highly dependent on the process through which the target volume was constructed, and the motion margins that were applied. While this specific result may apply only to our patient cohort, several results can be applied more broadly. First, we found considerable differences between patients (exceeding the differences due to dose escalation). This suggests that patient-specific dose escalation may be feasible, and that some patients could safely receive treatments that are more aggressive. Secondly, we have developed a method that would allow the determination of allowable motion prior to treatment. Taken together, one could envision a clinical scenario where, at the time of simulation, the patient undergoes comprehensive motion evaluation (using either fluoroscopy or CBCT in conjunction with a computational technique to extract motion data) \[37, 24, 38\]. Using the methods presented in this work, these motion data could then be used to evaluate the sensitivity of a given plan to motion, and an appropriate motion mitigation strategy could be implemented. In rare cases (with little predicted toxicity), it may even be possible to simply expand treatment margins to ensure coverage. On the other hand, in challenging dose-escalated scenarios, it may be appropriate to implement real-time imaging methods to increase the accuracy of treatment to better than 5 mm \[39\].
Since unmitigated pancreatic motion is generally larger than 6.3 mm, our data imply that some form of motion mitigation is necessary. Minn et. al. \[40\] found that the range-of-motion in the SI direction can vary from 4.5 to 48.8 mm (mean 20.8 mm), and Feng et. al. \[33\] found a mean range-of-motion of $20\pm10$ mm. Clinically, motion management techniques, such as abdominal compression, respiratory gating, and real-time tumor-tracking \[20\], can be applied. In a prior study comparing gating and compression for pancreatic SBRT \[22\], it was found that abdominal compression resulted in an average of 8.5 mm of motion in the SI direction (range 2—17 mm), whereas the average apparent range of tumor motion during respiratory gating was 5.5 mm (range 2—8 mm). Taken together, these results suggest that respiratory gating may be the best one-size-fits-all approach for pancreatic SBRT. However, we also found significant differences between patients, and our data suggests that many patients could be treated safely under more relaxed conditions.
There are several important limitations to our work that must be considered. Our dose model assumes rigid motion within the abdomen, whereas previous work indicates that the pancreas can undergo deformation during respiration \[33\]. However, the deformation observed was up to 5 mm with a mean of 1—2 mm \[33\], which is small compared to the typical magnitude of pancreatic motion (1—2 cm). Furthermore, another study \[41\] compared rigid and deformable dose accumulation in liver SBRT and found that rigid dose accumulation led to dose errors averaging less than 1% of prescription dose for tumor and normal tissue (ranging from -5.1%—8.3%). In our sensitivity analysis, this assumption of rigid motion resulted in average errors less than 1 mm. Given these data, we argue that errors due to rigid assumptions are small compared to dosimetric changes caused by motion. However, future work on this topic should include the effects of deformation (perhaps using intrafraction images obtained from MR linacs). It is also important to understand the effects of inter-fraction anatomical changes. Day-to-day changes in patient anatomy (such as stomach/bowel gas) can cause dosimetric changes, and studies have found that adaptive re-planning in pancreatic SBRT can result in dosimetric benefits \[42, 43\]. The optimal approach may involve a combination of patient-specific motion management and adaptive replanning. As more institutions explore dose-escalated therapies, it is imperative to understand the benefits and risks of different techniques, and to choose the most appropriate approach.
Another limitation is the ambiguity about which dose metrics are most relevant to pancreatic SBRT. Studies have shown that pancreatic SBRT toxicity is correlated with maximum dose received by an OAR ($D_{max}$), which refers to maximum dose to 1 cm$^3$ in one study \[31\] and maximum dose to 0.035 cm$^3$ in another \[32\]. We chose to use $D_{0.1cc}$ to represent $D_{max}$. Murphy et al. \[31\] has also shown that duodenum toxicity is correlated with the volume of duodenum receiving significant dose. Therefore, we chose to use $V_{33}$ to represent volume effect. The last metric we chose, which is $D_{98}$ of the GTV, represents tumor coverage. We anticipate that future clinical trials will provide more exact answers regarding pancreatic SBRT dose metrics; however, we chose a representative set of metrics that can be broadly applied to understand the relationship between motion, local control, and toxicity. There is also ambiguity about how much change in dose metrics is clinically relevant. We performed a sensitivity analysis (Figure \[fig:mam\_dmc\]) to understand the impact of our choice of thresholds, but found that differences between patients ($\sim$1 cm) were much greater than differences due to choice of thresholds (2—3 mm). Once again, future clinical trials will provide better information in this regard, but our method provides a framework for relating these values to motion.
It should be noted that, in this work, we simulated dose escalation by linearly scaling 33 Gy dose distributions to 40 or 50 Gy. This is somewhat unrealistic, as a clinical dose-escalated plan would be more optimized to spare normal tissue from harm. Better plan optimization would likely result in slightly more allowable motion. However, our data have shown a conservative limit of 4.2 mm of motion under linear-scaling to 50 Gy; and based on 6 re-planned cases, the difference in maximum allowable motion is $0.1\pm0.3$ mm under clinical dose escalation. The error introduced by the unrealistic dose-scaling is small compared to the difference between patients. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that the differences in allowable motion between individual patients are much larger than the changes caused by dose escalation, as demonstrated by Figure \[fig:mam\_boxplot\]. Implementing a patient-specific motion mitigation approach requires knowing what makes a given plan more sensitive to motion. In this study, we found that allowable motion was significantly smaller in patients with larger tumors. Other features of the patients, such as the distance from the tumor to an OAR, may correlate with individual allowable motion as well. We investigated other potential factors (such as minimum distance from the tumor to duodenum or stomach), but were unable to find a clinically relevant way to predict the sensitivity of a given plan to motion. Future work will incorporate additional patient data, and attempt to develop metrics of motion sensitivity. There is potential for these sorts of metrics to be included in radiotherapy plan optimization, leading to the creation of plans that are more robust against tumor motion.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion .unnumbered}
===========
In a cohort of pancreatic cancer patients treated at our institution with 33 Gy/5 fractions, a conservative limit of 6.3 mm of motion prevents significant deviations in target coverage and OAR sparing from the radiotherapy plan. We observed tighter limits on allowable motion in patients with larger tumors, and for dose-escalated treatment plans. However, the largest variations in the effects of motion on $\Delta$DMs stem from differences between patients. Dose escalation can potentially be carried out for a sub-population of patients without additional clinical burden. We present a method to recognize this group of patients and provide guidance on personalized motion management.
Conflict of interest {#conflict-of-interest .unnumbered}
====================
The University of Colorado School of Medicine and authors Campbell, Jones, and Miften have filed a provisional patent application for the fiducial marker tracking technique used in this work.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was funded in part by the National Institute of Health under award number K12CA086913, the University of Colorado Cancer Center/ACS IRG $\#$57-001-53 from the American Cancer Society, the Boettcher Foundation, and Varian Medical Systems. These funding sources had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
\[1\] Hidalgo M. Pancreatic cancer. NEJM 2010;362(17):1605–17.
\[2\] Chuong MD, Springett GM, Freilich JM, Park CK, Weber JM, Mellon EA, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is effective and well tolerated. IJROBP 2013;86(3):516–22.
\[3\] Koong AC, Christofferson E, Le QT, Goodman KA, Ho A, Kuo T, et al. Phase II study to assess the efficacy of conventionally fractionated radiotherapy followed by a stereotactic radiosurgery boost in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. IJROBP 2005;63(2):320–3.
\[4\] Koong AC, Le QT, Ho A, Fong B, Fisher G, Cho C, et al. Phase I study of stereotactic radiosurgery in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. IJROBP 2004;58(4):1017–21.
\[5\] Rosati LM, Kumar R, Herman JM. Integration of stereotactic body radiation therapy into the multidisciplinary management of pancreatic cancer. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 2017;27(3):256 –67.
\[6\] Herman JM, Chang DT, Goodman KA, Dholakia AS, Raman SP, HackerPrietz A, et al. Phase 2 multi-institutional trial evaluating gemcitabine and stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer 2015;121(7):1128–37.
\[7\] Mahadevan A, Miksad R, Goldstein M, Sullivan R, Bullock A, Buchbinder E, et al. Induction gemcitabine and stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally advanced nonmetastatic pancreas cancer. IJROBP 2011;81(4):e615–22.
\[8\] Chang DT, Schellenberg D, Shen J, Kim J, Goodman KA, Fisher GA, et al. Stereotactic radiotherapy for unresectable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Cancer 2009;115(3):665–72.
\[9\] Ceha HM, van Tienhoven G, Gouma DJ, Veenhof CH, Schneider CJ, Rauws EA, et al. Feasibility and efficacy of high dose conformal radiotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2000;89(11):2222–9.
\[10\] Twyman-Saint Victor C, Rech AJ, Maity A, Rengan R, Pauken KE, Stelekati E, et al. Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activates nonredundant immune mechanisms in cancer. Nature 2015;520(7547):373.
\[11\] Golden EB, Chhabra A, Chachoua A, Adams S, Donach M, FentonKerimian M, et al. Local radiotherapy and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to generate abscopal responses in patients with metastatic solid tumours: a proof-of-principle trial. Lancet Oncology 2015;16(7):795–803.
\[12\] Lee Y, Auh SL, Wang Y, Burnette B, Wang Y, Meng Y, et al. Therapeutic effects of ablative radiation on local tumor require CD8+ T cells: changing strategies for cancer treatment. Blood 2009;114(3):589–95.
\[13\] Brown JM, Brenner DJ, Carlson DJ. Dose escalation, not new biology, can account for the efficacy of SBRT with NSCLC. IJROBP 2013;85(5):1159.
\[14\] Golden DW, Novak CJ, Minsky BD, Liauw SL. Radiation dose $\geq$54 Gy and CA 19–9 response are associated with improved survival for unresectable, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with chemoradiation. Radiation Oncology 2012;7(1):156.
\[15\] Park HJ, Griffin RJ, Hui S, Levitt SH, Song CW. Radiation-induced vascular damage in tumors: implications of vascular damage in ablative hypofractionated radiotherapy (SBRT and SRS). Radiation research 2012;177(3):311–27.
\[16\] Stinauer MA, Kavanagh BD, Schefter TE, Gonzalez R, Flaig T, Lewis K, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma: impact of single fraction equivalent dose on local control. Radiation Oncology 2011;6(1):34.
\[17\] Timmerman R, Paulus R, Galvin J, Michalski J, Straube W, Bradley J, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for inoperable early stage lung cancer. JAMA 2010;303(11):1070–6.
\[18\] Available online at www.clinicaltrials.gov \[Acccessed: 10/20/2017\]; 2017. Searching terms: SBRT AND dose escalation AND pancreatic cancer.
\[19\] Hoyer M, Roed H, Sengelov L, Traberg A, Ohlhuis L, Pedersen J, et al. Phase-II study on stereotactic radiotherapy of locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma. Radiotherapy and oncology 2005;76(1):48–53.
\[20\] Keall PJ, Mageras GS, Balter JM, Emery RS, Forster KM, Jiang SB, et al. The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76. Medical physics 2006;33(10):3874–900.
\[21\] Vinogradskiy Y, Goodman KA, Schefter T, Miften M, Jones BL. The clinical and dosimetric impact of real-time target tracking in pancreatic SBRT. IJROBP, 2019;103(1):268-275.
\[22\] Campbell WG, Jones BL, Schefter T, Goodman KA, Miften M. An evaluation of motion mitigation techniques for pancreatic SBRT. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2017;124(1):168-173.
\[23\] Campbell WG, Miften M, Jones BL. Automated target tracking in kilovoltage images using dynamic templates of fiducial marker clusters. Medical physics 2017;44(2):364–74.
\[24\] Jones BL, Westerly D, Miften M. Calculating tumor trajectory and dose-of-the-day using cone-beam CT projections. Medical physics 2015;42(2):694– 702.
\[25\] Poulsen PR, Cho B, Keall PJ. A method to estimate mean position, motion magnitude, motion correlation, and trajectory of a tumor from cone-beam CT projections for image-guided radiotherapy. IJROBP 2008;72(5):1587–96.
\[26\] Bortfeld T, Jokivarsi K, Goitein M, Kung J, Jiang SB. Effects of intrafraction motion on IMRT dose delivery: statistical analysis and simulation. PMB 2002;47(13):2203.
\[27\] Lujan AE, Larsen EW, Balter JM, Ten Haken RK. A method for incorporating organ motion due to breathing into 3D dose calculations. Medical physics 1999;26(5):715–20.
\[28\] McCarter S, Beckham W. Evaluation of the validity of a convolution method for incorporating tumour movement and set-up variations into the radiotherapy treatment planning system. PMB 2000;45(4):923.
\[29\] Lens E, Kotte AN, Patel A, Heerkens HD, Bal M, van Tienhoven G, et al. Probabilistic treatment planning for pancreatic cancer treatment: prospective incorporation of respiratory motion shows only limited dosimetric benefit. Acta Oncologica 2017;56(3):398–404.
\[30\] Herman GT, Zheng J, Bucholtz CA. Shape-based interpolation. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 1992;12(3):69–79.
\[31\] Murphy JD, Christman-Skieller C, Kim J, Dieterich S, Chang DT, Koong AC. A dosimetric model of duodenal toxicity after stereotactic body radiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. IJROBP 2010;78(5):1420–6.
\[32\] Goldsmith C, Price P, Cross T, Loughlin S, Cowley I, Plowman N. Dose-volume histogram analysis of stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment of pancreatic cancer: A focus on duodenal dose constraints. In: Seminars in radiation oncology; vol. 26. Elsevier; 2016, p. 149–56.
\[33\] Feng M, Balter JM, Normolle D, Adusumilli S, Cao Y, Chenevert TL, et al. Characterization of pancreatic tumor motion using cine MRI: surrogates for tumor position should be used with caution. IJROBP 2009;74(3):884–91.
\[34\] Heerkens HD, van Vulpen M, van den Berg CA, Tijssen RH, Crijns SP, Molenaar IQ, et al. MRI-based tumor motion characterization and gating schemes for radiation therapy of pancreatic cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2014;111(2):252 –7.
\[35\] Lens E, van der Horst A, Kroon PS, van Hooft JE, Dávila Fajardo R, Fockens P, van Tienhoven G, Bel A. Differences in respiratory-induced pancreatic tumor motion between 4D treatment planning CT and daily cone beam CT, measured using intratumoral fiducials. Acta Oncologica. 2014;53(9):1257-64.
\[36\] Rankine LJ, Wan H, Parikh PJ, Maughan NM, Poulsen PR, Santanam L. Cone Beam CT Measures Abdominal Tumor Motion Better Than 4DCT and Equal to On-table Fluoroscopy. IJROBP. 2015;93(3):S116.
\[37\] Poulsen PR, Cho B, Keall PJ. Real-time prostate trajectory estimation with a single imager in arc radiotherapy: a simulation study.PMB 2009;54(13):4019.
\[38\] Berbeco RI, Nishioka S, Shirato H, Chen GT, Jiang SB. Residual motion of lung tumours in gated radiotherapy with external respiratory surrogates. PMB 2005;50(16):3655.
\[39\] Keall PJ, Nguyen DT, O’Brien R, Caillet V, Hewson E, Poulsen PR, et al. The first clinical implementation of real-time image-guided adaptive radiotherapy using a standard linear accelerator. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2018;127(1):6-11.
\[40\] Minn AY, Schellenberg D, Maxim P, Suh Y, McKenna S, Cox B, et al. Pancreatic tumor motion on a single planning 4D-CT does not correlate with intrafraction tumor motion during treatment. American journal of clinical oncology 2009;32(4):364–8.
\[41\] Velec M, Moseley JL, Eccles CL, Craig T, Sharpe MB, Dawson LA, et al. Effect of breathing motion on radiotherapy dose accumulation in the abdomen using deformable registration. IJROBP 2011;80(1):265–72.
\[42\] Bohoudi O, Bruynzeel A, Senan S, Cuijpers J, Slotman B, Lagerwaard F, et al. Fast and robust online adaptive planning in stereotactic MR-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) for pancreatic cancer. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2017;125(3):439–44.
\[43\] Li Y, Hoisak JD, Li N, Jiang C, Tian Z, Gautier Q, et al. Dosimetric benefit of adaptive re-planning in pancreatic cancer stereotactic body radiotherapy. Medical Dosimetry 2015;40(4):318–24.
Supplement A {#supplement-a .unnumbered}
============
The mathematical models are chosen based on two merits: (1) ability to account for the trend of the data, and (2) simplicity. We chose either linear or quadratic models that only require maximum of two fitting parameters. We present the models and the goodness-of-fit statistics.
$\Delta D_{98}$
----------------
We used a piecewise-parabola function to describe the trend of $\Delta D_{98}$ with changing motion magnitude. The piecewise parabola function was given by
$$\Delta D_{98} (x) =
\begin{cases}
0\,,\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \text{if $x<p_2$} \,;\\
p_1 \cdot (x-p_2)^2\,,\qquad \text{if $x\geq p_2$}\,;
\end{cases}$$
where $x$ is the $95\%$ confidence interval (CI) of motion range in superior-inferior (SI) direction, $p_1$ and $p_2$ are two fitting parameters.
$\Delta D_{0.01cc}$
--------------------
We used a piecewise linear function to describe the trend of $\Delta D_{0.01cc}$. The piecewise linear function was given by
$$\Delta D_{0.01cc}(x) =
\begin{cases}
0\,,\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \text{if $x<p_2$} \,;\\
p_1 \cdot (x-p_2)\,,\qquad \text{if $x\geq p_2$}\,;
\end{cases}$$
where $x$ is the $95\%$ CI of motion range in SI direction, $p_1$ and $p_2$ are two fitting parameters. This model is used for $\Delta D_{0.01cc}$ in both duodenum and stomach.
$\Delta V_{33}$
----------------
The trend of $\Delta V_{33}$ was described by a parabola function of form
$$\Delta V_{33}(x) = p_1 \cdot x^2,$$
where $x$ is the $95\%$ CI of motion range in SI direction, $p_1$ is the only fitting parameter. This model is used for $\Delta V_{33}$ in both duodenum and stomach.
Goodness-of-fit statistics
--------------------------
After fitting data with our models, we first visually inspected the goodness of fit. As shown in example plots of two patients, the models fitted the trend of the data qualitatively. To evaluate the goodness of fit quantitatively, we calculated the root mean squared error (RMSE). For each metric, we calculated the mean and standard deviation of the RMSE over 25 patients and the results are presented in Table \[tb:fit\_rmse\]. The RMSE values were small compared to the range of the $\Delta$DMs, which indicates that the models were useful for prediction.
Rx dose (Gy) 33 40 50
----------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -- --
$\Delta D_{98}$ (Gy) 0.3$\pm$0.2 0.4$\pm$0.3 0.5$\pm$0.3
$\Delta D_{0.1cc\_D}$ (Gy) 0.7$\pm$0.2 0.9$\pm$0.3 1.1$\pm$0.3
$\Delta V_{33\_D}$ (cm$^3$) 0.0$\pm$0.0 0.1$\pm$0.0 0.1$\pm$0.1
$\Delta D_{0.1cc\_S}$ (Gy) 0.4$\pm$0.3 0.5$\pm$0.3 0.6$\pm$0.4
$\Delta V_{33\_S}$ (cm$^3$) 0.0$\pm$0.0 0.0$\pm$0.0 0.0$\pm$0.0
: The mean and standard deviation of RMSE over 25 patients. []{data-label="tb:fit_rmse"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: Run 2 Paper Title
---
list\_of\_authors\_r2.tex
The main body of text of the paper goes here.
2.0in acknowledgement\_paragraph\_r2.tex
[99]{}
list\_of\_visitor\_addresses\_r2.tex
The references in the paper go here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'P.A. Evans[^1]'
- 'R.Willingale'
- 'J.P. Osborne'
- 'P.T. O’Brien'
- 'K.L. Page'
- 'C.B. Markwardt'
- 'S.D. Barthelmy'
- 'A.P. Beardmore'
- 'D.N. Burrows'
- 'C. Pagani'
- 'R.L.C. Starling'
- 'N. Gehrels'
- 'P. Romano'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: 'The Burst Analyser I: BAT and XRT spectral and flux evolution of Gamma Ray Bursts'
---
[Gamma Ray Burst models predict the broadband spectral evolution and the temporal evolution of the energy flux. In contrast, standard data analysis tools and data repositories provide count-rate data, or use single flux conversion factors for all of the data, neglecting spectral evolution.]{} [To produce BAT and XRT light curves in flux units, where the spectral evolution is accounted for.]{} [We have developed software to use the hardness ratio information to track spectral evolution of GRBs, and thus to convert the count-rate light curves from the BAT and XRT instruments on into accurate, evolution-aware flux light curves.]{} [The Burst Analyser website[^2] contains BAT, XRT and combined BAT-XRT flux light curves in three energy regimes for all GRBs observed by the satellite. These light curves are automatically built and updated when data become available, are presented in graphical and plain-text format, and are available for download and use in research.]{}
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Gamma Ray Bursts are the most powerful explosions known, and the satellite (Gehrels 2004) has revolutionised our understanding of them, both in filling some gaps in our knowledge and raising new questions and challenges to theory. See Zhang (2007) for a recent review of GRBs and the advances made by .
One of the difficulties inherent in confronting theory with the wealth of data that has produced is that models predict how the flux and spectrum of a GRB or its afterglow will evolve, whereas the data are in units of count rate over some bandpass; in the presence of spectral evolution the count-rate cannot be seen as a proxy for the flux.
It is thus desirable to create GRB flux light curves[^3] which employ a time-dependent flux conversion factor to account for spectral evolution. Also, since the bandpasses of the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT; Barthelmy 2005; bandpass: 15–350 keV) and X-ray Telescope (XRT; Burrows 2005; bandpass: 0.3–10 keV), are close to each other, it is often informative to consider the two instruments’ data together, extrapolated to a single bandpass, be it the XRT band (e.g. O’Brien 2006; Willingale 2007) or part of the BAT bandpass (e.g. 15–25 keV, Sakamoto 2007).
We have therefore created the Burst Analyser. In this first paper relating to the facility, we present an online repository of BAT and XRT unabsorbed flux light curves in three energy regimes: 0.3–10 keV flux, 15–50 keV flux, and the flux density at 10 keV. The Burst Analyser provides BAT and XRT flux light curves separately and combined; an example is shown in Fig. \[fig:example\]. It also includes a time evolution history for each instrument of the counts-to-flux conversion factor, and of the spectral photon index, (i.e. for a power-law spectrum with the number of photons at energy $E$ is given by $N(E) dE
\propto E^{-\Gamma}$). In addition, we provide BAT flux light curves where spectral evolution is not included, for comparison with the non-evolving XRT data already available online[^4] (Evans 2007, 2009). One example of the advantage of considering spectral evolution is shown in Fig. \[fig:paper2\]; for GRB 060729 the rapid decay phase is steeper when viewed in flux space with spectral evolution accounted for, which allows us to see the turn-on of the afterglow. (Note that Grupe 2007, 2010 also accounted for spectral evolution in their analysis of this GRB. The evolution-induced dip feature shown in Fig. \[fig:paper2\] is less prominant in the 0.3–10 keV band which is why it is not seen in their analysis.) We consider the physical interpretation of GRB light curves enabled by our new method in Paper II (Evans in prep.).
All of the data created by the Burst Analyser are available from:
[**http://www.swift.ac.uk/burst\_analyser**]{}
This includes graphical plots and the data in plain-text format.
In this paper we introduce the Burst Analyser. In Section \[sec:create\] we explain how the light curves are created and spectral evolution accounted for. Section \[sec:caveats\] highlights the limitations of our method and some recommended checks users should apply. We also give details of when the light curves are created and how they can be accessed (Section \[sec:avail\]), and the usage policy (Section \[sec:usage\]).
Creation procedure {#sec:create}
==================
The process of creating the light curves comprises three phases: generating count-rate light curves and hardness ratios, determining the counts-to-flux conversion factors, and converting the count-rate light curves into flux units. Throughout the descriptions of thes phases, any [ftools]{} used were called with the default parameters unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Count-rate light curves and hardness ratios {#sec:cr}
-------------------------------------------
The XRT count-rate light curves and hardness ratios used by the Burst Analyser are taken from the Swift XRT Light Curve Repository$^{\ref{foot:lc}}$, and their creation has been documented in detail by Evans et al. (2007, 2009) and will not be repeated here.
For BAT, the [batgrbproduct]{} script (part of the software[^5]) is first executed. Among the products created by this script are a measure of and the time range over which it was determined; a spectrum corresponding to this interval (hereafter, ‘the spectrum’); and an event list of BAT data extending to 2000 s either side of the trigger. From this event list a 4-ms binned 15–150 keV light curve is extracted using the [batbinevt]{} tool, supplied with relevant detector mask file created by [batgrbproduct]{}. Signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR)-binned light curves are built from this 4-ms light curve using a custom script. The algorithm of this script is described below and illustrated in Fig. \[fig:binning\]; in essence it bins the most significant parts of the light curve first, to maximise the time-resolution in those bins. In detail the algorithm is thus:
1. [Set $n=1$.]{}
2. [Bin the light curve (or light-curve sections) into new bins of $n$ original 4-ms bins. If any 4-ms bins are left over at the end of the light curve (or section), append them to the last new bin in the curve (or section).]{}
3. [Search for any of these new bins with SNR above the threshold.]{}
4. [Save any above-threshold new bins in the output light curve.]{}
5. [Split the light curve into sections, separated by times which were saved to the output light curve in the previous step.]{}
6. [If at least one new above-threshold bin was found during this pass, increase $n$ by one; otherwise, double $n$.]{}
7. [If $n$ corresponds to a bin size of $\ge40$ s simply add every 40-s long bin to the output light curve.]{}
8. [If there are still bins in the original light curve which have not been assigned to the output light curve, go back to step 2. Otherwise, save the output light curve.]{}
This results in a light curve in which bins are either above some SNR threshold, or 40 s in duration. This upper limit on bin size is set to preserve some information about the behaviour of the light curve during low-flux periods. Any bins which had SNR$<3$ (regardless of the input SNR threshold) are flagged as unreliable, and not be shown in the online plots but they are included in the online data files (on lines beginning with an ‘!’ – the comment-line delimiter for [qdp]{}). Using this above algorithm, light curves with SNR thresholds of 4,5,6 and 7 are created.
The BAT-XRT combined light curve will necessarily be presented in log-log space most of the time, thus data at $t\le0$ are not shown. Although one could simply use the light curve just created and ignore the bins before the trigger time, this will result in sub-optimal binning of the light curve. Instead a second set of light curves are built using the above algorithm, but given an input 4-ms-binned light curve which only contains data after the trigger time.
As well as the SNR-binned light curve, constant time-binned 15–150 keV light curves are also created, using [batbinevt]{}. These are nominally created for bin sizes of 4 ms, 64 ms, 1 s and 10 s, but if $\tn<10 $ s then the light curves with bin size longer than will not be built. Also, if $\tn>10 $ s the 4-ms binned light curve is not built, since this rapidly becomes extremely large. These light curves are accumulated only over the time range:
$$T_{90,{\rm start}}-1.05\tn \le t \le T_{90,{\rm end}}+1.05\tn$$
where $T_{90,{\rm start}}$ and $T_{90,{\rm end}}$ mark the time range over which was measured by [batgrbproduct]{}. This is to avoid filling the light curve with ‘empty’ bins from times where the GRB was inactive.
A BAT hardness ratio defined as (25–50 keV)/(15–25 keV) is also created using the SNR-binning algorithm above, except that the SNR in *both* bands must be above the threshold before an output bin is created. The input 4-ms light curves in these bands are created with [batbinevt]{}. By default a hardness ratio with a SNR threshold of 5 is created. If this fails to produce at least two bins with SNR$\ge$3 the threshold is reduced to 4, and if necessary further to 3. Even if there are still fewer than three bins with an SNR$\ge$3 this hardness ratio will be used. The errors on the hardness ratio are calculated assuming that the individual bands’ errors are Gaussian.
Counts-to-flux conversion factors {#sec:cf}
---------------------------------
In order to convert the count-rate light curves (described above) into flux light curves, a time-evolving counts-to-flux conversion factor is needed. We do not have sufficient photons to create spectra with a reasonable time-resolution, so instead we assume a spectral shape and use the hardness ratios to track the evolution. GRB spectra tend to be power-laws, or broken power-laws. For the BAT data is has been found that sometimes a cut-off power-law best describes the data (Sakamoto 2008).
We therefore fit the BAT spectrum with both power-law and cut-off power-law spectral models. If the latter gives a value at least nine lower than the former (i.e. a 3-$\sigma$ improvement) then a cut-off power-law model is used in all of the counts-to-flux conversion factor calculations (for BAT and XRT). This occurs for 15 per cent of GRBs; for the rest a power-law model is used. Note that using a single hardness ratio, we cannot track both the spectral index and the cut-off energy, but we lack the statistics to use multiple hardness ratios; we therefore keep the cut-off energy fixed at the value determined in the above fit, allowing no evolution of this parameter. This may introduce a systematic error or bias in our counts-to-flux conversion factors (hereafter ‘CF’), which is discussed in Section \[sec:cpl\].
In addition to the emission model, an absorption model must also be determined. Following the XRT spectrum repository (Evans 2009), we take the absorption model to consist of a [phabs]{} component with the Galactic column density (from Kalberla 2005) and a second [phabs]{} component to represent the absorption local to the burst. If the redshift of the GRB is in the public domain, this component is a [zphabs]{} with the redshift of the GRB.
For GRBs with XRT data we can use the XRT data to determine the values of these absorption components. Butler & Kocevski (2007a) note that absorption derived from early-time XRT data, when strong spectral evolution is present, can be misleading. Therefore, if there are at least 200 X-ray photons detected at $T>4000$ s post-trigger, a new spectrum is built using only the data from this time (using the software presented in Evans 2009). If there are fewer than 200 late-time photons, the absorption values are taken from the XRT spectrum on the repository[^6]. If there are no XRT data the Galactic absorption component is taken from Kalberla (2005), and the intrinsic component is assumed to have $N_H=10^{22}$ and lie at $z=2.23$; these being the mean values from the XRT catalogue (Evans 2009). The absorption values used, and their provenance, are given on the Burst Analyser web page for each GRB.
The spectral model thus determined is loaded into [xspec]{} and the photon index of the (cut-off) power-law, , is stepped from $-1$ to $5$ in steps of $0.1$. For each value the hardness ratio, unabsorbed 0.3–10 keV flux, unabsorbed 15–50 keV flux, model normalisation and count-rate predicted by the model are recorded[^7]. This gives a look-up table of hardness ratio versus conversion factors (and values). The hardness ratios and count-rates are determined for the bands used in Section \[sec:cr\], i.e. for BAT the hardness ratio is (25–50 keV)/(15–25 keV) and the count-rate is determined over the 15–150 keV range. For XRT the hardness ratio is (1.5–10 keV/0.3–1.5 keV). The normalisation of the power-law and cut-off power-law models in [xspec]{} is defined as the flux density at 1 keV, in units of photons keV$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$. A normalisation of one is thus equivalent to 662.5 $\mu$Jy. This can then be extrapolated to give the flux density at 10 keV using either:
$$F_{10 {\rm keV}} = F_{1 {\rm keV}} \times \left(\frac{10}{1}\right)^{-(\G-1)}$$
for the power-law model, or $$F_{10 {\rm keV}} = F_{1 {\rm keV}} \times \left(\frac{10}{1}\right)^{-(\G-1)} {\rm e}^{-10/E_c}$$
for the cut-off power-law, where $E_c$ is the cut-off energy.
Given these look-up tables, the hardness ratios created in Section \[sec:cr\] can be converted instead into time evolution histories of conversion factors. For each bin in the original hardness ratio, the conversion factors and value appropriate to that hardness are determined by interpolating within this lookup table. The uncertainties in the hardness are also propagated by interpolating the 1-$\sigma$ limits on the hardness ratios. For BAT data, because the bins may not exceed 40-s in duration, it is possible for some bins to have negative hardness ratios (from Poisson fluctuations of low significance bins). It is impossible for the lookup table to contain negative values, so these bins are skipped (and will be interpolated across in Section \[sec:fluxlc\]). Some bins may have positive hardness ratio values, but negative lower limits. In this case the error-bar on the conversion factor (or ) will be truncated at a hardness ratio tending to zero. See Section \[sec:errors\] for more information.
In order to make the (linear) interpolation as accurate as possible it is preferable to perform it in a phase-space that gives an approximately linear relationship between hardness ratio and the conversion factor. By inspecting look-up tables we thus chose the phase-spaces given in Table \[tab:interp\] for the interpolation.
For some GRBs, there were too few photons for even a single hardness ratio bin to be created for XRT. This is most commonly the case for bursts detected by missions other than , which are often not observed by XRT until many hours after the trigger. In these cases and the conversion factors were determined from the same spectrum used to obtain the absorption details (above); this does not allow for spectral evolution (see Section \[sec:sameGamma\]).
Instrument 0.3–10 keV flux 15–50 keV flux 10 keV Flux density
------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ----------
BAT log(HR), log(CF) HR, CF log(HR), log(CF) log(HR),
XRT HR, CF log(HR), log(CF) log(HR), log(CF) log(HR),
Flux light curves {#sec:fluxlc}
-----------------
For each bin in each count-rate light curve created in Section \[sec:cr\], a counts-to-flux conversion factor is determined by interpolating the time evolution histories of conversion factors created in Section \[sec:cf\]. For BAT this interpolation is done in linear time space, for XRT log(time) space (since BAT includes negative times and a small time range, whereas XRT only has times after the trigger and covers many decades); the conversion factor is interpolated in log space for both instruments since it covers several decades. The count-rate and error are then multiplied by the conversion factor to give the flux for each bin. For BAT data, some hardness ratio bins with negative values of the ratio may have been skipped (Section \[sec:cf\]) in which case the conversion factor is simply interpolated across this gap. Because GRBs show strong spectral evolution at early times, it is unwise to extrapolate the hardness ratio beyond times where we have a reliable measurement. Thus any light curve bins that occur after the end of the final valid (i.e. positive-valued) hardness ratio bin are discarded and not converted into flux. At later times the spectral evolution is minimal (Butler & Kocevski 2007b), thus for XRT any light curve bins which occur after the final hardness ratio bin are converted to flux using the conversion factors from the final hardness bin.
The uncertainty in the conversion factor is not propagated into the flux light curve. This is because it is in part a systematic effect and it will dilute the significance of genuine variability in the light curve. However, we require this information to determine whether features in the flux light curves are believable or not. Therefore, in addition to the basic flux light curve plots, we produce plots with subpanels showing either the conversion factor and its error, or the derived photon index () and its errors. Users can use these to consider how much weight should be applied to any given features.
As noted in Section \[sec:cr\], for BAT SNR-binned light curves the maximum permitted bin duration is 40 s, which can result in some low significance (SNR $< 3$) bins. These are not shown in the online plots, however they appear in the data files as lines beginning with an exclamation mark.
For BAT we also create a flux light curve with no spectral evolution (for XRT this is already provided by the Light Curve Repository). The creation is analogous to the light curves described above, but instead of using the hardness ratio to determine the conversion factor, a single conversion is used for all bins. This is taken from the model fitted to the spectrum. There are thus no sub-plots available for the non-evolving spectrum, instead the spectral model and conversion factors used are given on the Burst Analyser results page for each GRB.
Caveats and checks {#sec:caveats}
==================
Although substantial efforts have been made, by human analysis of the data products, to ensure that these products are reliable and accurate, there are some assumptions inherent to the light-curve creation process which may introduce artefacts. These are both predictable and identifiable. Several of the issues concern the uncertainty involved in extrapolating the BAT or XRT data beyond the range covered by the instrument; if there is any reason to question the assumptions involved in the light-curve creation process, we recommend that users consider the data in their ‘own’ bands (i.e. the BAT data in the 15–50 keV range and the XRT data in the 0.3–10 keV range). For the combined BAT-XRT light curve the ‘safest’ data to use is the flux density at 10 keV, as, for this dataset, the spectral extrapolation is minimal, as is the associated uncertainty.
In order to determine whether the data are reliable or potentially prone to inaccuracies, there are five questions that should be asked of a dataset.
Is discontinuous between BAT and XRT? {#sec:badgamma}
--------------------------------------
An integral part of the flux conversion is the assumption of a spectral shape (Section \[sec:cf\]). This can be a power-law or cut-off power-law, but in each case when the flux is extrapolated outside an instrument’s bandpass (i.e. beyond the band over which the shape was determined) there is an implicit assumption that the power-law index remains the same. The temporal evolution of the photon index () as determined from the hardness ratios can be seen as a sub-plot on the light curves; the default display of the web pages shows this sub-plot. If the BAT and XRT data show discontinuous values then the spectral shape changes between bands and the BAT flux extrapolated to the XRT band will be unreliable, and vice-versa. This discontinuity is present in about 20 per cent of cases. Although the flux density is not immune to this effect, is will be less strongly affected since it lies close to both bandpasses. This is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:badgamma\].
Is the BAT spectral fit a cut-off power-law? {#sec:cpl}
--------------------------------------------
As noted in Section \[sec:cf\], in some cases a cut-off power-law gives a better spectral fit than a power-law (in the 465 BAT light curves created for the Burst Analyser up to GRB 100316D, 67 required cut-off power-laws), however in these cases we do not allow the high-energy cut-off to vary. If the cut-off energy moves to lower energies with time, then at later times the flux above the cut-off will be overestimated; the inverse is true if the cut-off energy evolves to harder energies. To investigate the magnitude of this problem we created a series of BAT spectra for a range of and cut-off energy ($E_c$) values. For each spectrum we determined the hardness ratio and count-to-flux conversion factors as in Section \[sec:cf\]. Then, for each spectrum with a hardness ratio in the range 0.9–0.92 (i.e.spectra of approximately equal hardness), we show in Fig. \[fig:cpl\] how the conversion factor and necessary to generate such a hardness ratio vary with $E_c$. As can be seen, the $E_c$ dependence is not large (note the linear axes). For example, if $E_c$ was frozen at 80 keV, but in reality at late times it was 60 keV, the conversion factors would be inaccurate by up to 5 per cent. For more extreme examples of $E_c$ variation (e.g. from 80 keV to 40 keV) these inaccuracies can reach 50 per cent; however only when extrapolating outside of the BAT band. The conversion from BAT counts to 15–50 keV flux is never off by more than 2 per cent.
The range of cut-off energies is limited to 40–100 keV in Fig. \[fig:cpl\] because at higher energies the 15–50 keV spectrum (whence the hardness ratio is obtained) is insensitive to the cut-off energy, and with lower values the hard band has so few counts that we cannot obtain a hardness ratio. For the XRT we do not see evidence for the cut-off power-law spectra, so freezing the cut-off energy should not affect the XRT flux conversions; except that if the cut-off energy were actually evolving through the 15–50 keV region the use of a fixed energy would lead to the XRT 15–50 keV flux values being overestimates.
In summary, for the 15 per cent of GRBs where a cut-off power-law is preferred to a power-law to fit the BAT spectrum, the flux extrapolated outside of the instruments’ bandpasses may be subject to inaccuracies of a factor of at most two.
Are the values outside the range 0–4? {#sec:oddGamma}
--------------------------------------
Although there is considerable scatter in the values found from BAT and XRT data, values outside the range 0–4 are not generally seen (see, for example, the Swift Data Table[^8]; the BAT catalogue, Sakamoto 2008; the XRT catalogue, Evans 2009); thus if the subplot shows values outside this range it may indicate a low SNR hardness ratio point rather than a real value of and users should double-check the size of the errors on and the conversion factor. Recall that the errors on the conversion factor are not propagated into the flux errors (see Section \[sec:errors\] for more). Most light curves show one or two bins with these ‘extreme’ values; usually they are the last few bins in that BAT light curve and it is safe to disregard them.
Note also that the hardness-ratio-to-conversion-factor look-up table is only created for values in the range $-1$ to 5; if a data point has a value outside of this range then the conversion factor has been extrapolated rather than interpolated, and may be less reliable.
Are the errors on or the conversion factor large or asymmetric? {#sec:errors}
----------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section \[sec:fluxlc\], the uncertainty on the hardness ratio is propagated to the uncertainty on the conversion factor, but not into the final error-bar on the flux values. This is because, where the spectral evolution is not large, these errors are systematic in nature and tend to wash out genuine variability. However, if the errors on the conversion factor (visible in the sub-plots) are large compared to the actual flux values, users should not ascribe weight to apparently discrepant points. For example if a single data point lies significantly above the rest of the light curve and has a conversion factor which is inconsistent with the other conversion factor values and has a large error, the apparently discrepant flux is almost certainly the result of a poorly constrained spectral index, whose error is not reflected in the final light curve.
Because the hardness ratio errors were determined assuming Gaussian statistics in each BAT band, low SNR hardness bins can have negative error-bars which extend below zero. However, the hardness-ratio-to-conversion-factor look up table cannot contain negative hardness ratio values. Thus any datapoints corresponding to hardness ratios consistent with zero (i.e. non-detections in one of the bands) will have uncertainties on their and conversion factor values which are truncated where the hardness ratio goes to zero. This can usually be spotted by a strongly asymmetric error on or the conversion factor. Further, the hardness ratio and its corresponding and conversion factors is viewable online and users can easily check if and when it becomes unreliable. There is no straightforward means of determining what the uncertainty in conversion factor should be at such times; it should instead be considered unconstrained and users are advised to ignore these datapoints. As with ‘extreme’ values of (Section \[sec:oddGamma\]), most light curves contain a few bins which are subject to this issue, typically at the end of the BAT data.
Do most/all of the bins for BAT or XRT have the same or conversion factor value? {#sec:sameGamma}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For low SNR datasets, there may be only one or two hardness ratio points. In this case the subplots will show very little evolution. This is the case for 3 per cent of BAT light curves and 20 per cent of XRT light curves – many of the latter are GRBs detected by other missions which did not observe until several hours after the trigger. For BAT-triggered GRBs, only 13 per cent of XRT hardness ratios have fewer than three bins. This is not a problem, it simply highlights a lack of information due to the low significance of the data, but users should note in this case that the light curves tend towards the non-evolving ones; we lack the data quality necessary to track the spectral evolution.
Data availability and creation policy {#sec:avail}
=====================================
The data are all available online from:
[**http://www.swift.ac.uk/burst\_analyser/**]{}
The top-level page provides various means of choosing a specific burst, alternatively the trigger number or target ID of the object (if known) can be appended to the above URL.
The light curves exist both as plots (in postscript and png \[Portable Network Graphics\] format) and as text files. For each GRB there are up to four categories of plot available: BAT-XRT combined data (only includes data after the trigger time), BAT-only data, XRT-only data, and a BAT light curve with no spectral evolution. For bursts where BAT or XRT data do not exist, not all of the above will be created. As discussed in Sections \[sec:cr\] and \[sec:fluxlc\] there are several different BAT-binning criteria used, and the light curves may have no sub-plot, or a panel showing the conversion factor or value for each bin. Each light curve is also created in three different bands: the 0.3–10 keV flux, 15–50 keV flux, and flux density at 10 keV. The web page by default presents a single light curve (flux density, with a sub-plot) for each of the categories, however users can change which plots are shown. Also available to download are the conversion factor time evolution histories, and a tar archive containing all of the data for the GRB in question. Full documentation supporting these web pages and downloadable files is also provided online at:
http://www.swift.ac.uk/burst\_analyser/docs.php
This page also contains a list of any changes made after publication of this paper.
The light curves are automatically created and updated via [cron]{} jobs which run every ten minutes. These check both BAT and XRT data to determine whether products need to be built or updated. For BAT data the products will be built for the first time once data appear on on the quick-look site [^9] (typically a few hours after the trigger), and updated when the [ontime]{} keyword of these data increases. For XRT data the products will be built or updated whenever the X-ray light curve from the Light Curve Repository$^{\ref{foot:lc}}$ is created or updated.
Users can determine when a product was last updated from the web page for the GRB. At the top of the page, beneath the GRB name, are given details of the last dataset which was used to create the product. Also, in the footer bar at the base of the page, the time (in UT) when the page was last created is also specified.
Usage {#sec:usage}
=====
The Burst Analyser data products are publically available and may be freely used. Users should consider the caveats in this paper (Section \[sec:caveats\]), and online (through the documentation link, above) before using the Burst Analyser data in any scientific medium.
Wherever these data products are used we ask that this paper be cited. The suggested wording is: “For details of how these light curves were produced, see Evans (2010).”
Please also include the following paragraph in the Acknowledgements section: “This work made use of data supplied by the UK Swift Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester.”
Acknowledgements
================
This work made use of data supplied by the UK Swift Science Data Centre at the University of Leicester. PAE, JPO, KLP, APB CP and RLCS acknowledge STFC support, DNB, acknowledges support from NASA contract NAS5-00136.
Barthelmy S.D., et al., 2005, Sp. Sci. Rev, 120, 143
Burrows, D.N., Hill, J.E., Nousek, J.A., et al. 2005, Sp. Sci. Rev, 120, 165
Butler N.R., Kocevski D., 2007a, ApJ, 663, 407
Butler N.R., Kocevski D., 2007b, ApJ, 668, 400
Evans P.A. et al., 2007, A&A 469, 379
Evans P.A. et al., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 1177
Gehrels N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
Grupe, D., et al. 2010, ApJ, 711, 1008
Grupe, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, 443
Kalberla, P.M.W., Burton W.B., Hartmaan, D., Arnal E.M., Bajaja E., Morras R., Pöppel W.G.L., 2005, A&A, 440, 775
O’Brien P.T., et al., 2006, ApJ, 647, 1213
Sakamoto T. et al., 2007, ApJ, 669, 1115
Sakamoto T. et al., 2008, ApJS, 175, 179
Willingale R., 2007, ApJ, 662, 1093
Zhang, B., 2007, ChJAA, 7, 1
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/burst\_analyser
[^3]: We create light curves in units both of flux and flux density; however for concision, we use the collective phrase, ‘flux light curves’ to refer to both types.
[^4]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_curves\[foot:lc\]
[^5]: http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft/download.html
[^6]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/xrt\_spectra
[^7]: The count-rate is the observed, i.e. absorbed count rate.
[^8]: http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/archive/grb\_table/
[^9]: http://www.swift.ac.uk/access/ql.php
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Michael Shell, John Doe, and Jane Doe, [^1]'
title: |
Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls\
for Computer Society Journals
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Computer Society Journals]{}
Introduction
============
demo file is intended to serve as a “starter file” for IEEE Computer Society journal papers produced under LaTeX using IEEEtran.cls version 1.7 and later. I wish you the best of success.
mds
January 11, 2007
Subsection Heading Here
-----------------------
Subsection text here.
### Subsubsection Heading Here
Subsubsection text here.
Conclusion
==========
The conclusion goes here.
Proof of the First Zonklar Equation
===================================
Appendix one text goes here.
Appendix two text goes here.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors would like to thank...
[1]{}
H. Kopka and P. W. Daly, *A Guide to LaTeX*, 3rd ed.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emHarlow, England: Addison-Wesley, 1999.
[Michael Shell]{} Biography text here.
[John Doe]{} Biography text here.
[Jane Doe]{} Biography text here.
[^1]: Manuscript received April 19, 2005; revised January 11, 2007.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A few years ago we predicted theoretically that in systems with nesting of the Fermi surface the spin-valley half-metal has lower energy than the spin density wave state. In this paper we suggest a possible way to distinguish these phases experimentally. We calculate dynamical spin susceptibility tensor for both states in the framework of the Kubo formalism. Discussed phases have different numbers of the bands: four bands in the spin-valley half-metal and only two bands in the spin density wave. Therefore, their susceptibilities, as functions of frequency, have different number of peaks. Besides, the spin-valley half-metal does not have rotational symmetry, thus, in general the off-diagonal components of susceptibility tensor are non-zero. The spin density wave obeys robust rotational symmetry and off-diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor are zero. These characteristic features can be observed in experiments with inelastic neutron scattering.'
author:
- 'D.A. Khokhlov'
- 'A.L. Rakhmanov'
- 'A.V. Rozhkov'
- 'A.O. Sboychakov'
title: 'Dynamical spin susceptibility of spin-valley half-metal'
---
Introduction
============
The concept of Fermi surface nesting plays an important role in the studies of systems with more than one electronic band [@rice1970; @ourPRB_phasepAFM2017; @ourPRL_half-met2017; @Chuang1509; @PhysRevB.86.020507; @PhysRevB.82.020510; @PhysRevB.94.085106; @mosoyan_aa_graphit2018; @ourPRB_half-met2018; @Nandkishore2012; @our_PRB_magfield_imp_nest; @gonzalez_kohn-lutt_twist2019; @twist_graph_bias_gap_prl2018; @nesting_review2017; @aa_graph2014; @aa_graph2013; @phasep_pnics2013; @q1d2009; @q1d2009_2; @q1d2003; @hirschfeld_review2011; @fernandez_pnic_so5_2010; @gruner_book]. In the presence of nesting electronic liquid becomes unstable and ordered state emerges. The ordered phases associated with the nesting are commensurate and incommensurate spin density wave [@rice1970] (SDW), charge density wave [@PhysRevB.77.165135], inhomogeneous antiferromagnetism [@ourPRB_phasepAFM2017], as well as others. Recently we argued that a half-metallic and the so-called spin-valley half-metal (SVHM) may be stabilized in a system with nesting [@ourPRB_half-met2018; @Nandkishore2012]. Half-metals [@first_half_met1983; @half_met_review2008; @sc_half_met_eshrig2015] are well known for a several decades. This class of metals is characterized by perfect spin polarization of the charge carriers on the Fermi surface. Consequently, electric current in a half-metal carries not only charge but spin as well. The latter property is of interest for applications in spintronics. By the same token, the electronic states at the Fermi surface of the spin-valley half-metal are perfectly polarized with respect to the so-called spin-valley index. Thus, the SVHM can conduct a spin-valley polarized current. The spin-valley polarized currents are of interest for applications [@Zhonge1603113]. In addition, the SVHM state does not require strong electron-electron interaction for its stability. Consequently, the SVHM can be realized without transition metals in its chemical composition, which makes such materials applicable in biocompatible devices.
Theoretically, the SVHM state was identified in a model with perfect nesting and weak electron-electron interaction. When the perfect nesting is partially destroyed by doping, parental insulating SDW is replaced by the SVHM phase [@ourPRL_half-met2017]: calculations within the framework of such a minimal model show that the SVHM phase has lower free energy than the SDW and the paramagnetic phase, at least, for low temperatures [@ourPRL_half-met2017]. Depending on details, the SVHM may be either commensurate or incommensurate [@ourPRL_half-met2017; @ourPRB_half-met2018]. It competes against several related phases, such as (i) commensurate SDW, (ii) incommensurate SDW, (iii) inhomogeneous SDW.
As shown in Refs. , the SVHM has a number of distinctive features which separate it from phases (i-iii). For example, magnetic structure of the SVHM state possesses a magnetic helical component, which superimposes on the purely collinear SDW order. Beside this, the symmetry between single-electron states with different spin-valley index is preserved in the ordered states (i-iii), but is lifted in the SVHM. As a result, the number of non-degenerate single-electron bands in the SVHM is two times bigger than in the SDW.
However, the SVHM has not been observed experimentally yet. In this paper, we discuss a possibility of detecting the SVHM phase using inelastic neutron scattering. For many materials, neutron scattering has been successfully applied to investigate their magnetic and superconducting properties. Comparing observed spectrum with a theoretical prediction, useful pieces of information can be obtained [@PhysRevB.78.140509; @PhysRevB.77.165135; @NatureSupercondNesting2012; @fine_neutrons2007; @fine_review2010; @egami_physC2010; @Lychkovskiy2017SpinES; @PhysRevB.60.3643; @PhysRevB.78.052508; @Mazin_1995; @PhysRevLett.108.117001]. It is natural to expect that such an experimental tool can play important role in search for the SVHM order.
Below we propose a method to discriminate between the SVHM and the SDW phases. It relies on the fact that the SVHM has at least four non-degenerate bands close to the Fermi level, whereas the SDW has two doubly degenerate bands. Consequently, in these thermodynamic phases, the electronic contributions to the neutron cross-section are non-identical, and phase-specific features in the neutron spectrum can be used for identification of an ordered state in a candidate material.
Technically, the electronic contribution to the neutron cross-section is described by the dynamical spin susceptibility tensor. Using Kubo formalism within the framework of the minimal model of Refs. we determine this tensor for the commensurate SVHM and SDW phases. Our calculations demonstrate that the neutron scattering spectrum of the SVHM has three high-intensity peaks, in contrast to the SDW, whose spectrum has only one pronounced peak. We also discuss other features of the spin susceptibility tensor that may be used to identify the SVHM phase with on a neutron scattering experiment.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec::Model\] we briefly describe two band model used in calculations. In Sec. \[sec::sdw\] and \[sec::svhm\] we calculate the susceptibility tensor for the SDW and the SVHM respectively. Summary and conclusions are in Sec. \[sec::discussion\].
Model {#sec::Model}
=====
SVHM and SDW phases
-------------------
We start with the outline of the basic structure of the minimal model [@ourPRL_half-met2017] which hosts the SVHM as one of its possible ground states. The model Hamiltonian has two single-electron bands, or valleys, which are referred to as $a$ and $b$. If we neglect the electron-electron repulsion, their band dispersions are assumed to be parabolic (Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\]a) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq::disperse_no_order}
\epsilon_{a}(\mathbf{k})=\frac{k^2-k_F^2}{2m_a}-\mu=\xi_k^a-\mu,\\ \nonumber
\epsilon_{b}(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}_0)=\frac{-k^2+k_F^2}{2m_b}-\mu=-\xi_k^b-\mu.\end{aligned}$$ We use system of units, where $\hbar=1$. Here $\mu$ is the chemical potential. When $\mu=0$, the Fermi surface of the valley $a$, after translation by the nesting vector $\mathbf{Q}_0$, exactly matches the Fermi surface of the valley $b$. Such a property of the band structure is called a perfect nesting. It is convenient to measure doping relative to $\mu=0$ state treating the latter state as undoped. Momentum $k_F=\sqrt{2m\epsilon_F}$ is a radius of the Fermi sphere for the both $a$ and $b$ valleys at the perfect nesting. In addition, we introduce the Fermi velocity $v_F=k_F/m$. Unless the opposite is stated, we assume that effective masses $m_a$ and $m_b$ are equal to each other. In such a case, the subscript may be dropped, both masses can be denoted by symbol $m$, and $\xi_k^a=\xi_k^b=\xi_k$. Each band has a density of states $N_F=mk_F/(2\pi^2)$ at the Fermi level.
Next, we take into account a weak electron-electron repulsion, which we assume to be short-range. The part of the interaction which is responsible for the magnetic ordering is: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::hamiltonian_int}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
H_{\text{int}}=g\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{k}'\sigma}a^{\dagger}_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}a^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\sigma\mathbf{k}} b^{\dagger}_{\overline{\sigma}\mathbf{k}'}b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\overline{\sigma}\mathbf{k}'}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where operator $a_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}$ (operator $b_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}$ represents annihilation operator of an electron with the spin $\sigma$ in the valley $a$ (valley $b$) at the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$. For the operators $a_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}$ and $b_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}$, the wave vector $\mathbf{k}$ is measured from the center of the corresponding valley. Notation $\overline{\sigma}$ means $-\sigma$. The interaction constant $g$ is assumed to be small: $gN_F\ll1$. We simplify the Hamiltonian via mean field approach. There are two order parameters labeled by $\sigma=\pm 1$
$$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::delta_s_def}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Delta_{\sigma}=\frac{g}{V}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\langle a^{\dagger}_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{\overline{\sigma}\mathbf{k}}\rangle,\end{aligned}$$
where $V$ is the volume of the system.
To diagonalize the Hamiltonian we perform the Bogolyubov transformation. The obtained quasiparticle spectrum consists of four bands: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq::dispers_svhm}
E_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}^{(s)}=\pm\sqrt{\xi_k^2+\Delta_{\sigma}^2},\end{aligned}$$ where each band is labeled by two indexes: $\sigma$ and $s=1,2$. Here $s=1$ corresponds to sign “-" and $s=2$ to sign “+". To obtain $\Delta_{\sigma}$ we should minimize the total energy of the system. After the minimization at zero doping one may see that the order parameters does not depend on the index $\sigma$, thus, the quasiparticle bands are double degenerate. Consequently, $\mu=0$ state posses SDW order with static spin polarization $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::av_spin_sdw}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\langle S_x(\mathbf{r})\rangle=\frac{\Delta_{\sigma}+\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}}{g}\cos(\mathbf{rQ}_0), \langle S_y(\mathbf{r})\rangle=\langle S_z(\mathbf{r})\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ Band structure of the SDW is schematically shown in Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\]b.
Now let us study the effect of the doping on the SDW state. In many papers [@ourPRB_phasepAFM2017; @rice1970; @our_PRB_magfield_imp_nest] the energy minimization was performed under the following constraint $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::order_par_sdw}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Delta_{\sigma}=\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}=\Delta.\end{aligned}$$ Minimizing the total energy under the condition (\[Eq::order\_par\_sdw\]) we find $\Delta$ as a function of doping. The resultant state is the SDW metal [@ourPRB_phasepAFM2017; @rice1970]. Quasiparticle bands at non-zero doping are shown in Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\]c. They remain doubly degenerate, since we employ restriction (\[Eq::order\_par\_sdw\]).
However, in a more general case the condition (\[Eq::order\_par\_sdw\]) can be discarded. Instead, the total energy is minimized as a function of two variables $\Delta_{\sigma}$ and $\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}$. The latter minimization is simplified by the fact that the mean field Hamiltonian split into a sum of two decoupled terms, each describing a particular sector of single-particle states. The first term represents (i) electrons from the valley $a$ with the spin $\sigma$ and (ii) electrons from the valley $b$ with the spin $\overline{\sigma}$. These quasiparticle states form sector $\sigma$. The order in sector $\sigma$ is characterized by $\Delta_\sigma$.
The second term of the mean field Hamiltonian represents electrons from the valley $a$ with spin $\overline{\sigma}$ and from the valley $b$ with spin $\sigma$. Such states constitute sector $\overline{\sigma}$. Parameter $\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}$ describes order in sector $\overline{\sigma}$.
Doping is not required to distribute equally between the sectors. Moreover, it was observed in Refs. that the total energy of the doped system is the lowest when all doped electrons enter a single sector keeping the other sector completely empty. For definiteness, we will assume below that all doping $x$ accumulates in the sector $\sigma$.
Since our minimization is not constrained by condition (\[Eq::order\_par\_sdw\]) we obtain different order parameters in each sectors: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::order_par_svhm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\Delta_{\sigma}=\Delta_0\sqrt{1-\frac{x}{N_F \Delta_0}}, \;\; \Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}=\Delta_0.\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_0$ is the order parameter at zero doping in the SDW phase. In contrast with the SDW phase, the SVHM has two non-zero spin projections: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::av_spin_svhm}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\langle S_x(\mathbf{r})\rangle=\frac{\Delta_{\sigma}+\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}}{g}\cos(\mathbf{rQ}_0),
\\ \nonumber
\langle S_y(\mathbf{r})\rangle
=
\frac{\Delta_{\sigma}-\Delta_{\overline{\sigma}}}{g}
\sin(\mathbf{rQ}_0).\end{aligned}$$ Four bands which are defined in Eq. (\[Eq::dispers\_svhm\]) are no longer degenerate, and the Fermi surface appears. We may define the spin-valley index [@ourPRL_half-met2017] $S_{v}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
S_{v}=1 \leftrightarrow\text{electronic states from sector} \;\sigma,
\\ \nonumber
S_{v}=-1 \leftrightarrow\text{electronic states from sector}
\;\overline{\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ In Ref. \[\] it was noted that, when all the doping enters a single sector, keeping the other sector empty, the Fermi surface states are polarized in the spin-valley space, see Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\]d. This fact can be trivially verified since the partially filled band is composed entirely from the electronic states belonging to sector $\sigma$. Following Ref. \[\], we call this phase the spin-valley half-metal.
The dynamical spin susceptibility tensor {#subsec::susceptibility}
----------------------------------------
Here we discuss the dynamical spin susceptibility tensor in the context of our problem. The Fourier components of the spin projection on the $\beta$-axis is: $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::spin_f_and_s}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
S_{\beta}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},t)
=\!\!
\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mu\nu}\!\!
\sigma^{\beta}_{\mu\nu}\!\!
\left[
a^{\dagger}_{\mu\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}\!(t)\,
a_{\nu\mathbf{k}}^{\vphantom{\dagger}} \!(t)
\!+\!
b^{\dagger}_{\mu\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}\!(t)\,
b_{\nu\mathbf{k}}^{\vphantom{\dagger}} \!(t)
\right]\!,
\\
\nonumber
S_{\beta}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{q}+\mathbf{Q}_0,t)
=
\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mu\nu}
\sigma^{\beta}_{\mu\nu}
a^{\dagger}_{\mu\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}(t)
b_{\nu\mathbf{k}}^{\vphantom{\dagger}} (t)\,,
\\
\nonumber
S_{\beta}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{q}-\mathbf{Q}_0,t)
=
\sum_{\mathbf{k}\mu\nu}
\sigma^{\beta}_{\mu\nu}
b^{\dagger}_{\mu\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}(t)
a_{\nu\mathbf{k}}^{\vphantom{\dagger}} (t)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma^{\beta}_{\mu\nu}$ is $(\mu,\nu)$ matrix element of a Pauli matrix and $\beta=x,y\;\text{or}\;z$. The superscript ‘s’ (superscript ‘f’) stands for ‘slow’ (‘fast’). The slow term $S_{\beta}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},t)$ oscillates in the real space with the wave vector $\mathbf{q}$, which we restrict to be in the range of $ q \lesssim \Delta_0/v_F\ll k_F \sim |\mathbf{Q}_0|$, where $q = |{\bf q}|$. This term contains only products of operators from one valley. In other words, it is diagonal in valley index. The fast terms $S_{\beta}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{q}\pm\mathbf{Q}_0,t)$ oscillate in the real space with the wave vectors $\mathbf{q}\pm\mathbf{Q}_0$. Unlike $S^{\rm s}$, operators $S^{\rm f}$ mix states from different valleys. Indeed, as one can see from their definition, each $S^{\rm f}$ is a sum of terms that themselves are products of two single-electron operators, one single-electron operator from valley $a$ and another one is from valley $b$.
The susceptibility is defined in the Kubo formalism [@mahan2013many] $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::kubo_four_Q}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\chi_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm s(f)}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)\!=\!i\!\!\int_0^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\!\langle[ S_{\alpha}^{\rm s(f)}(\mathbf{Q},t);S_{\beta}^{\rm s(f)}(-\mathbf{Q},0)] \rangle e^{i\omega t} dt,\end{aligned}$$ where $[A;B]=AB-BA$. Symbol $\langle...\rangle$ denotes averaging with respect to a ground state of a studied phase. We assume that $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{q}$ for the slow term and $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{q}\pm\mathbf{Q}_0$ for the fast terms. Besides $\chi_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm s(f)}$ defined by Eq. (\[Eq::kubo\_four\_Q\]), it is possible to introduce the cross-terms, describing correlation functions between slow and fast spin densities $\chi^{\rm sf} \sim \langle S^{\rm s} S^{\rm f} \rangle$. However, these quantities do not contribute to the neutron cross-section and we do not consider them.
Further, as we want to describe neutron scattering, we focus only on the part of the tensor which corresponds to the energy conservation law $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::kubo_four_Q_tilde}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm s(f)}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)\!=\!i\!\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!\!\!\!\langle[ S_{\alpha}^{\rm s(f)}(\mathbf{Q},t);S_{\beta}^{\rm s(f)}(-\mathbf{Q},0)] \rangle e^{i\omega t} dt.\end{aligned}$$ Here integration over all real $t$ gives Dirac $\delta$-function which ensures energy conservation in the scattering processes. Related result in a less general case was discussed in Ref. \[see Eq. (2.46) in section 2.6 for more details\]. In our numerical calculation, the Dirac $\delta$-function is approximated by a rectangular function. This function equals to $10^3\Delta_0^{-1}$ over finite support, whose width is $10^{-3}\Delta_0$ (as required by the definition of the Dirac function, the area under our rectangular function is equal to unity).
Direct calculations show that all diagonal components $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm f,s}_{\alpha\alpha}$ and off-diagonal components $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm f,s}_{xy,yx}$ may be non-zero. All other components of the dynamical susceptibility vanish within the framework of the discussed model. To calculate $\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm f,s}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ we substitute Eq. (\[Eq::spin\_f\_and\_s\]) into formula (\[Eq::kubo\_four\_Q\_tilde\]) and apply the Wick theorem with respect to the studied state. The results of these calculations are presented below.
Spin susceptibility of the SDW phase {#sec::sdw}
====================================
Structure of the susceptibility tensor in the SDW phase {#subsec::gen_remarks}
-------------------------------------------------------
We would like to start with several general statements about the susceptibility tensor of the SDW phase. In the commensurate SDW state the slow term $\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ of the susceptibility tensor does not depend on direction of the wave vector $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{q}$, and the fast term $\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha\beta}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ of the tensor does not depend on direction of the vector $\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{Q}_0=\mathbf{q}$. The same property holds true in the commensurate SVHM phase discussed in Sec. \[sec::svhm\]. Obviously, this circumstance significantly simplifies the presentation and analysis of our results.
Since the average local spin in the SDW is directed along the $x$-axis, the magnetic structure of the phase possesses a rotational symmetry around $x$-axis. Therefore, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::sdw_sus_relation_1}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},\omega)
=
\tilde{\chi}_{yy}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},\omega)
=
\tilde{\chi}_{zz}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},\omega)
\neq
\tilde{\chi}_{xx}^{\rm s}(\mathbf{q},\omega),\end{aligned}$$ where symbol $\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}^{\rm s}$ is defined as $\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}^{\rm s} = \tilde{\chi}_{zz,yy}^{\rm s}$. Susceptibility $\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}^{\rm f}$ is defined similarly.
As for the off-diagonal components, $\tilde \chi_{xz}^{\rm s,f}$ and $\tilde \chi_{yz}^{\rm s,f}$ vanish, as discussed in subsection \[subsec::susceptibility\]. The presence of the rotational symmetry with respect to $x$-axis implies nullification of other off-diagonal components as well. Indeed, any rotation around $x$-axis preserves the susceptibility tensor. At the same time, after rotation on angle equal to $\pi$, components $\tilde{\chi}_{xy,yx}^{\rm s,f}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ must change sign. Therefore, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::sdw_sus_relation_2}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\tilde{\chi}_{xy}^{\rm s,f}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=\tilde{\chi}_{yx}^{\rm s,f}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Since relations (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_1\]) and (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_2\]) are conditioned by the rotational symmetry of the SDW order parameter, they remain valid even when $m_a \ne m_b$. In other words, asymmetry between the electrons and holes does not destroy (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_1\]) and (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_2\]) in the SDW phase.
Diagonal components of the fast part of the of the susceptibility tensor obey yet another relation $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::sdw_sus_relation_3}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{q}\pm\mathbf{Q}_0,\omega)=\tilde{\chi}_{xx}^{\rm f}(\mathbf{q}\pm\mathbf{Q}_0,\omega).\end{aligned}$$ It can be derived by substituting Eq. (\[Eq::spin\_f\_and\_s\]) into Eq. (\[Eq::kubo\_four\_Q\_tilde\]). (Let us remark that Eqs. (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_1\]) and (\[Eq::sdw\_sus\_relation\_2\]) can be derived by the same substitution as well, without use of symmetry.)
Evaluation of the susceptibility tensor
---------------------------------------
The above analysis demonstrates that, to characterize the neutron scattering by electronic subsystem in the SDW state, one needs to know $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s,f}_{\bot}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ and $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s,f}_{xx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$. We determine these quantities numerically using Eq. (\[Eq::kubo\_four\_Q\_tilde\]). To be specific, our calculation in the SDW and SVHM phases are performed at $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::doping_numerical}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
x=0.75N_F\Delta_0.\end{aligned}$$ For such a doping level, parameters $\Delta$ and $\Delta_{\sigma}$ deviate significantly from $\Delta_0$. Specifically, in the SDW phase, the order parameter and the chemical potential are [@ourPRB_phasepAFM2017] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\approx0.79\Delta_0,
\qquad
\mu\approx0.81\Delta_0.\end{aligned}$$ We plot $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s,f}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ as a functions of the energy $\omega$ at the fixed wave vector $\mathbf{Q}$, see Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]. Features that are of interest to us are most discernible when $q\lesssim\Delta_0/v_F$. We present $\tilde{\chi}_{\bot}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{xx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ for $q=0.1\Delta_0/v_F$ in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]a,b and for $q=0.75\Delta_0/v_F$ in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]c,d respectively.
Each component of the susceptibility tensor in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\] has a peak at low frequency. It corresponds to electron-hole pairs in the conduction band which are exited by neutrons. These peaks are localized between $\omega=0$ and a threshold frequency $\omega_1^{\text{sdw}}$. To derive $\omega_1^{\text{sdw}}$ we write the energy conservation law for the intraband transitions $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::intraband_energy_conservation}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
E^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}-E^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}}=\omega.\end{aligned}$$ This must be solved together with $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::region_k_lf_sdw}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\theta(\mu-E^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}})\theta(E^{(2)}_{\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}-\mu)=1,\end{aligned}$$ which is consequence of Fermi-Dirac statistics. In Eq. (\[Eq::region\_k\_lf\_sdw\]) the Heaviside step function is denoted as $\theta(x)$. System of equations (\[Eq::intraband\_energy\_conservation\]), (\[Eq::region\_k\_lf\_sdw\]) for the unknown variable $\mathbf{k}$ has solutions only when $0<\omega<\omega_1^{\text{sdw}}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::omega_1_sdw}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\omega_1^{\text{sdw}}=\sqrt{(\sqrt{\mu^2-\Delta^2}+q)^2+\Delta^2}-\mu.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting specific values of $q$, one finds that $\omega_1^{\text{sdw}} \approx 0.4\Delta_0$ when $q=0.75\Delta_0/v_F$, and $\omega_1^{\text{sdw}} \approx 0.03\Delta_0$ when $q=0.1\Delta_0/v_F$. Both values for $\omega_1^{\text{sdw}}$ are perfectly consistent with the numerical curves shown in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\].
Another characteristic frequency $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$ in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\] is the threshold energy for the inelastic interband electron scattering, see inset in Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\]c. When $\omega$ exceeds $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$, a new scattering channel opens, and the susceptibility becomes finite. This is clearly visible on all panels of Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\].
To evaluate $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$, similar to our derivation of Eq. (\[Eq::omega\_1\_sdw\]), we use energy and momentum conservation laws and Fermi-Dirac statistics of electrons to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::omega_2_sdw}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}=\Delta+\mu\approx1.6\Delta_0.\end{aligned}$$ This equation has simple interpretation: it is exactly the energy necessary to promote a quasiparticle from a state at the maximum of the completely filled valence band to an empty state at the chemical potential level in the partially filled conductance band. For chosen values of $\Delta$, $\mu$, and $q$, such a transition is indeed consistent with both energy and momentum conservation laws.
One can notice that for $\omega > \omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$ the susceptibility tensor components pass through maximum near $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$. Locations of these peaks are slightly shifted to higher frequencies with respect to $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$. This ‘blue shift’, as well as a nonmonotonic behavior of susceptibility, occurs due to structure of the joint density of states $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^{ss'}_{\sigma \sigma'} (\mathbf{q},\omega)
=
\int \delta(
E_{\sigma\mathbf{k}}^{(s)}
-
E_{\sigma'\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}}^{(s')}
-\omega)
\frac{d^3\mathbf{k}}{(2\pi)^3}.
\label{Eq::jdos}\end{aligned}$$ We see in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]d that $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s}_{xx}({\bf Q}, \omega)$, as a function of $(\omega - \omega_2^{\text{sdw}})$, demonstrates slower (linear) growth than $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm f}_{xx}({\bf Q}, \omega)$. This is a consequence of nullification of the matrix element for the corresponding interband electron transition exactly at $\omega = \omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$. The matrix element becomes non-zero when $\omega>\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$, however, its value remains small for small $q$. Thus, $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s}_{xx}({\bf Q}, \omega)$ in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]b is very close to zero in contrast with $\tilde{\chi}^{\rm s}_{xx}({\bf Q}, \omega)$ in Fig. \[Fig::SDW\_sus\]d.
spin susceptibility of the spin-valley half-metallic phase {#sec::svhm}
==========================================================
According to Eq. (\[Eq::av\_spin\_svhm\]), in the SVHM state both $\langle S_x(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ and $\langle S_y(\mathbf{r})\rangle$ are non-zero. Therefore, the rotational symmetry around $x$-axis is broken, and all diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor may differ from each other. As for off-diagonal components, they remain zero. This is a consequence of the electron-hole symmetry of the bands (\[Eq::disperse\_no\_order\]). If the electron and hole valleys are asymmetrical, the off-diagonal elements acquire finite values. Specifically, we calculate separately all diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor, assuming $m_a=m_b$ in band structure (\[Eq::disperse\_no\_order\]). Then we introduce an asymmetry between the electron and hole bands (\[Eq::disperse\_no\_order\]) through difference in effective masses $m_a\neq m_b$ and estimate components $\tilde{\chi}_{xy}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{yx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)$.
For numerical calculations we take the doping value, defined in Eq. (\[Eq::doping\_numerical\]). We obtain the order parameter $\Delta_{\sigma}=0.5\Delta_0$ from Eq. (\[Eq::order\_par\_svhm\]) and the chemical potential $\mu=0.625\Delta_0$ using Eq. (11) of Ref. .
Diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor {#subsec::diag_components}
------------------------------------------------
The dependence of the diagonal components on frequency $\omega$ is presented in Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\]. As we already mentioned in Sec. \[subsec::gen\_remarks\], within our model, the tensor components are insensitive to the direction of ${\bf q}$, only the absolute value of the transferred momentum $q$ matters. To illustrate the dependence on $q$, the curves in panels \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\](a), (c), and (e) are plotted for $q=0.1\Delta_0/v_F$, other three panels show the diagonal components at $q=0.75\Delta_0/v_F$
The peaks that start from zero frequency are due to the intraband scattering processes. They are similar to the low-energy peaks discussed in Sec. \[sec::sdw\] in the context of the SDW.
In Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\], finite-frequency spectral features (peaks or steps), marked by $\omega_1, \ldots, \omega_5$, arise due to the interband electron transitions. These transitions are illustrated in the inset in Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\](d). Frequencies $\omega_{n}$ may be found in the same manner as $\omega_2^{\text{sdw}}$. One needs to find minimum frequency at which a solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::omega_n}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\omega_{n}=E_f-E_i\end{aligned}$$ still exists. In Eq. (\[Eq::omega\_n\]) $E_f$ and $E_i$ are final and initial energies of the excited electron. State at $E_f$ must be empty and state at $E_i$ must be occupied in the ground state to allow excitation process. For five excitations channels shown in Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\], we derive five threshold frequencies. For doping level given by Eq. (\[Eq::doping\_numerical\]) these frequencies are $$\begin{aligned}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\label{Eq::svhm_omega_n}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\omega_1
&=&
\sqrt{\max(\sqrt{\mu^2-\Delta_{\sigma}^2}-v_Fq,0)^2+\Delta_0^2} -\mu,
\nonumber\\
\omega_2
&=&
\mu+\sqrt{\max(\sqrt{\mu^2-\Delta_{\sigma}^2}-v_Fq,0)^2+\Delta_{\sigma}^2},
\nonumber\\
\omega_3 &=& \Delta_0+\Delta_{\sigma},
\nonumber\\
\omega_4&=&2\Delta_0,
\nonumber\\
\omega_5&=&\mu+\sqrt{\max(\sqrt{\mu^2-\Delta_{\sigma}^2}-v_Fq,0)^2+\Delta_0^2}. \end{aligned}$$ Numerical value of the above frequencies is in the perfect agreement with the threshold frequencies in Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\]. As a result of a more complex band structure, the SVHM neutron scattering spectrum has richer structure than the spectrum of the SDW. In Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\](a), (c), and (e), which represent the spectra for $q= 0.1 \Delta_0 /v_{\rm F}$, one can discern three spectral peaks (at $\omega_1$, $\omega_3$, and $\omega_4$), and two step-like features (at $\omega_2$, and $\omega_5$). The intensities of these spectral components demonstrate non-trivial dependence on spin polarization. At higher $q$, the peaks broaden and merge. However, the characteristic frequencies remain discernible even in such a regime.
Off-diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor
----------------------------------------------------
Besides the structure of the diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor, the SVHM has yet another distinction that separates it from the SDW. As we already pointed out above, the SVHM phase may have finite values of the off-diagonal components $\tilde{\chi}_{xy}$ and $\tilde{\chi}_{yx}$ when the perfect electron-hole symmetry is broken. (For the SDW, these components vanish due to the rotation symmetry.)
To study the off-diagonal components, we break the electron-hole symmetry in our model by introducing the difference between the effective masses of electrons and holes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{m_b-m_a}{m_b+m_a}=0.1.\end{aligned}$$ In such a regime, we evaluate the off-diagonal components numerically. Figure \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_offdiag\] shows the dependence $\tilde{\chi}_{xy}$ on frequency $\omega$. Panel \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_offdiag\](a) is plotted for $q=0.1\Delta_0/v_F$, and panel \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_offdiag\](b) is plotted for $q=0.75\Delta_0/v_F$. As for $\tilde{\chi}_{yx}$, it can be determined using the relation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq::off_diag_relation}
\tilde{\chi}_{xy}(\mathbf{Q},\omega)=-\tilde{\chi}_{yx}(\mathbf{Q},\omega).\end{aligned}$$ This equality can be derived by substitution of Eq. (\[Eq::spin\_f\_and\_s\]) into Eq. (\[Eq::kubo\_four\_Q\_tilde\]), and it follows from the anticommutation rule for Pauli matrices $\sigma_x\sigma_y=-\sigma_y\sigma_x$. Note also that, unlike $\tilde \chi_{\alpha \alpha}^{\rm s,f}$, which cannot be negative, the off-diagonal components of the tensor are not constrained by such a requirement, and $\tilde{\chi}_{xy}^{\rm s,f}$ can be of either sign, as indeed seen in Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_offdiag\].
The same five scattering channels depicted in the inset of Fig. \[Fig::bands&peaks\](d) control the structure of the off-diagonal components. We see peaks at frequencies $\omega_{1}$, $\omega_{3}$, $\omega_{4}$, and $\omega_{5}$, as well as a step-like feature at $\omega_{2}$. The intensities of the peaks at $\omega_3$ and $\omega_5$ are particularly sensitive to $q$ in the chosen range of parameters. One can also notice that the peak at $\omega_{1}$ acquires ‘a shadow’ peak with the opposite sign at somewhat higher $\omega$,
Discussion and conclusions {#sec::discussion}
==========================
Our study is motivated by the question if the neutron scattering can be used to distinguish the SDW and the SVHM phases. With this aim in mind, we calculated the dynamical spin susceptibility tensor of both phases as a function of frequency at fixed momentum. It is demonstrated that the susceptibilities of the SDW and SVHM have two well-noticeable qualitative distinctions.
The first appreciable difference is a number of high peaks in the diagonal components of the tensor. The SDW phase has only one large peak. At the same time the SVHM has three high and two weaker and broader features. Since each peak represents an interband transition of electrons, the distinction in the number of peaks can be traced to the number of quasiparticle bands in these phases: four bands in the SVHM phase versus only two bands in the SDW phase.
The second difference occurs if electron-hole symmetry is broken (we model such an asymmetry by introducing non-identical effective masses of electrons and holes). In this case, the SVHM has finite off-diagonal components of the susceptibility tensor. In the SDW phase these components remain zero (in the SDW phase this property is robust since it is protected by the rotation symmetry around order parameter polarization axis).
The intensity of a specific peak depends on the joint density of states and on a corresponding matrix element. Obviously, both these quantities are functions of $\omega$ and $q$. In addition, matrix elements depend also on axis labels \[for example, the matrix element for $\chi_{yy}$ is not necessary equal to the matrix element for $\chi_{zz}$\]. Consequently, the intensity of a peak representing a specific inelastic scattering channel is sensitive to polarization. For example, the peak at $\omega=\omega_1$ in $\chi^{\rm s}_{xx}$ is much weaker than the same peak in $\chi^{\rm s}_{yy}$, see Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\]a,c. As for $\chi^{\rm s}_{zz}$, it demonstrates no peak at $\omega=\omega_1$, see Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\](e).
In our model, the joint density of states (\[Eq::jdos\]) diverges when the Pauli principle allows for transition between the edges of the bands. This is the case for the transitions at $\omega=\omega_{1,3,4}$. If large joint density of states is accompanied by a finite matrix element, the peak intensity is particularly strong. For example, matrix elements at $\omega_1$ and $\omega_4$ in Fig. \[Fig::SVHM\_sus\_diag\](e) are large, while matrix element at $\omega_3$ in the same panel is low.
Our calculations were performed for commensurate homogeneous phases only. However, we expect that qualitative behavior of the dynamical spin susceptibility survives in the incommensurate phases as well. Indeed, the most pronounced qualitative differences between the spectra of the commensurate phases are associated either with equality or with the fact that the SDW state has two single-electron bands while the SVHM state hosts four such bands. Both these properties survive in the incommensurate phases. Specifically, the relation is a consequence of the uniaxial spin-rotation invariance of the SDW phase, which holds regardless of the commensurability of the order parameter. As for the band structure of the incommensurate SVHM phase, the expressions for its four bands were derived in Ref. , see Eq. (56) there. Thus, we expect that the inelastic neutron scattering can be used to detect the SVHM state even for the incommensurate order parameter.
In conclusion, we calculated the dynamical spin susceptibility for the doped spin-density wave state and the doped spin-valley half-metallic state at different momenta. Due to more complex band structure, the SVHM spin susceptibility tensor demonstrates richer frequency dependence, and may have finite off-diagonal components. Our analysis shows that the inelastic neutron scattering may be used to distinguish the SDW and the SVHM phases in experiment.
acknowledgements
================
This work was partially supported by the JSPS-Russian Foundation for Basic Research joint Project No. 19-52-50015. One of us (DAH) was partially supported by the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical Physics and Mathematics “BASIS".
[40]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , [“]{},[”]{} **** ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , [“]{},[”]{} **** ().
, , , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, (), .
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , [“]{},[”]{} ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , ** (, ).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study local and global broadcast in the dual graph model, which describes communication in a radio network with both reliable and unreliable links. Existing work proved that efficient solutions to these problems are impossible in the dual graph model under standard assumptions. In real networks, however, simple back-off strategies tend to perform well for solving these basic communication tasks. We address this apparent paradox by introducing a new set of constraints to the dual graph model that better generalize the slow/fast fading behavior common in real networks. We prove that in the context of these new constraints, simple back-off strategies now provide efficient solutions to local and global broadcast in the dual graph model. We also precisely characterize how this efficiency degrades as the new constraints are reduced down to non-existent, and prove new lower bounds that establish this degradation as near optimal for a large class of natural algorithms. We conclude with an analysis of a more general model where we propose an enhanced back-off algorithm. These results provide theoretical foundations for the practical observation that simple back-off algorithms tend to work well even amid the complicated link dynamics of real radio networks.'
author:
- Seth Gilbert
- Nancy Lynch
- Calvin Newport
- Dominik Pajak
bibliography:
- 'Local.bib'
title: 'On Simple Back-Off in Unreliable Radio Networks[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we study upper and lower bounds for efficient broadcast in the dual graph radio network model [@ClementiMS04; @KLN-podc09; @KLNOR; @CGKLN-jour; @GHLN-disc12; @Ghaffari-MS; @GhaffariLynchNewport-sub; @GKLN14; @lynch:2015; @ghaffari:2016], a dynamic network model that describes wireless communication over both reliable and unreliable links. As argued in previous studies of this setting, including unpredictable link behavior in theoretical wireless network models is important because in real world deployments radio links are often quite dynamic.
##### The Back-Off Paradox.
Existing papers [@KLNOR; @GhaffariLynchNewport-sub; @lynch:2015] proved that it is impossible to solve standard broadcast problems efficiently in the dual graph model without the addition of strong extra assumptions (see related work). In real radio networks, however, which suffer from the type of link dynamics abstracted by the dual graph model, simple back-off strategies tend to perform quite well. These dueling realities seem to imply a dispiriting gap between theory and practice: basic communication tasks that are easily solved in real networks are impossible when studied in abstract models of these networks. [*What explains this paradox?*]{} This paper tackles this fundamental question.
As detailed below, we focus our attention on the [*adversary*]{} entity that decides which unreliable links to include in the network topology in each round of an execution in the dual graph model. We introduce a new type of adversary with constraints that better generalize the dynamic behavior of real radio links. We then reexamine simple back-off strategies originally introduced in the standard radio network model [@Bar-YehudaGI92] (which has only reliable links), and prove that for reasonable parameters, these simple strategies [*now do*]{} guarantee efficient communication in the dual graph model combined with our new, more realistic adversary.
We also detail how this performance degrades toward the existing dual graph lower bounds as the new constraints are reduced toward non-existent, and prove lower bounds that establish these bounds to be near tight for a large and natural class of back-off strategies. Finally, we perform investigations of even more general (and therefore more difficult) variations of this new style of adversary that continue to underscore the versatility of simple back-off strategies.
We argue that these results help resolve the back-off paradox described above. When unpredictable link behavior is modeled properly, predictable algorithms prove to work surprisingly well.
##### The Dual Graph Model.
The dual graph model describes a radio network topology with two graphs, $G=(V,E)$ and $G'=(V,E')$, where $E \subseteq E'$, $V$ corresponds to the wireless devices, $E$ corresponds to reliable (high quality) links, and $E' \setminus E$ corresponds to unreliable (quality varies over time) links. In each round, all edges from $E$ are included in the network topology. Also included is an additional subset of edges from $E' \setminus E$, chosen by an [*adversary*]{}. This subset can change from round to round. Once the topology is set for the round, the model implements the standard communication rules from the classical radio network model: a node $u$ receives a message broadcast by its neighbor $v$ in the topology if and only if $u$ decides to receive and $v$ is its only neighbor broadcasting in the round.
We emphasize that the abstract models used in the sizable literature studying distributed algorithms in wireless settings do not claim to provide high fidelity representations of real world radio signal communication. They instead each capture core dynamics of this setting, enabling the investigation of fundamental algorithmic questions. The well-studied radio network model, for example, provides a simple but instructive abstraction of message loss due to collision. The dual graph model generalizes this abstraction to also include network topology dynamics. Studying the gaps between these two models provides insight into the hardness induced by the types of link quality changes common in real wireless networks.
##### The Fading Adversary.
Existing studies of the dual graph model focused mainly on the information about the algorithm known to the model adversary when it makes its edge choices. In this paper, we place additional constraints on how these choices are generated.
In more detail, in each round, the adversary independently draws the set of edges from $E' \setminus E$ to add to the topology from some probability distribution defined over this set. We do not constrain the properties of the distributions selected by the adversary. Indeed, it is perfectly valid for the adversary in a given round to use a point distribution that puts the full probability mass on a single subset, giving it full control over its selection for the round. We also assume the algorithm executing in the model has no advance knowledge of the distributions used by the adversary.
We do, however, constrain how often the adversary can change the distribution from which it selects these edge subsets. In more detail, we parameterize the model with a [*stability factor*]{}, $\tau \geq 1$, and restrict the adversary to changing the distribution it uses at most once every $\tau$ rounds. For $\tau =1$, the adversary can change the distribution in every round, and is therefore effectively unconstrained and behaves the same as in the existing dual graph studies. On the other extreme, for $\tau=\infty$, the adversary is now quite constrained in that it must draw edges independently from the same distribution for the entire execution. As detailed below, we find $\tau \approx \log{\Delta}$, for local neighborhood size $\Delta$, to be a key threshold after which efficient communication becomes tractable.
Notice, these constraints do not prevent the adversary from inducing large amounts of changes to the network topology from round to round. For non-trivial $\tau$ values, however, they do require changes that are nearby in time to share some underlying stochastic structure. This property is inspired by the general way wireless network engineers think about unreliability in radio links. In their analytical models of link behavior (used, for example, to analyze modulation or rate selection schemes, or to model signal propagation in simulation), engineers often assume that in the short term, changes to link quality come from sources like noise and multi-path effects, which can be approximated by independent draws from an underlying distribution (Gaussian distributions are common choices for this purpose). Long term changes, by contrast, can come from modifications to the network environment itself, such as devices moving, which do not necessarily have an obvious stochastic structure, but unfold at a slower rate than short term fluctuations.
In our model, the distribution used in a given round captures short term changes, while the adversary’s arbitrary (but rate-limited) changes to these distributions over time capture long term changes. Because these general types of changes are sometimes labeled [*short/fast fading*]{} in the systems literature (e.g., [@fading]), we call our new adversary a [*fading adversary*]{}.
**Problem** **Time** **Prob.** **Remarks** **Ref.**
------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------
$O\left(\frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \cdot \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\cdot \log{(1/\epsilon)}\right)$ $1-\epsilon$ $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\log\Delta\}$ Thm \[thm:mult\_receivers\]
$\Omega\left( \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log{\Delta}}\right)$ $\frac12$ $\tau \in O(\log\Delta)$ Thm \[thm:lower\]
\[1mm\] $\Omega\left( \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log{\Delta}}\right)$ $\frac12$ $\tau \in O(\log\Delta/\log\log\Delta)$ Thm \[thm:lower\_2\]
$O\left((D+ \log (n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\right)$ $1-\epsilon$ $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\log\Delta\}$ Thm \[thm:global\_upper\]
$\Omega\left(D\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log\Delta}\right)$ $\frac12$ $\tau \in O(\log\Delta)$ Thm \[thm:global\_lower\]
$\Omega\left(D\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log\Delta}\right)$ $\frac12$ $\tau \in O(\log\Delta/\log\log\Delta)$ Thm \[thm:global\_lower\]
: A summary of the upper and lower bounds proved in this paper, along with pointers to the corresponding theorems. In the following, $n$ is the network size, $\Delta \leq n$ is an upper bound on local neighborhood size, $D$ is the (reliable link) network diameter, and $\tau$ is the stability factor constraining the adversary.[]{data-label="fig:results"}
##### Our Results and Related Work.
In this paper, we study both [*local*]{} and [*global*]{} broadcast. The local version of this problems assumes some subset of devices in a dual graph network are provided broadcast messages. The problem is solved once each receiver that neighbors a broadcaster in $E$ receives at least one message. The global version assumes a single broadcaster starts with a message that it must disseminate to the entire network. Below we summarize the relevant related work on these problems, and the new bounds proved in this paper. We conclude with a discussion of the key ideas behind these new results.
[*Related Work.*]{} In the standard radio network model, which is equivalent to the dual graph model with $E=E'$, Bar-Yehuda et al. [@Bar-YehudaGI92] demonstrate that a simple randomized back-off strategy called [*Decay*]{} solves local broadcast in $O(\log^2{n})$ rounds and global broadcast in $O(D\log{n} + \log^2{n})$ rounds, where $n=|V|$ is the network size and $D$ is the diameter of $G$. Both results hold with high probability in $n$, and were subsequently proved to be optimal or near optimal[^2] [@alon:1991; @km; @newport:2014b].
In [@KLN-podc09; @KLNOR], it is proved that global broadcast (with constant diameter), and local broadcast require $\Omega(n)$ rounds to solve with reasonable probability in the dual graph model with an offline adaptive adversary controlling the unreliable edge selection, while [@GhaffariLynchNewport-sub] proves that $\Omega(n/\log{n})$ rounds are necessary for both problems with an online adaptive adversary. As also proved in [@GhaffariLynchNewport-sub]: even with the weaker oblivious adversary, local broadcast requires $\Omega(\sqrt{n}/\log{n})$ rounds, whereas global broadcast [*can*]{} be solved in an efficient $O(D\log{(n/D)} + \log^2{n})$ rounds, but only if the broadcast message is sufficiently large to contain enough shared random bits for all nodes to use throughout the execution. In [@lynch:2015], an efficient algorithm for local broadcast with an oblivious adversary is provided given the assumption of geographic constraints on the dual graphs, enabling complicated clustering strategies that allow nearby devices to coordinate randomness.
[*New Results.*]{} In this paper, we turn our attention to local and global broadcast in the dual graph model with a fading adversary constrained by some stability factor $\tau$ (unknown to the algorithm). We start by considering upper bounds for a simple back-off style strategy inspired by the [*decay*]{} routine from [@Bar-YehudaGI92]. This routine has broadcasters simply cycle through a fixed set of broadcast probabilities in a synchronized manner (all broadcasters use the same probability in the same round). We prove that this strategy solves local broadcast with probability at least $1-\epsilon$, in $O\left(\frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \cdot \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\cdot \log{(1/\epsilon)}\right)$ rounds, where $\Delta$ is an upper bound on local neighborhood size, and $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\log\Delta\}$.
Notice, for $\tau \geq \log{\Delta}$ this bound simplifies to $O(\log{\Delta}\log{(1/\epsilon)})$, matching the optimal results from the standard radio network model.[^3] This performance, however, degrades toward the polynomial lower bounds from the existing dual graph literature as $\tau$ reduces from $\log{\Delta}$ toward a minimum value of $1$. We show this degradation to be near optimal by proving that [*any*]{} local broadcast algorithm that uses a fixed sequence of broadcast probabilities requires $\Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau/\log{\Delta})$ rounds to solve the problem with probability $1/2$ for a given $\tau$. For $\tau \in O(\log\Delta/\log\log\Delta)$ , we refine this bound further to $\Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /\log{\Delta})$, matching our upper bound within constant factors.
We next turn our attention to global broadcast. We consider a straightforward global broadcast algorithm that uses our local broadcast strategy as a subroutine. We prove that this algorithm solves global broadcast with probability at least $1-\epsilon$, in $O(D+ \log (n/\epsilon))\cdot \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \bar{\tau}^2/\log\Delta)$ rounds, where $D$ is the diameter of $G$, and $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\log\Delta\}$. Notice, for $\tau \geq \log{\Delta}$ this bound reduces to $O(D\log{\Delta} + \log{\Delta}\log{(1/\epsilon)})$, matching the near optimal result from the standard radio network model. As with local broadcast, we also prove the degradation of this performance as $\tau$ shrinks to be near optimal. (See Table \[fig:results\] for a summary of these results and pointers to where they are proved in this paper.)
Finally we consider the generalized model when we allow correlation between the distributions selected by the adversary within a given stable period of $\tau$ rounds. It turns out that in the case of arbitrary correlations any simple algorithm needs time $\Omega(\sqrt{\Delta}/l)$ if it uses only cycles of length $l$. In particular any our previous algorithms would require time $\Omega(\sqrt{\Delta}/\log \Delta)$ in the model with arbitrary correlations. The adversary construction in this lower bound requires large changes in the degree of a node in successive steps. Such changes are unlikely in real networks thus we propose a restricted version of the adversary. We assume that the expected change in the degree of any node can be at most $\Delta^{1/(\bar{\tau}(1- o(1))}$. With such restriction it is again possible to propose a simple, but slightly enhanced, back-off strategy (with a short cycle of probabilities) that works efficiently in time $O\left(\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \cdot \bar{\tau}\cdot \log{(1/\epsilon)}\right)$.
[*Technique Discussion.*]{} Simple back-off strategies can be understood as experimenting with different [*guesses*]{} at the amount of contention afflicting a given receiver. If the network topology is static, this contention is fixed, therefore so is the [*right*]{} guess. A simple strategy cycling through a reasonable set of guesses will soon arrive at this right guess—giving the message a good chance of propagating.
The existing lower bounds in the dual graph setting deploy an adversary that changes the topology in each round to specifically thwart that round’s guess. In this way, the algorithm never has the right guess for the current round so its probability of progress is diminished. The fading adversary, by contrast, is prevented from adopting this degenerate behavior because it is required to stick with the same distribution for $\tau$ consecutive rounds. An important analysis at the core of our upper bounds reveals that any fixed distribution will be associated with a right guess defined with respect to the details of that distribution. If $\tau$ is sufficiently large, our algorithms are able to experiment with enough guesses to hit on this right guess before the adversary is able to change the distribution.
More generally speaking, the difficulty of broadcast in the previous dual graph studies was [*not*]{} due to the ability of the topology to change dramatically from round to round (which can happen in practice), but instead due to the model’s ability to precisely tune these changes to thwart the algorithm (a behavior that is hard to motivate). The dual graph model with the fading adversary preserves the former (realistic) behavior while minimizing the latter (unrealistic) behavior.
We present two algorithms and two lower bounds for the local broadcast problem. Both algorithms for $\tau \geq \log\Delta$ achieve time $O(\log\Delta \log(1/\epsilon))$ which matches the lower bound of Ghaffari [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@GhaffariHLN12]. For smaller $\tau$ our first algorithm works in time $O(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau \ln (1/\epsilon) )$ with probability $1-\epsilon$. We then show how to improve the algorithm to work in time $O\left(\frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log\Delta} \ln (1/\epsilon) \right)$. We also present two lower bounds for the local broadcast problem. Our first lower bound shows that time $\Omega\left( \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log{\Delta}}\right)$ is required for all algorithms working with probability at least $1/2$. We then show an improved lower bound of $\Omega\left( \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log{\Delta}}\right)$ that holds only for $\tau \in O(\log\Delta/\log\log\Delta)$.
We then show that our local broadcast algorithm can be used as a subroutine in a global broadcast algorithm that achieves time complexity $O\left((D+ \log (n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\right)$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$. We also present lower bounds for global broadcast by composing the gadget used in the lower bounds for local broadcast. We show that time of $\Omega\left(D\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log\Delta}\right)$ is required for $\tau \in O(\log\Delta)$ and $\Omega\left(D\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log\Delta}\right)$ is required for $\tau \in O(\log\Delta/\log\log\Delta)$.
We then present preliminary results for the case when there exist correlations between successive steps in the distributions of the edges controlled by the adversary. We construct an example showing that local broadcast using probabilities $2^{-i}$ for $i=1,2,\dots,\log\Delta$ needs expected time $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$ even if $\tau= \infty$. We also show that if we restrict the changes so that the degree of each node changes by at most a constant in each step then the local broadcast can be solved in optimal time $O(\log\Delta \log(1/\epsilon))$ using a standard [*Decay*]{}algorithm
Model and Problem
=================
We study the dual graph model of unreliable radio networks. This model describes the network topology with two graphs $G=(V,E)$ and $G' = (V,E')$, where $E \subseteq E'$. The $n=|V|$ vertices in $V$ correspond to the wireless devices in the network, which we call [*nodes*]{} in the following. The edge in $E$ describe reliable links (which maintain a consistently high quality), while the edges in $E' \setminus E$ describe unreliable links (which have quality that can vary over time). For a given dual graph, we use $\Delta$ to describe the maximum degree in $G'$, and $D$ to describe the diameter of $G$.
Time proceeds in synchronous rounds that we label $1,2,3...$ For each round $r\geq 1$, the network topology is described by $G_r = (V,E_r)$, where $E_r$ contains all edges in $E$ plus a subset of the edges in $E' \setminus E$. The subset of edges from $E' \setminus E$ are selected by an [*adversary*]{}. The graph $G_r$ can be interpreted as describing the high quality links during round $r$. That is, if $\{u,v\} \in E_r$, this mean the link between $u$ and $v$ is strong enough that $u$ could deliver a message to $v$, or garble another message being sent to $v$ at the same time.
With the topology $G_r$ established for the round, behavior proceeds as in the standard radio network model. That is, each node $u\in V$ can decide to transmit or receive. If $u$ transmits, it learns nothing about other messages transmitted in the round (i.e., the radios are half-duplex). If $u$ receives and exactly one neighbor $v$ of $u$ in $E_r$ transmits, then $u$ receives $v$’s message. If $u$ receives and two or more neighbors in $E_r$ transmit, $u$ receives nothing as the messages are lost due to collision. If $u$ receives and no neighbor transmits, $u$ also receives nothing. We assume $u$ does not have collision detection, meaning it cannot distinguish between these last two cases.
##### The Fading Adversary.
A key assumption in studying the dual graph model are the constraints placed on the adversary that selects the unreliable edges to include in the network topology in each round. In this paper, we study a new set of constraints inspired by real network behavior. In more detail, we parameterize the adversary with a [*stability factor*]{} that we represent with an integer $\tau \geq 1$. In each round, the adversary must draw the subset of edges (if any) from $E' \setminus E$ to include in the topology from a distribution defined over these edges. The adversary selects which distributions it uses. Indeed, we assume it is [*adaptive*]{} in the sense that it can wait until the beginning of a given round before deciding the distribution it will use in that round, basing its decision on the history of the nodes’ transmit/receive behavior up to this point, including the previous messages they send, but not including knowledge of the nodes’ private random bits.
The adversary is constrained, however, in that it can change this distribution at most once every $\tau$ rounds. On one extreme, if $\tau=1$, it can change the distribution in every round and is effectively unconstrained in its choices. On the other other extreme, if $\tau=\infty$, it must stick with the same distribution for every round. For most of this paper, we assume the draws from these distributions are independent in each round. Toward the end, however, we briefly discuss what happens when we generalize the model to allow more correlations.
As detailed in the introduction, because these constraints roughly approximate the fast/slow fading behavior common in the study of real wireless networks, we call a dual graph adversary constrained in this manner a [*fading adversary*]{}.
##### Problem.
In this paper, we study both the [*local*]{} and [*global*]{} broadcast problems. The local broadcast problem assumes a set $B \subseteq V$ of nodes are provided with a message to broadcast. Each node can receive a unique message. Let $R\subseteq V$ be the set of nodes in $V$ that neighbor at least one node in $B$ in $E$. The problem is solved once every node in $R$ has received at least one message from a node in $B$. We assume all nodes in $B$ start the execution during round $1$, but do not require that $B$ and $R$ are disjoint (i.e., broadcasters can also be receivers). The global broadcast problem, by contrast, assumes a single source node in $V$ is provided a broadcast message during round $1$. The problem is solved once all nodes have received this message. Notice, local broadcast solutions are often used as subroutines to help solve global broadcast.
##### Uniform Algorithms.
The broadcast upper and lower bounds we study in this paper focus on [*uniform algorithms*]{}, which require nodes to make their probabilistic transmission decisions according to a predetermined sequence of broadcast probabilities that we express as a repeating cycle, $(p_1,p_2, ..., p_k)$ of $k$ probabilities in synchrony. In studying global broadcast, we assume that on first receiving a message, a node can wait to start making probabilistic transmission decisions until the cycle resets. We assume these probabilities can depend on $n$, $\Delta$ and $\tau$ (or worst-case bounds on these values).
In uniform algorithms in the model with fading adversary an important parameter of any node $v$ is its [*effective degree*]{} in step $t$ denoted by $d_t(v)$ and defined as the number of nodes $w$ such that $(v,w) \in E_t$ and $w$ has a message to transmit (i.e., will participate in step $t$).
As mentioned in the introduction, uniform algorithms, such as the [*decay*]{} strategy from [@Bar-YehudaGI92], solve local and global broadcast with optimal efficiency in the standard radio network model. A major focus of this paper is to prove that they work well in the dual graph model as well, if we assume a fading adversary with a reasonable stability factor.
The fact that our lower bounds assume the algorithms are uniform technically weaken the results, as there might be non-uniform strategies that work better. In the standard radio network model, however, this does not prove to be the case: uniform algorithms for local and global broadcast match lower bounds that hold for all algorithms (c.f., discussion in [@newport:2014b]).
Uniform Algorithms
==================
The broadcast upper and lower bounds we study in this paper focus on [*uniform algorithms*]{}. In more detail, we call a node [*active*]{} if it has a message to transmit. In local broadcast, the set of active nodes is $B$ in every round, while in global broadcast, this set includes all nodes that have received the single broadcast message so far in the execution.
A uniform algorithm requires active nodes to make their probabilistic decision about whether or not to transmit in each round according to a predetermined sequence of broadcast probabilities. In particular, we define this sequence as a cycle $(p_1,p_2.\dots,p_k)$ of some length $k$. In round $r$ of the cycle, an active node transmits with probability $p_r$.
a uniform algorithm requires nodes to make their probabilistic decision about whether or not to transmit in each round according to a predetermined sequence of broadcast probabilities.
In this paper, we study uniform algorithms, in which the nodes that have a message to send (called active nodes) transmit according to a predetermined cycle of broadcast probabilities. The cycle is defined as a sequence $(p_1,p_2.\dots,p_k)$ of length $k$. In a single step of uniform algorithm all active nodes broadcast independently with the same probability $p_i$ for some $i \in \{1,2,\dots,k\}$.
In the case of local broadcast, the active nodes are all nodes in $B$. All these stations begin the execution active so their positions in the broadcast probability schedule are synchronized. In this case probability used by all the active stations in step $t$ is $p_{r+1}$, where $r$ is remainder of $t$ modulo $k$.
For global broadcast, nodes that receive the message become active to help propagate the message further. In this case, the receiver will delay until the beginning of the next probability cycle to begin transmitting to ensure that it remains synchronized with all other active nodes.
We assume that stations have access to the values of $n$, $\Delta$ and $\tau$, but not to the complete topology of the network. Stations that are not active are not allowed to transmit. They can only listen.
The following pseudocode describes a single cycle over the predefined probabilities in an uniform algorithm.
\[alg:procedure\]
Local broadcast {#sec:local}
===============
We begin by studying upper and lower bounds for the local broadcast problem. Our upper bound performs efficiently once the stability factor $\tau$ reaches a threshold of $\log{\Delta}$. As $\tau$ decreases toward a minimum value of $1$, this efficiency degrades rapidly. Our lower bounds capture that this degradation for small $\tau$ is unavoidable for uniform algorithms. In the following we use the notation $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\lceil\log\Delta\rceil\}$. By $\log n$ we will always denote logarithm at base $2$ and by $\ln n$ the natural logarithm.
Upper Bound
-----------
All uniform local broadcast algorithms behave in the same manner: the nodes in $B$ repeatedly broadcast according to some fixed cycle of $k$ broadcast probabilities. We formalize this strategy with algorithm ${\texttt{RLB}}$ (Robust Local Broadcast) described below (we break out [`Uniform`]{}into its own procedure as we later use it in our improved ${\texttt{FRLB}}$ local broadcast algorithm as well):
\[alg:procedure\]
($r$ times)[ [`Uniform`]{}$(\bar{\tau},p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\bar{\tau}})$ ]{}
Before we prove the complexity of ${\texttt{RLB}}$ we will show two useful properties of any uniform algorithm. Let $R_t^{(v)}$ denote the event that node $v$ receives a message from some neighbor in step $t$.
\[lem:prosing\] For any uniform algorithm and any node $v$ and step $t$ if $d_t(v) > 0$ and the algorithm uses in step $t$ probability $p \leq 1/2$, then ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)}\,\right]} \geq \frac{p \cdot d_t(v)}{(2 e)^{p \cdot d_t(v)}}$.
For this to happen exactly one among $d_t(v)$ neighbors of $v$ has to transmit and $v$ must not transmit. Node $v$ does not transmit with probability $1-p$ if it has the message and clearly with probability $1$ if it has the message. Denote by $\alpha = p \cdot d_t(v)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)}\,\right]} &\geq pd_t(v) \cdot (1-p)^{d_t(v)} = \alpha \cdot \left(1-\frac{\alpha}{d_t(v)}\right)^{d_t(v)} \\& = \alpha \left(\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{d_i(v)}\right)^{d_t(v)/\alpha - 1} \cdot (1-p) \right)^{\alpha} \geq \alpha(e^{-1} (1-p))^{\alpha} \geq \frac{\alpha}{(2e)^{\alpha}}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[lem:interval\] For any uniform algorithm, node $v$ and step $t$ if $d_t(v) > 0$: $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)} \mid d_t(v) \in [d_1,d_2]\,\right]} \geq \min\left\{{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)} \mid d_t(v) = d_1\,\right]},{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)} \mid d_t(v) = d_2\,\right]}\right\}.$$
If the algorithm uses probability $p$ in step $t$ then ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t}^{(v)}\,\right]} = p d_t(v) (1-p)^{d_t(v)}$. Seeing this expression as a function of $d_t(v)$ we can compute the derivative and obtain that this function has a single maximum in $d_t(v) = 1/(\ln(1/(1-p)))$. Hence if we restrict $d_t(v)$ to be within a certain interval, then value of the function is lower bounded by the minimum at the endpoints of the interval.
Our upper bound analysis leverages the following useful lemma which can be shown by induction on $n$ (the left side is also known as the Weierstrass Product Inequality):
\[lem:wpi\] For any $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n$ such that $0\leq x_i \leq 1$: $$1 - \sum_{i=1}^n x_i \leq \prod_{i=1}^n\left(1- x_i\right) \leq 1- \sum_{i=1}^{n}x_i + \sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}x_i x_j.$$
To begin our analysis, we focus on the behavior of our algorithm with respect to a single receiver when we use the transmit probability sequence $p_1, p_2, ..., p_{\bar{\tau}}$, where $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\lceil\log\Delta\rceil\}$, and $p_i = \Delta^{-i/\bar{\tau}}$.
\[lem:upper\_1\] Fix any receiver $u \in R$ and error bound $\epsilon > 0$. It follows: [`RLB`]{}$(2 \lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4e\cdot \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \rceil,\bar{\tau})$ delivers a message to $u$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ in time $O(\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \bar{\tau} \log(1/\epsilon))$.
It is sufficient to prove the claim for $\tau \leq \log\Delta$. For $\tau > \log\Delta$ we use the algorithm for $\tau = \log\Delta$. Note that any algorithm that is correct for some $\tau$ must also work for any larger $\tau$ because the adversary may not choose to change the distribution as frequently as it is permitted to. In the case where $\tau \leq \log\Delta$ we get that $\Delta^{1/\tau} \geq 2$.
We want to show that if the nodes from $N_{u}\cap B$ execute the procedure ${\texttt{Uniform}\xspace}(\tau,p_1,\dots,p_{\tau})$ twice, then $u$ receives some message with probability at least $\log\Delta/(2e \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau)$. Every time we execute ${\texttt{Uniform}\xspace}$ twice, we have a total of $2\tau$ consecutive time slots out of which, by the definition of our model, at least $\tau$ consecutive slots have the same distribution of the additional edges and moreover stations try all the probabilities $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\tau}$ (not necessarily in this order). Let $T$ denote the set of these $\tau$ time slots and for $i= 1,2,\dots,\tau$ let $t_i \in T$ be the step in which probability $p_i$ is used. We also denote the distribution used in steps from set $T$ by $\mathcal{E^{(T)}}$. Hence we can denote the edges between $u$ and its neighbors that have some message by $E_{part} = \{(u,b): b\in B\}\cap E'$. We know that the edge sets are chosen independently from the same distribution: $E_t \sim \mathcal{E^{(T)}}$ for $t \in T$. Let us denote by $X_t = |E_t\cap E_{part}|$ the random variable being the number of neighbors that are connected to $u$ in step $t$ and belong to $B$. For each $i$ form $1$ to $\tau$ we define $
q_i = {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} < X_t \leq \Delta^{i/\tau}\,\right]},
$ for any $t\in T$. Observe that probabilities $q_i$ do not depend on $t$ during the considered $\tau$ rounds. Moreover since $u \in R$ then $u$ is connected via a reliable edge to at least one node in $B$, thus $E_t \cap E_{part} \neq \emptyset$, hence ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,X_t = 0\,\right]} = 0$ thus: $$\label{eqn:sum_one}
\sum_{i = 1}^{\tau} q_i = 1.$$ We would like to lower bound the probability that $v$ receives a message in step $t_i$ for $i = 1,2\dots,\tau$: $$\label{eqn:s_i}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]}\geq \frac{q_i}{2e\Delta^{1/\tau}}.$$ In $t_i$-th slot the transmission probability is $p_i = \Delta^{-i/\tau}$ and the transmission choices done by the stations are independent from the choice of edges $E_{t_i}$ active in round $t_i$. Let $Q_i$ denote the event that $\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} < X_{t_i} \leq \Delta^{i/\tau}$. We have $p_i \leq 1/2$ hence we can use Lemma \[lem:prosing\] and \[lem:interval\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} &\geq {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)} = 1 \mid Q_{i}\,\right]}\cdot {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,Q_{i}\,\right]} \\\label{eqn:minimum}
& \geq q_i\min\left\{{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)} = 1\mid d_{t_i}(v) = \Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1\,\right]}, {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)} = 1\mid d_{t_i}(v) = \Delta^{i/\tau}\,\right]}\right\}\\\nonumber
& \geq q_i\min\left\{\frac{(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1)\Delta^{-i/\tau}}{(2e)^{(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1)\Delta^{-i/\tau}}}, \frac{1}{2e}\right\} \geq \frac{q_i}{2e\Delta^{1/\tau}},
\end{aligned}$$ because $(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1)\Delta^{-i/\tau} \leq 1$. Since the edge sets are chosen independently in each step and the random choices of the stations whether to transmit or not are also independent from each other we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\bigwedge_{i=1}^{\tau} \left(\neg R_{t_i}^{(v)}\right)\,\right]} &= \prod_{i = 1}^{\tau}{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\neg R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} \leq \prod_{i = 1}^{\tau} \left(1- \frac{q_i}{2e \Delta^{1/\tau}}\right)& \quad\text{by independence and Equation~\eqref{eqn:s_i}}\\
&\leq 1 - \sum_{i = 1}^{\tau}\frac{q_i}{2e \Delta^{1/\tau}} + \sum_{1\leq i < j\leq \tau} \frac{q_i q_{j}}{4e^2 \Delta^{2/\tau} } & \text{by Lemma~\ref{lem:wpi}}\\
& \leq 1 - \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{\tau}q_i}{2e \Delta^{1/\tau}} + \frac{ \left(\sum_{i =1}^{\tau} q_i\right)^2}{4e^2 \Delta^{2/\tau} } & \\
&\leq 1 - \frac{1}{2e \Delta^{1/\tau}} + \frac{1}{4e^2 \Delta^{2/\tau}} \leq 1 - \frac{1}{4e \Delta^{1/\tau}} &\text{by Equation~\eqref{eqn:sum_one}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Hence if we execute the procedure for $ 2\tau\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4e\cdot \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil$ time steps, we have at least $\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4e\cdot \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil$ sequences of $\tau$ consecutive time steps in which the distribution over the unreliable edges is the same and the algorithm tries all the probabilities $\{p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\tau}\}$. Each of these procedures fails independently with probability at most $1- 1/(4e \Delta^{1/\tau})$ hence the probability that all the procedures fail is at most: $
\left(1-\frac{1}{4e \Delta^{1/\tau}}\right)^{\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4e\Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil} \leq e^{-\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon)\rceil} < \epsilon
$
On closer inspection of the analysis of Lemma \[lem:upper\_1\], it becomes clear that if we tweak slightly the probabilities used in our algorithm, we require fewer iterations. In more detail, the probability of a successful transmission in the case where each of the $x$ transmitters broadcasts independently with probability $\alpha/x$ is approximately $\alpha / (2e)^{\alpha}$. In the previous algorithm we were transmitting in successive steps with probabilities $\Delta^{-1/\tau}, \Delta^{-2/\tau},\dots$. Thus if $x = 1$ we would get in $i$-th step $\alpha = \Delta^{-i/\tau}$ and approximately the sum of probabilities of success in $\tau$ consecutive steps would be $\Delta^{-1/\tau}$. The formula $\alpha / (2e)^{-\alpha}$ shows that the success probability depends on $\alpha$ linearly if $\alpha < 1$ (“too small" probability) and depends exponentially on $\alpha$ if $\alpha > 1$ (“too large" probability). In the previous theorem we intuitively only use the linear term. In the next one we would like to also use, to some extent, the exponential term. If we shift all the probabilities by multiplying them by a factor of $\beta > 1$, the total success probability would be approximately $\beta \Delta^{-1/\tau}$ if $x = 1$ and $\beta (2e)^{-\beta}$ if $x =\Delta$. Thus by setting $\beta = \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau$ we maximize both these values.
($r$ times)[ [`Uniform`]{}$(\bar{\tau},p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\bar{\tau}})$ ]{}
The following lemma makes this above intuition precise and gains a log-factor in performance in algorithm ${\texttt{FRLB}}$ (Fast Robust Local Broadcast) compared to ${\texttt{RLB}}$. As part of this analysis, we add a second statement to our lemma that will prove useful during our subsequent analysis of global broadcast. The correctness of this second lemma is a straightforward consequence of the analysis.\
\[lem:upper\_2\] Fix any receiver $u \in R$ and error bound $\epsilon > 0$. It follows:
1. \[statement1\] [`FRLB`]{}$(2\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4 \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}}\bar{\tau}/\log_{2e}\Delta \rceil,\bar{\tau})$ completes local broadcast with a single receiver in time\
$O\left(\frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \cdot \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\cdot \log{(1/\epsilon)}\right)$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$, for any $\epsilon > 0$,
2. \[statement2\] [`FRLB`]{}$(2,\bar{\tau})$ completes local broadcast with a single receiver with probability at least $\frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}}\bar{\tau}}$.
It is sufficient to prove the claim for $\tau \leq \log_{2e}\Delta$. For $\tau > \log_{2e}\Delta$ we use the algorithm for $\tau = \log_{2e}\Delta$. Note that any algorithm that is correct for some $\tau$ must also work for any larger $\tau$ because the adversary may not choose to change the distribution as frequently as it is permitted to. In the case where $\tau \leq \log_{2e}\Delta$ we get that $\Delta^{1/\tau} \geq 2e$. Moreover $\Delta^{-1/\tau}\log_{2e}\Delta / \tau = (2e)^{-\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau} \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau \leq 1/(2e)$ because $\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau \geq 1$ hence $p_i \leq 1/2$.
We want to show that if the nodes from $N_{u}\cap B$ execute the procedure ${\texttt{Uniform}\xspace}(\tau,p_1,\dots,p_{\tau})$ twice, then $u$ receives some message with probability at least $\log\Delta/(4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau)$. Since we execute ${\texttt{Uniform}\xspace}$ twice, we have a total of $2\tau$ consecutive time slots out of which, by the definition of our model, at least $\tau$ consecutive slots have the same distribution of the edges in $E'\setminus E$ and moreover stations try all the probabilities $p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\tau}$. (not necessarily in this order). Let $T$ denote the set of these $\tau$ time slots and for $i= 1,2,\dots,\tau$ let $t_i \in T$ be the step in which probability $p_i$ is used. We also denote the distribution used in steps from set $T$ by $\mathcal{E^{(T)}}$. Observe from the definition of the algorithm that during these slots the number of participating stations does not change. Hence we can denote the edges between $u$ and its neighbors that have some message by $E_{part} = \{(u,b): b\in B\}\cap E'$. We know that the edge sets are chosen independently from the same distributions: $E_t \sim \mathcal{E^{(T)}}$ for $t \in T$. Let us denote by $X_t = |E_t\cap E_{part}|$ the random variable being the number of neighbors that are connected to $u$ in step $t$ and belong to $B$. For each $i$ form $1$ to $\tau$, we define $q_i$: $$q_i = {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} < X_t \leq \Delta^{i/\tau}\,\right]}.$$ for any $t\in T$. Observe that probabilities $q_i$ do not depend on $t$ during the considered $\tau$ rounds. Moreover $E_t\cap E_{part} \neq \emptyset$, hence ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,X_t = 0\,\right]} = 0$ thus: $$\label{eqn:sum_one_2}
\sum_{i = 1}^{\tau} q_i = 1.$$ We would like to lower bound the probability that $v$ receives a message in step $t_i$ for $i = 1,2,\dots,\tau$: $$\label{eqn:s_i_2}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]}\geq \frac{q_i \log_{2e}\Delta}{2\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}.$$ In $t_i$-th slot each station with a message transmits independently with probability is $p_{i} = \Delta^{-i/\tau}\cdot \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau$ and the transmission choices done by the stations are independent from the choice of edges $E_{t_i}$ active in round $t_i$. Let $Q_i$ denote the event that $\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} < X_{t_i} \leq \Delta^{i/\tau}$. We have $p_i \leq 1/2$ hence we can use Lemma \[lem:prosing\] and \[lem:interval\]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} &\geq {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\mid Q_i\,\right]}\cdot {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,Q_i\,\right]} \\&\geq q_i \cdot \min \left\{\frac{(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1) \Delta^{-i/\tau}\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau}{(2e)^{(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1) \Delta^{-i/\tau}\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau}}, \frac{\log_{2e} \Delta /\tau}{ (2e)^{\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau}}\right\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $(\Delta^{(i-1)/\tau} +1) \Delta^{-i/\tau}\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau = \Delta^{-1/\tau} \cdot \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau + \Delta^{-i/\tau} \cdot \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau \leq 2(2e)^{-\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau}\cdot \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau \geq 1/e$, because $\log_{2e}\Delta/\tau \geq 1$, hence: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} &\geq q_i\min \left\{ \frac{\Delta^{-1/\tau} \log_{2e}\Delta/\tau}{(2e)^{1/e}}, \frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau} \right\} \geq \frac{q_i \log_{2e}\Delta}{2\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}.
\end{aligned}$$
Since the edge sets are chosen independently in each step and the choices of the stations are also independent we have: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\bigwedge_{i=1}^{\tau} \left(\neg R_{t_i}^{(v)}\right)\,\right]} &= \prod_{i = 1}^{\tau}{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\neg R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} & \qquad\text{by independence}\\
&\leq \prod_{i = 1}^{\tau} \left(1- \frac{q_i\log_{2e}\Delta}{2 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\right) &\text{by Equation~\eqref{eqn:s_i_2}}\\
&\leq 1 - \sum_{i = 1}^{\tau}\frac{q_i \log_{2e}\Delta}{2 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau} + \sum_{1\leq i < j \leq n}\frac{q_i q_j \log_{2e}^2\Delta}{4 \Delta^{2/\tau}\tau^2} & \text{by Lemma~\ref{lem:wpi}}\\
&\leq 1 - \frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{2 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\sum_{i = 1}^{\tau}q_i + \frac{\log_{2e}^2\Delta}{4 \Delta^{2/\tau}\tau^2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n q_i\right)^2 & \\
&= 1 - \frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{2 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau} +\frac{\log_{2e}^2\Delta}{4 \Delta^{2/\tau}\tau^2}, &\text{by Equation~\eqref{eqn:sum_one_2}}\\
&\leq 1 - \frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau},
\end{aligned}$$\
where the last inequality is true since if we denote $\tau = (\log_{2e} \Delta)/\alpha$ (for $\alpha\geq 1$) then we have $\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau = (2e)^{\alpha}\log \Delta/(2\alpha) \geq \log\Delta $ hence $\frac{\log_{2e}^2\Delta}{4 \Delta^{2/\tau}\tau^2} \leq \frac{\log_{2e}\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}$. This completes proof of \[statement2\]. To prove \[statement1\] we observe that if we execute the procedure for $ 2\tau\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4 \cdot \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log_{2e}\Delta \rceil$ time steps we have at least $\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4 \cdot \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log_{2e}\Delta \rceil$ sequences of $\tau$ consecutive time steps in which the distribution over the unreliable edges is the same and the algorithm tries all the probabilities $\{p_1,p_2,\dots,p_{\tau}\}$. Each of these procedures fails independently with probability at most $1- \log_{2e}\Delta/(4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau)$ hence the probability that all the procedures fail is at most: $$\left(1-\frac{\tau\log_{2e}\Delta}{4 \cdot \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\right)^{\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4 \cdot \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log_{2e}\Delta \rceil} \leq e^{-\lceil \ln (1/\epsilon)\rceil} < \epsilon$$
In Lemmas \[lem:upper\_1\] and \[lem:upper\_2\] we studied the fate of a single receiver in $R$ during an execution of algorithms ${\texttt{RLB}}$ and ${\texttt{FRLB}}$. Here we apply this result to bound the time for all nodes in $R$ to receive a message, therefore solving the local broadcast problem. In particular, for a desired error bound $\epsilon$, if we apply these lemmas with error bound $\epsilon'=\epsilon/n$, then we end up solving the single node problem with a failure probability upper bounded by $\epsilon/n$. Applying a union bound, it follows that the probability that any node from $R$ fails to receive a message is less than $\epsilon$. Formally:
\[thm:mult\_receivers\] Fix an error bound $\epsilon>0$. It follows that algorithm $ {\texttt{FRLB}}(2\lceil \ln (n/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil4 \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}}\bar{\tau}/\log\Delta \rceil) $ solves local broadcast in $O\left(\frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \cdot \bar{\tau}^2}{\log_{2e}\Delta}\cdot \log{(n/\epsilon)}\right)$ rounds, with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
Lower bound
-----------
Observe that for $\tau = \Omega(\log\Delta)$, [`FRLB`]{}has a time complexity of $O(\log\Delta \log n)$ rounds for $\epsilon = 1/n$, which matches the performance of the optimal algorithms for this problem in the standard radio model. This emphasizes the perhaps surprising result that even large amounts of topology changes do not impede simple uniform broadcast strategies, so long as there is independence between nearby changes.
Once $\tau$ drops below $\log{\Delta}$, however, a significant gap opens between our model and the standard radio network model. Here we prove that gap is fundamental for any uniform algorithm in our model.
In the local broadcast problem, a receiver from set $R$ can have between $1$ and $\Delta$ neighbors in set $B$. The neighbors should optimally use probabilities close to the inverse of their number. But since the number of neighbors is unknown, the algorithm has to check all the values. If we look at the logarithm of the inverse of the probabilities (call them *log-estimates*) used in Lemma \[lem:upper\_1\] we get $i \log\Delta/\tau$, for $i = 1,2,\dots,\tau$—which are spaced equidistantly on the interval $[0,\log\Delta]$. The goal of the algorithm is to minimize the maximum gap between two adjacent log-estimates placed on this interval since this maximizes the success probability in the worst case. With this in mind, in the proof of the following lower bound, we look at the dual problem. Given a predetermined sequence of probabilities used by an arbitrary uniform algorithm, we seek the largest gap between adjacent log-estimates, and then select edge distributions that take advantage of this weakness.
\[thm:lower\] Fix a maximum degree $\Delta \geq 10$, stability factor $\tau \leq \log(\Delta-1)/16$, and uniform local broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}$. Assume that $\mathcal{A}$ guarantees with probability at least $1/2$ to solve local broadcast in $f(\Delta, \tau)$ rounds when executed in any dual graph network with maximum degree $\Delta$ and fading adversary with stability $\tau$. It follows that $f(\Delta, \tau) \in \Omega( \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau/\log{\Delta})$.
Consider the dual graph $G = (V,E)$ and $G' = (V,E')$, defined as follows: $V = \{v,u,v_1,\dots,v_{n-2}\}$ and $E = \{(u,v_i), i\in \{1,2,\dots,\Delta-1\}\} \cup \{(v_1,v), (v,v_{\Delta})\} \cup \{(v_i,v_{i+1}), i \in \{\Delta,\dots,n-3\}\}$ and $E' = E\cup\{(v_i,v), i\in\{2,3,\dots,\Delta-1\}\}$ (see Figure \[fig:lower\]). We will study local boadcast in this dual graph with $B = \{u,v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{\Delta-1}\}$ and $R = \{v\}$.
![A graph used in proofs of Theorems \[thm:lower\] and \[thm:lower\_2\]. Solid lines correspond to edges in $E$ and dashed lines correspond to edges in $E'\setminus E$ (unreliable edges).[]{data-label="fig:lower"}](lower5){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Observe that the maximum degree of any node is indeed $\Delta$ and the number of nodes is $n$. Nodes $v_{\Delta},v_{\Delta+1},\dots,v_{n-2}$ do not belong to $B\cup R$ hence are not relevant in our analysis.
Using the sequence of probabilities $p_1,p_2,\dots$ used by algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ we will define a sequence of distributions over the edges that will cause a long delay until node $v$ will receive a message. The adversary we define is allowed to change the distribution every $\tau$ steps. Accordingly, we partition the rounds into [*phases*]{} of length $\tau$, which we label $1,2,3,\dots$. Phase $k$ consists of time steps $I_k =\{1+k\cdot \tau,2+k\cdot\tau,\dots,(k+1)\cdot\tau \}$. For each phase $k \geq 1$, the adversary will use a distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ that’s defined with respect to the probabilities used by $\mathcal{A}$ during the rounds in phase $k$. In particular, let sequence $P_k = \{p_{i}\}_ {i\in I_k}$ be the $\tau$ probabilities used by $\mathcal{A}$ during phase $k$.
We use $P_k$ to define the distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ as follows. Define ${\dot{\Delta}}= \Delta - 1$ and let $N$ represent $\lfloor\log{{\dot{\Delta}}}\rfloor$ urns labeled with numbers from $1$ to $\lfloor\log{{\dot{\Delta}}}\rfloor$. Into these urns we place balls with numbers $\lceil\log(1/p_j)\rceil$ and $\lfloor\log(1/p_j)\rfloor$ for all $ j\in I_k$. Ball with number $i$ is placed into the bin with the same number. With this procedure for each $j$, we place two balls in adjacent bins if $\lceil\log(1/p_j)\rceil \neq \lfloor\log(1/p_j)\rfloor$ and a single ball in the opposite case. We arrange the bins in a circular fashion i.e., bins $\lfloor \log{{\dot{\Delta}}} \rfloor$ and $1$ are consecutive and we want to find the longest sequence of consecutive empty bins. Observe that since for each $j$ we put either a single ball or two balls into adjacent bins we have at most $\tau$ sequences of consecutive empty bins. Moreover, since at most $2\tau$ bins contain a ball then there exists a sequence of consecutive empty bins of length at least $\frac{\lfloor\log{\dot{\Delta}}\rfloor - 2\tau}{\tau}$. Knowing that $\tau$ is an integer and that $\tau \leq \log{\dot{\Delta}}/ 16$ we can represent $\log{\dot{\Delta}}= a \tau + b + \{\log{\dot{\Delta}}\}$, where $\{\log{\dot{\Delta}}\}$ is the fractional part of $\log{\dot{\Delta}}$ and $b + \{\log{\dot{\Delta}}\} < \tau$. We can then show that: $$\frac{\lfloor\log{\dot{\Delta}}\rfloor - 2\tau}{\tau} = a + \frac{b}{\tau} - 2 \geq \left\lfloor \frac{\log{\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau} \right\rfloor - 2.$$ We define: $$\begin{aligned}
x &= \lfloor \log{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor - 3 - \lfloor\log(\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor)\rfloor, \\
y &= \lfloor\log{(\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor)}\rfloor + 1.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that for $\tau \leq \log{{\dot{\Delta}}}/16$ we have $\log{(\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor)} \geq 4$ hence $x$ and $y$ are both positive integers and moreover $x+y = \lfloor \log{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau \rfloor - 2$. Hence we already showed that there exists a sequence of consecutive empty bins of length at least $x+y$. Now, we pick the label of $(y+1)$-st bin in this sequence (the order of bins is according to the circular arrangement i.e., $1$ comes after $\lfloor\log{\dot{\Delta}}\rfloor$) and call it $a_k$. Let $A_k = \{\log(1/p_j) : j\in I_k\}$. This set contains logarithms of all the estimates “tried" by the algorithm in $k$-th phase. Now we split $A_k$ into elements that are larger and that are smaller than $a_k$: $A_k = A^{(\geq)}_{k} \cup A^{(<)}_{k}$, $A^{(\geq)}_{k} = \{a \in A_k : a \geq a_k\}$, $A^{(<)}_k = \{a \in A_k : a < a_k\}$. We observe that if $a \in A^{(<)}_k$ then $a \leq a_k - y$ because there are $y$ empty bins between bin $a_k$ and the bin containing ball $\lceil a \rceil$. Symmetrically if $a \in A^{(\geq)}_k$ then $a \geq a_k + x-1$ because there are $x-1$ empty bins between bin $a_k$ and the bin containing ball $\lfloor a \rfloor$.
In our distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ in phase $k$, we include all edges from $E$, plus a subset of size $2^{a_k} -1$ selected uniformly from $E' \setminus E$. This is possible since the adversary can choose to activate any subset of links among the set $\{(v_i,v), i\in\{2,\dots,{\dot{\Delta}}\}\}$. With this choice, the degree of $v$ is $2^{a_k}$ in phase $k$ hence we can bound the probability that a successful transmission occurs in phase $k$.
Having chosen the distribution of the edges between $v$ and $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{{\dot{\Delta}}}\}$ we can now bound the probability of a successful transmission in any step $t$ in the considered phase. Let the event of a successful transmission in step $t$ be denoted by $S_t$. For this event to happen exactly one of the $2^{a_k}$ nodes among $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{{\dot{\Delta}}}\}$ that are connected to $v$ need to transmit. We have: $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_t\,\right]} = 2^{a_k} p_t \cdot (1-p_t)^{2^{a_k}-1}.$$ Take any step $t$ and the corresponding probability $p_t$ used by the algorithm. We know that $a_k$ is chosen so that $a_k \geq \log(1/p_t) + y$ or $a_k \leq \log(1/p_t) - x$. We consider these cases separately:
Case 1: [$a_k \leq \log(1/p_t) - x + 1$]{}
: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_t\,\right]} &= 2^{a_k}\cdot p_t\cdot\left(1-p_t\right)^{2^{a_k}-1} \leq 2^{a_k - \log(1/p_t)} \leq 2^{-x+ 1} \\& = 2^{-\lfloor \log{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor + 4 + \lfloor\log(\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor)\rfloor} \leq 2^{-\log{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + \log(\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor) + 5 }
\\&\leq \frac{32 \lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}} \\&\leq \frac{32\ln{{\dot{\Delta}}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}.
\end{aligned}$$
Case 2: [$a_k \geq \log(1/p_t) + y$]{}
: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_t\,\right]} &= 2^{a_k}\cdot p_t\cdot\left(1-p_t\right)^{2^{a_k}-1} = \frac{2^{a_k}p_t}{1 - p_t } (1-p_t)^{2^{a_k}} \leq \frac{2^{a_k}p_t}{1 - p_t } e^{-2^{a_k}p_t}.
\end{aligned}$$
We know that $a_k\geq \log(1/p_t) + y$ and $a_k \leq \log{\dot{\Delta}}$ thus $p_t \leq 2^{y}/{\dot{\Delta}}$ hence since ${\dot{\Delta}}\geq 9$ we get $1/(1-p_t)\leq 1/2$. Moreover since $2^{a_i} p_t \geq 2^y \geq 4$ we have $e^{-2^{a_i}p_t/2} < 1/(2^{a_i}p_t) $ (because $e^{x/2} > x$ for all $x$). Which gives in this case: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_t\,\right]} & < 2 e^{-2^{a_k}p_t/2} \leq e^{-2^{y-1}} \leq 2e^{-\lfloor \ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau\rfloor} \leq
2{\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \leq \frac{32 \ln{\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}.
\end{aligned}$$
We have just shown that the probability that $v$ receives a message in our fixed phase $k$ is at most $\frac{32 \ln{\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$. To conclude the proof, we apply a union bound to show that probability $v$ receives a message in at least one of ${\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau /(64 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}) - 1$ phases, which require ${\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /(64 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}) - \tau$ total rounds, is strictly less than 1/2: $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,\bigcup_{t=1}^{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau /(64 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}) - 1} S_t\,\right]} \leq \sum_{t = 1}^{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau/(64 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}) - 1} {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_t\,\right]} < \frac{1}{2}.$$
In our next theorem, we refine the argument used in Theorem \[thm:lower\] for the case where $\tau$ is a non-trivial amount smaller than the $\log{\Delta}$ threshold. We will argue that for smaller $\tau$, the complexity is $\Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /\log{\Delta})$, which more exactly matches our best upper bound. We are able to trade this small amount of extra wiggle room in $\tau$ for a stronger lower bound because it simplifies certain probabilistic obstacles in our argument. Combined with our previous theorem, the below result shows our upper bound performance is asymptotically optimal for uniform algorithms for all but a narrow range of stability factors, for which it is near tight.
\[thm:lower\_2\] Fix a maximum degree $\Delta \geq 10$, stability factor $\tau \leq \ln(\Delta-1)/(12\log\log (\Delta-1))$, and uniform local broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}$. Assume that $\mathcal{A}$ guarantees with probability at least $1/2$ to solve local broadcast in $f(\Delta, \tau)$ rounds when executed in any dual graph network with maximum degree $\Delta$ and fading adversary with stability $\tau$. It follows that $f(\Delta, \tau) \in \Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /\log{\Delta})$.
In this proof we will use the same graph as in Theorem \[thm:lower\]. Let $G = (V,E)$ and $G' = (V,E')$. Let $V = \{v,u,v_1,\dots,v_{n-2}\}$ and let $R = \{u,v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{\Delta-1}\}$ and $E = \{(u,v_i), i\in \{1,2,\dots,\Delta\}\} \cup \{(v_1,v), (v,v_{\Delta})\} \cup \{(v_i,v_{i+1}), i \in \{\Delta,\dots,n-3\}\}$ and $E' = E\cup\{(v_i,v), i\in\{2,3,\dots,\Delta\}\}$ (see Figure \[fig:lower\]).
Let $p_1,p_2,\dots$ be the fixed sequence of broadcast probabilities used by nodes in $B$ running $\mathcal{A}$. Using this sequence we will define a sequence of distributions over the edges that will cause a long time for this algorithm until node $v$ will receive a message.
The adversary is allowed to change the distribution once every $\tau$ steps. Therefore we will define the $k$-th distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ based on sequence $P_k = (p_{(k-1)\tau + 1}, p_{(k-1)\tau + 2},\dots, p_{k\tau })$ of probabilities and distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ will be used in rounds $(k-1)\tau + 1, (k-1)\tau + 2,\dots, k\tau$. Consider intervals of $\tau$ time steps (call such interval a *phase*) and the corresponding probabilities $p_{j + i\cdot\tau}$ ($j<\tau$). Let us fix any phase $k$ and consider values $l_i = \log(1/p_{i+ (k-1)\tau})$, for $i=1,2,\dots,\tau$. We denote ${\dot{\Delta}}= \Delta - 1$. As an adversary we are allowed to define an integer value $l^* \in [1,2,\dots,\lfloor\log {\dot{\Delta}}\rfloor]$ based on the $l$-values and define a distribution for phase $k$ in which there are always $2^{l^*}$ active links between nodes $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{n}$ and $v$. The success probability in $i$-th step of the considered phase is then $$s_i = p_{i + (k-1)\tau} \cdot 2^{l^*} \cdot (1-p_{i + (k-1)\tau})^{2^{l^*}-1}.$$ Our goal as an adversary is to find such $l^*$ that minimizes $\sum_{i=1}^{\tau} s_i$. We will show that it is always possible to find such $l^*$ that $\sum_{i=1}^{\tau} s_i = O({\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau) = \Theta(\Delta^{-1/\tau} \log \Delta/\tau)$. This will give us that $\Omega({\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau/ \log {\dot{\Delta}})$ phases of $\tau$ steps hence in total $\Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau^2/ \log \Delta)$ steps are needed to complete local broadcast with constant probability.
Assume by contradiction that there exists a choice of $l_1,l_2,\dots,l_{\tau}$ such that for any choice of $l^*$ we have that $\sum_{i=1}^{\tau} s_i \geq c\frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$, where $c = 2409$. We fix this choice of $l$-values $l_1,l_2,\dots,l_{\tau}$ and we denote: $$\begin{aligned}
x &= \log {\dot{\Delta}}/ \tau + \log \tau - \log\ln {\dot{\Delta}}, \\
y &= \log(\ln {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau), \\
x' &= \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\log\tau -\log\ln {\dot{\Delta}}, \\
y' &= \log(\ln {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\ln \tau).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau < \ln {\dot{\Delta}}/(12\log\log {\dot{\Delta}})$ we have that $y \geq 3$. Observe that $x + y = \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau$ and $x' + y' \leq \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\log\tau -\log\ln {\dot{\Delta}}+ \log(\ln {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2 \ln \tau) = \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\log\tau + \log(1/\tau + 2\ln\tau/\ln {\dot{\Delta}}) \leq \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\log\tau + \log 3$. Let $\Delta^*$ denote the number of active links between $v$ and $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{{\dot{\Delta}}}$ in the considered phase and $l^* = \log \Delta^*$. In any step if $\Delta^*$ is such that $l^* \geq y'$ then if we also have $p_i \geq \frac23$ then we get: $$\label{eqn:bigProb}
s_i = p_i 2^{l^*}(1-p_i)^{2^{l^*}-1 }\leq \frac{2^{l^*}}{3^{2^{l^*}- 1}} \leq \frac{3(\ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\ln\tau) }{e^{\ln{\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\ln\tau}} \leq \frac{9\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2},$$ where the last inequality is true because $\tau \geq 1$ and $\ln \tau \leq \ln{\dot{\Delta}}$. This shows that the sum of all such $s_i$ is at most $\frac{9\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$. Consider now only steps with $p_i < 2/3$. Then: $$s_i = 2^{l^* - l_i} \left(1-\frac{1}{2^{l_i}}\right)^{2^{l^*} - 1} = 2^{l^* - l_i} \cdot \frac{\left(1 - \frac{1}{2^{l_i}}\right)^{2^{l^*}}}{1-p_i} \leq 3 \cdot 2^{l^* - l_i} \cdot e^{-2^{l^* - l_i}}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:x} &{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Single}}\xspace}\mid l_i \geq l^* + x - 3\,\right]} \leq 3 \cdot 2^{-x + 3}\leq \frac{24 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau} \\
\label{eqn:xprime} &{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Single}}\xspace}\mid l_i \geq l^* + x'-1\,\right]} \leq 3 \cdot 2^{-x'+1} \leq \frac{6 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2} \\
\label{eqn:y} & {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Single}}\xspace}\mid l_i \leq l^* - y \,\right]} \leq \frac{3 \cdot 2^{y}}{e^{2^y}} = \frac{3\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau} \\
\label{eqn:yprime} & {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,{\ensuremath{\mathsf{Single}}\xspace}\mid l_i \leq l^* - y'\,\right]} \leq \frac{3 \cdot 2^{y'}}{e^{2^{y'}}} = \frac{3 (\ln {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 2\log\tau)}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau^2} \leq \frac{9 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2} \end{aligned}$$ Observe that for a fixed value of $l^*$, for any $i$ such that $l_i \notin [l^* - y', l^* + x'-1]$ we have $s_i \leq \frac{9\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau^2}$ (by Equations , ). Hence the sum of all such values $s_i$ is at most $\frac{9\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau}$. Hence we only need to find such $l^*$ that the sum of the values $s_i$ for which the corresponding $l_i \in [l^*_1 - y', l^*_1 + x']$ is less than $\frac{(c-9)\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau}$.
We denote the smallest and the largest $l$-values: $l_{sm} = \min_{i\in \{1,2,\dots,\tau\}}\{l_i\}$ and $l_{lg} = \max_{i \in \{1,2,\dots,\tau\}} \{l_i\}$. We will prove two following claims about $l_{sm}$ and $l_{lg}$:
[$l_{sm} \leq x'$]{}
: Observe that otherwise we can choose $l^* = 0$ ($\Delta^*$ is then equal to $1$ which corresponds to exactly one active link between $\{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{{\dot{\Delta}}}\}$ and $v$) and then by Equation under this choice of $l^*$ all values $s_i$ would satisfy $s_i\leq \frac{6 {\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau^2}$ (because if $l_i \geq x'$ then $p_i < 2/3$).
[$l_{lg} \geq \log {\dot{\Delta}}- y'$]{}
: If it is not the case, we choose $l^* = \log{\dot{\Delta}}$ and by Equation we have that if $p_i < 2/3$ then $s_i \leq \frac{9 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2}$ and by Equation that if $p_i\geq 2/3$ then $s_i \leq \frac{9\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2}$. And the sum of all values of $s_i$ is at most $\frac{9 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$ which contradicts our assumption.
Consider now interval $\Gamma_1 = [l_{sm},l_{lg}]$. Two previous claims showed that $|\Gamma_1| \geq \log{\dot{\Delta}}- x' - y'$. We can now consider the placement of values $l_i$ on $\Gamma_1$ and analyze gaps between the adjacent values. Gap $g_i$ is the difference between the $(i+1)$-st smallest and $i$-th smallest value out of all values $l_j$ that belong to $\Gamma_1$. We want to show the following: $$\label{eqn:maxgap}
\max_{i} g_i \leq x' + y'$$ Assume on the contrary that such a gap between $l_i$ and $l_j$ exists. Then we pick $l^* = \lceil l_i + y' \rceil$ and observe that $l^*$ is an integer and is at least $y'$ larger than each smaller $l$-value and at least $x'-1$ smaller than each larger $l$-value. In such a case $l^*\geq y'$ hence for all $i$ such that $p_i \geq 2/3$ by Equation we have $s_i \leq \frac{9\log {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2}$ and if $p_i < 2/3$ then (since $l^* \geq y'$) by Equations we have $s_i \leq \frac{9 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau^2}$. Thus if any gap has size at least $x'+y'$ then $\sum_{i=0}^{\tau}s_i \leq \frac{9 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$ which contradicts our assumption.
We know that there are at most $\tau-1$ gaps and that they cover area of at least $\log {\dot{\Delta}}- x' - y'$. Hence we can lower bound the average length of a gap: $$\begin{aligned}
d_1 &= \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}- x' - y'}{\tau - 1} \geq \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}- \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau - 2\log \tau - \log 3 }{\tau -1} \\&= \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}(1 - 1/\tau)}{\tau (1-1/\tau)} - \frac{2\log \tau + \log 3}{\tau} \geq \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau} - 2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus there exists a gap $G_1$ of length at least $d_1$. Knowing that $y\geq 3$ we have $d_1 \ge x+y -2\geq1$ and inside this gap we can find an integer value $l^*_1$ that is at least $y$ larger than the closest smaller $l$-value and at least $x-3$ smaller than the closest smaller $l$-value. Consider values of $s_i$ with this choice of $l^*$. By Equations if $l^* = l^*_1$, each $s_i$ is at most $\frac{24 {\dot{\Delta}}^{- 1/\tau} \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau}$. Consider now interval $I_1 = [l^*_1- y',l^*_1 + x']$. By Equations and for all $i$ such that $l_i \notin I_1$ and $p_i < 2/3$ we have $s_i \leq \frac{9{\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau^2}$. If $p_i \geq 2/3$ then also $s_i\leq \frac{9{\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau^2}$ because $l^*_1 \geq y'$. Thus the sum of all $s_i$ for which $l_i \notin I_1$ or $p_i \geq 2/3$ is at most $\frac{9{\dot{\Delta}}^{-1/\tau} \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau}$. Since by the assumption, the sum of all $s_i$ is at least $\frac{c\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau}$ then the sum of all $s_i$ for which $l_i \in I_1$ and $p_i<2/3$ has to be at least $\frac{2400 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$. By the choice of $l_1^*$, each $s_i$ for which $l_i\in I_1$ and $p_i \geq 2/3$ is at most $\frac{24 \ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$ hence we must have at least $100$ such $l$-values. We have shown that there are at least $100$ $l$-values inside interval $I_1$.
We find the smallest and the largest $l$-values inside $I_1$. $$l^{(1)}_{sm} = \min_{i\in\{1,2,\dots,\tau\}}\{l_i : l_i\in I_1\}$$$$l^{(1)}_{lg} = \max_{i\in\{1,2,\dots,\tau\}}\{l_i : l_i\in I_1\}$$ We consider interval $\Gamma_2 = \Gamma_1 \setminus (l^{(1)}_{sm},l^{(1)}_{lg})$ (we remove the interior of the interval $[l^{(1)}_{sm},l^{(1)}_{lg}]$ keeping the endpoints). We know that we removed at least $98$ $l$-values. Since the $l$-values have to work for any $l^*$ we can now argue about the average length of a gap inside $\Gamma_2$ and locate a different value $l^*_2$ in the remaining interval and identify $100$ $l$-values close to $l^*_2$. But we need to make sure that $|l^*_1 - l^*_2| \geq x' + y'$ since otherwise we would count the same $l$-values twice.
We extend the interval $I_1$ to $I'_1 = [l^*_1 - (x' + y'),l^*_1 + (x' + y')]$ and we find the smallest $l$-value larger than any $l$-value inside $I'_1$ (call it $l'^{(1)}_{sm}$) and the largest $l$-value smaller than any $l$-value inside $I'_1$ (call it $l'^{(1)}_{lg}$). If both these values exist, we consider interval $\Gamma^*_2 = \Gamma_1 \setminus (l'^{(1)}_{sm},l'^{(1)}_{lg})$ (we remove the interior of the interval $[l'_{sm},l'_{lg}]$ keeping the endpoints). If $l'_{sm}$ does not exist (there is no such $l$-value), we define $\Gamma^*_{2} =\Gamma_1 \setminus [l_{sm},l'^{(1)}_{lg})$ and symmetrically if $l'^{(1)}_{lg}$ does not exist we set $\Gamma^*_{2} = \Gamma_1 \setminus (l'^{(1)}_{sm},l_{lg}]$.
Now we want to show that $\Gamma^*_{2} \geq |\Gamma_1| - 5(x' + y')$. It is because $|I'_{1}| = 2(x' + y')$ and by Equation , length of any gap is at most $x' + y'$ hence distance between $l^*_1 - (x' + y')$ and $l'_{sm}$ is at most $x' + y'$ (similarly between $l^*_1 + (x' + y')$ and $l'_{lg}$). If $l'_{sm}$ or $l'_{lg}$ does not exist we remove additionally no more than $x' + y'$ because the smallest $l$-value that is most $x'$ and the largest is at least $\log {\dot{\Delta}}- y'$. This shows that we remove the total area of at most $5(x' + y')$.
Now we consider the average length of a gap in $\Gamma^*_{2}$. We removed at least $98$ $l$-values (because $I^*_{1}$ contains $I'_1$) and area of at most $5(x' + y') \leq 5\log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 10 \log\tau + 5\log 3$. Hence the average length of a gap in $\Gamma^*_2$ is: $$d_2 \geq \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}- 6 (x' + y')}{\tau - 98}\geq \frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau}.$$ We pick a gap of length at least $\frac{\log {\dot{\Delta}}}{\tau}$ and find an integer $l^*_2$ at least $y$ larger than the closest smaller $l$-value and at least $x-1$ smaller than the closest larger $l$-value. Observe moreover that $| l^*_2 - l^*_1| \geq x' + y'$ because $l^*_2$ does not belong to the interior of interval $I'_1$. We define $I_2 = [l^*_2 - y',l^*_2 + x']$. Observe that $I_1$ and $I_2$ are disjoint (except possibly their endpoints). We can now argue that $I_2$ also contains $100$ $l$-values similarly as $I_1$. And moreover at most one $l$-value can be shared between $I_1$ and $I_2$ (because the interiors of the intervals are disjoint). And now we extend $I_2$ to $I^*_2$, construct $\Gamma_3$ and $\Gamma_3^*$ and repeat the whole procedure. This procedure identifies at least $98$ unique $l$-values in each step hence it can last for at most $\tau/98$ iterations. But we remove at most $5\log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 10 \log\tau + 5\log 3$ area per iteration. Since we assumed $\tau\leq \ln {\dot{\Delta}}/\log \log {\dot{\Delta}}$, then $5 \log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau + 10 \log\tau + 5\log 3 \leq 10\log {\dot{\Delta}}/\tau$. This leads to contradiction since there are only $\tau$ $l$-values. Hence for any choice of $l_1,\dots,l_{\tau}$ there exists $l^*$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{\tau} s_i < c \frac{\ln {\dot{\Delta}}}{{\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau}\tau}$. Thus by the union bound the algorithm needs to run for at least ${\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau/(c\ln {\dot{\Delta}})$ phases to accumulate the total probability of success of $1/2$. Knowing that each phase lasts for $\tau$ rounds the total number of steps needed is $\Omega(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2/\ln \Delta)$
Global Broadcast
================
We now turn our attention to the global broadcast problem. Our upper bound will use the same broadcast probability sequence as our best local broadcast algorithm from before. As with local broadcast, for $\tau \geq \log{\Delta}$, our performance nearly matches the optimal performance in the standard radio network model, and then degrades as $\tau$ shrinks toward $1$. Our lower bound will establish that this degredation is near optimal for uniform algorithms in this setting. In this section we also use the notation $\bar{\tau} = \min\{\tau,\lceil\log\Delta\rceil\}$.
Upper Bound
-----------
A uniform [global]{} broadcast algorithm requires each node to cycle through a predetermined sequence of broadcast probabilities once it becomes [*active*]{} (i.e., has received the broadcast message). The only slight twist in our algorithm’s presentation is that we assume that once a node becomes active, it waits until the start of the next probability cycle to start broadcasting. To implement this logic in pseudocode, we use the variable $Time$ to indicate the current global round count. We detail this algorithm below (notice, the ${\texttt{FRLB}}(2)$ is the local broadcast algorithm analyzed in Lemma \[lem:upper\_2\]).
Wait until receiving the message\
Wait until $(Time \text{ mod }2\bar{\tau}) = 0$\
($\lceil \ln{(2n/\epsilon)}\rceil \cdot \lceil 4 \Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}}\bar{\tau}/\log\Delta \rceil$ times)[ [`FRLB`]{}$(2)$ ]{}
\[thm:global\_upper\] Fix an error bound $\epsilon > 0$. It follows that algorithm $ {\texttt{RGB}}(\epsilon)$ completes global broadcast in time $O\left((D+ \log (n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{\Delta^{1/\bar{\tau}} \bar{\tau}^2}{\log\Delta}\right)$, with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
Similarly to the analysis of the local broadcast algorithms, we consider only the case of $\tau \leq \log\Delta$ since for any larger $\tau$ we use the algorithm for $\tau = \log\Delta$. Take any station $u$ and assume that some positive number of neighbors of $u$ in $E$ execute in parallel procedure ${\texttt{FRLB}}(2)$. Then by Lemma \[lem:upper\_2\] station $u$ receives a message from some neighbor with probability at least $\frac{\ln\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}$. Note that the same number of neighbors of $u$ have to execute both procedures [`Uniform`]{}of ${\texttt{FRLB}}(2)$ and at least one of these neighbors has to be connected to $u$ by a reliable link. This is true since after receiving the message, a station waits until a time slot that is a multiple of $2\tau$ (Line $3$ in the pseudocode). Hence we can treat each execution of ${\texttt{FRLB}}(2)$ as a single *phase*.
Let $o$ denote the originator of the message. Fix any tree $\mathcal{T}$ of shortest paths on graph $G$ (e.g., BFS Tree) on edges from $E$ (reliable) rooted at $o$. We would like to bound the progress of the message on tree $\mathcal{T}$. For any station $u$ we can denote by $p(u)$ the parent of $u$ in tree $T$. For any station $u$ we can define the earliest time step $T(u)$ in which $p(u)$ receives the message. We set $T(u) = \infty$ if the message does not reach $p(u)$. If $T(u) < \infty$ we consider $\lceil \ln(2n/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log\Delta \rceil$ phases that follow step $T(u)$. A phase is called *successful* if it succeeds in delivering the message to $u$ and *unsuccessful* otherwise. Note that (assuming that $T(u) < \infty$) the probability that all phases are unsuccessful for any fixed $u$ is at most $$\label{eqn:success}
\left(1- \frac{\ln\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\right)^{\lceil \ln(2n/\epsilon) \rceil\cdot \lceil 4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log\Delta \rceil} \leq e^{-\lceil \ln(2n/\epsilon) \rceil} = \frac{\epsilon}{2n}.$$ Let us denote by $S$ an event that $T(u) < \infty$ for all stations $u$. And by $S_i$ the event that $T(u) < \infty$ for all stations at distance at most $i$ from the root in tree $\mathcal{T}$. If $d_i$ denotes the number of stations at distance $i$ from the root in tree $\mathcal{T}$ we get: $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S\,\right]} &= {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_D\,\right]} \geq {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_{D}|S_{D-1}\,\right]} {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_{D-1}\,\right]} \\
&\geq {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_1\,\right]} \prod_{i=2}^{D}{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,S_{i}|S_{i-1}\,\right]} \\
& \geq \prod_{i=1}^D\left(1 - \frac{\epsilon d_i}{2n} \right) &\text{by~\eqref{eqn:success} and union bound}\\
& \geq 1- \sum_{i=1}^D \frac{\epsilon d_i}{2n} &\text{by Lemma~\ref{lem:wpi}} \\
& = 1 - \frac{\epsilon}{2}.
\end{aligned}$$ If event $S$ takes place, the message reaches all the nodes of the network. Clearly it can reach node $u$ not necessarily from its parent $p(u)$ in tree $\mathcal{T}$, but this would only help in our analysis (it will cause the message to arrive at $u$ faster). Now we want to bound the number of phases it takes for the message to traverse a path in the tree. Fix any station $u$ and let $\mathcal{P} = (o, v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{D'-1}, u)$ denote the path from $o$ to $u$ in tree $T$ (note that $D' \leq D$). We denote by $R_i$ the round in which $v_i$ receives the message ($R_{D'}$ denotes the round in which $u$ receives the message) and introduce random variables $\Delta_i = \max\{0, R_{i} - R_{i-1}\}$. Conditioning on event $S$, variables $\Delta_i$ are stochastically dominated by independent geometric random variables with success probability $\frac{\ln\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}$. We have $D'$ such variables and the probability that sum $T$ of them exceeds $L = 4(D' + \ln(2n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{7 \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log\Delta} = {\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,T\,\right]} \cdot 4(1 + \ln(2n/\epsilon)/D')$ can be bounded using inequalities from [@janson2017tail]. Denote $\lambda = 4(1 + \ln(2n/\epsilon)/D')$ and observe that $(\lambda - 1)/2 \geq \ln \lambda$ is true since $\lambda > 4$. We get: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,T \geq L\,\right]} &= {\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,T \geq {\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,T\,\right]}\cdot \lambda\,\right]} \\&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda} \cdot \left(1 - \frac{\ln\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\right)^{(\lambda - 1 -\ln{\lambda}){\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,T\,\right]}} \\&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda} \left(1- \frac{\ln\Delta}{4 \Delta^{1/\tau}\tau}\right)^{{\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,S\,\right]}(\lambda - 1)/ 2} \\&\leq \frac{1}{\lambda}e^{-\frac32D' - 2\ln(2n/\epsilon) } \leq \frac{\epsilon^2}{4n^2},
\end{aligned}$$ and by taking the union bound over all stations $u$, we get that with probability at least $1-\epsilon^2/(4n)$ the message reaches all nodes within time $4(D + \ln(2n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{4 \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau}{\log\Delta}$, conditioned on $S$. Since $S$ takes place with probability at least $1-\epsilon/2$ and since each phase takes $2\tau$ time steps, this shows that the algorithm works within time $8(D + \ln(2n/\epsilon))\cdot \frac{4 \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2}{\log\Delta}$ with probability at least $(1-\epsilon/2)(1-\epsilon^2/(4n)) \geq 1-\epsilon$.
Lower Bound
-----------
The global broadcast lower bound of $\Omega(D\log(n/D))$, proved by Kushilevitz and Mansour [@km] for the standard radio network model, clearly still holds in our setting, as the radio network model is a special case of the dual graph model where $E'=E$. Similarly, the $\Omega(\log{n}\log{\Delta})$ lower bound proved by Alon [[*et al.*]{}]{} [@alon:1991] also applies.[^4] It follows that for $\tau \geq \log{\Delta}$, we almost match the optimal bound for the standard radio network model, and do match the time of the seminal algorithm of Bar-Yehuda et al. [@Bar-YehudaGI92].
For smaller $\tau$, this performance degrades rapidly. Here we prove this degradation is near optimal for uniform global broadcast algorithms in our model. We apply the obvious approach of breaking the problem of global broadcast into multiple sequential instances of local broadcast (though there are some non-obvious obstacles that arise in implementing this idea). As with our local broadcast lower bounds, we separate out the case where $\tau$ is at least a $1/\log\log{\Delta}$ factor smaller than our $\log{\Delta}$ threshold, as we can obtain a slightly stronger bound under this assumption.
\[thm:global\_lower\] Fix a maximum degree $\Delta \geq 10$, stability factor $\tau$, diameter $D \geq 24$ and uniform global broadcast algorithm $\mathcal{A}$. Assume that $\mathcal{A}$ solves global broadcast in expected time $f(\Delta,D,\tau)$ in all graphs with diameter $D$, maximum degree $\Delta$ and fading adversary with stability $\tau$. It follows that:
1. if $\tau < \ln(\Delta-1)/(12\log\log (\Delta-1))$ then $f(\Delta,D,\tau) \in\Omega(D\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau^2/\log\Delta)$,
2. if $\tau < \ln(\Delta-1)/16$ then $f(\Delta,D,\tau) \in\Omega(D\Delta^{1/\tau}\tau/\log\Delta)$.
![A graph used in proof of Theorem \[thm:global\_lower\].[]{data-label="fig:lowerGlobal"}](lower7){width="\linewidth"}
We assume first that $D$ is divisible by $3$ (if it is not we can decrease $D$ by one or two nodes to make it divisible by $3$, without impacting the asymptotic bounds). We construct the dual graph $G, G'$ by connecting together $D/3$ gadgets, $\mathcal{G}_1, \mathcal{G}_2,\dots, \mathcal{G}_{D/3}$, as shown in Figure \[fig:lowerGlobal\]. In particular, each gadget $\mathcal{G}_i$ is the same graph structure used to prove our local broadcast lower bound. Formally, for each $i=1,2,…,D/3$, gadget $\mathcal{G}_i$ is a dual graph $G_i = (V_i, E_i)$, $G'_i = (V_i,E'_i)$ where $E_i = \{(u_i,v_{j}^{(i)}) : j =1,2,\dots,\Delta - 1\} \cup \{(v_1^{(i)}, v_i)\}$, $E'_i = E_i \cup \{(v_j^{(i)},v_i),j=2,3,\dots,\Delta - 1\}$. We denote the set of edges connecting the gadgets by $E_c = \{(v_i,u_{i+1}) : i = 1,2,\dots,D/3 - 1\}$. Finally we can define the total set of nodes and edges in the complete dual graph $G=(V,E)$ and $G'=(V,E')$ as follows: $V = \bigcup_{i=1}^{D/3}V_i$, $E = E_c \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{D/3} E_i$, $E' = \bigcup_{i=1}^{D/3} E'_i$. We will show statement $1$ by applying Theorem \[thm:lower\_2\] to each gadget, statement $2$ can be shown using the same proof by applying Theorem \[thm:lower\].
We bound the dissemination of a broadcast message in this graph originating at node $u_1$. We can view the progression of the message through the chain of gadgets $\mathcal{G}_1,\mathcal{G}_2,\dots,\mathcal{G}_{D/3}$ as a sequence of local broadcasts. When the message arrives at a node $u_i$, it is propagated to nodes $v_1^{(i)},v_2^{(i)},\dots,v_{\Delta-1}^{(i)}$ and at this step delivering the message to $v_{i}$ is exactly the local broadcast problem considered in Theorem \[thm:lower\_2\]. In this theorem we constructed a sequence of distributions that yields a high running time. The distribution changes every exactly $\tau$ steps i.e., we have a distribution $\mathcal{D}_k$ for steps $1 + (k-1)\tau,2+(k-1)\tau,\dots,k\tau$. We cannot immediately apply the result for local broadcast because the adversary might not be allowed to change the distribution immediately when the message arrives in a gadget. Moreover in the global broadcast problem, stations are allowed to delay the transmissions for some number of steps. We can easily solve this problem by keeping the “first" distribution $\mathcal{D}_1$ in each gadget until the message reaches the gadget, at which point the adversary can start the sequence of changes specified by the local broadcast lower bound.
More precisely, we denote sequence $p_1,p_2,\dots$ of probabilities used by algorithm $\mathcal{A}$ and we denote subsequences $P_k= (p_{1 + (k-1)\tau},p_{2 + (k-1)\tau},\dots,p_{k\tau})$. We want to use distributions $\mathcal{D}_1,\mathcal{D}_2,\dots$ from Theorem \[thm:lower\_2\] in such a way that if $i$ is the furthest gadget reached by the message and its nodes are in phase $k$ (i.e., are using probabilities from sequence $P_k$) then distribution in gadget $\mathcal{G}_i$ is $\mathcal{D}_k$. If the message has not reach the gadget yet, distribution in the gadget is $\mathcal{D}_1$. Finally if the message already reached node $v_i$ in gadget $\mathcal{G}_i$ for any $i$ we do not change the distribution in this gadget any more. We need to show that with this construction we do not need to change the distribution more frequently than once per $\tau$ steps. This is true because we only change the distribution in the furthest gadget (call it $\mathcal{G}_i$) reached by the message and moreover we change it from $\mathcal{D}_k$ to $\mathcal{D}_{k+1}$ only after the stations $v_{1}^{(i)},v_{2}^{(i)},\dots,v_{\Delta - 1}^{(i)}$ have finished transmitting with probabilities $P_k$, which takes at least $\tau$ steps (it might take more because stations might delay transmitting with probabilities $P_1$).
Let us define random variables $X_i$ for $i=1,2,\dots,D/3$ as the number of time steps it takes for nodes $v_1^{(i)},v_2^{(i)},\dots,v_{\Delta - 1}^{(i)}$ to deliver the message to $v_i$. More precisely it is the number of steps between the first step when the stations $v_1^{(i)},v_2^{(i)},\dots,v_{\Delta - 1}^{(i)}$ transmit with probability $p_1$ and the step in which the first successful transmission delivers the message to $v_i$ (including the step of the successful transmission). Note that the steps during which the stations $v_1^{(i)},v_2^{(i)},\dots,v_{\Delta - 1}^{(i)}$ delay transmitting until the beginning of the next probability cycle are not counted in variable $X_i$. The steps counted by variable $X_i$ can be seen as local broadcast. By Theorem \[thm:lower\_2\] we have that ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,X_i \leq {\dot{\Delta}}^{1/\tau} \tau^2/(c\ln {\dot{\Delta}})\,\right]} \leq 1/2$ for some constant $c > 1$. Moreover variables $X_i$ are independent because choices of the stations in each gadget are independent hence we can use Chernoff bound to lower bound $X = \sum_{i=1}^{D/3}X_i$. By the assumptions on $D$ we have that ${\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,X\,\right]} \geq 8$ (because ${\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,X_i\,\right]} \geq 1$), hence $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,X \leq {\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,X\,\right]}/2\,\right]} \leq e^{-{\mathbf{E}\!\left[\,X\,\right]}/8}\leq 1/2$$ Observe that $X$ lower bounds the time of the global broadcast. This shows that the global broadcast needs $\Omega(D\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2/\ln \Delta)$ steps with probability at least $1/2$.
If $D$ is not divisible by $3$ we construct our graph with diameter $3\lfloor D/3 \rfloor$ and attach a path of $ D - 3\lfloor D/3 \rfloor$ (one or two) vertices to node $v_{D_1/3}$. This cannot decrease the time of broadcast hence we get the bound $\Omega((D-2) \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /\log{\Delta}) = \Omega(D \Delta^{1/\tau} \tau^2 /\log{\Delta})$.
Correlations
============
Here we explore a promising direction for the study of broadcast in realistic radio network models. In particular, the fading adversary studied above assumes that the distribution draws are independent. As we will show, interesting results are still possible when considering the even more general case where the marginal distributions in each step are not necessarily independent in each round. More precisely, in this case, the adversary chooses a distribution over sequences of length at least $\tau$ of the sets of unreliable edges. A sequence from this distribution is used to determine which unreliable edges are active in successive steps. The adversary after a least $\tau$ steps can decide to change the distribution. In this model, we first show a simple lower bound that any uniform algorithm using a short list of probabilities of length $l$ (our algorithms in previous sections always used list of length $\min\{\tau, \log\Delta \}$) needs time $\Omega(\sqrt{n}/l)$ for some graphs. Our lower bound uses distributions over sequences of graphs in which the degrees of nodes change by a large number in successive steps. Such large changes in degree turn out to be crucial as we show that if in the sequence taken from the distribution chosen by the adversary, in every step in expectancy only $O(\Delta^{1/(\tau - o(\tau))})$ edges adjacent to each node can be changed then we can get an algorithm working in time $O(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau \log(1/\epsilon))$ with probability at least $1 - \epsilon$ and using list of probabilities of length $O(\min\{\tau,\log\Delta\})$.
A Lower Bound for Correlated Distributions
------------------------------------------
The following lower bound shows that any simple back-off algorithm, similar to the ones presented in Section \[sec:local\], that uses at most $\log\Delta$ probabilities requires time $\Omega(\sqrt{\Delta}/\log\Delta)$ if arbitrary correlations are permitted.
Any uniform local broadcast algorithm that repeats a procedure consisting of $l$ probabilities requires expected time $\Omega(\sqrt{\Delta}/l)$ in some graph with $\Delta = n - 2$ even if $\tau = \infty$.
Denote the procedure that is being used by the algorithm by $\mathcal{P}$. Assume for simplicity that $\sqrt{\Delta}$ is a natural number. We take as a graph a connected pair of stars (a similar graph was used in Theorem \[thm:lower\]).
The fist star has arms $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{\Delta}$ and center at $u$. In the fist star, arms $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{\Delta}$ are connected to center $u$ by reliable edges. The second star has arms $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_{\Delta}$ and center at $v$. In the second star, connection from $v_1$ to $v$ is reliable and all other connections are unreliable. Note that by such construction, graph $G$ is connected. All nodes, except $v$, are initially holding a message.
The single distribution is defined in the following way. Let $e_i = \min\{1/p_i, \Delta\}$ for $i=1,2,\dots, l$ be the estimates used by procedure $\mathcal{P}$. Let $$\bar{e}_i = \begin{cases}
1 \text{ if } e_i \geq \sqrt{\Delta},\\
n \text{ if } e_i < \sqrt{\Delta}.
\end{cases}$$ Let $s$ be a number chosen uniformly at random from $\{1,2,\dots,l\}$. In our distribution, the degree of $v$ in step $t$ is $d_t = \bar{e}_{1 + r_t}$, where $r_t$ is the remainder of $t+s$ modulo $l$. More precisely, in step $t$ in the distribution exactly $d_t - 1$ edges chosen at random among edges between $v$ and $v_2,v_3,\dots,v_{\Delta}$ are activated. Observe that before the algorithm starts, the distribution of the degree of node $v$ in each step is simply a uniform number from multiset $\{\bar{e}_1,\bar{e}_2,\dots,\bar{e}_{l}\}$. But after step $1$ the sequence of degrees of $v$ becomes deterministic and depends only on the value $s$ of the shift. The dependencies are designed in such a way that if $s = l$ (which happens with probability $1/l$) then in any step $t$ of the algorithm, the probability $p_t$ used by the algorithm satisfies either $p_t \cdot d_t \geq \sqrt{\Delta}$ or $p_t \cdot d_t < 1/\sqrt{\Delta}$. This means by Lemma \[lem:prosing\] that the success probability is at most $1/\sqrt{\Delta}$ in each step and hence by the union bound the success probability in the whole procedure is at most $l/\sqrt{\Delta}$. Thus with probability at least $1/l$ the algorithm has to repeat procedure $\mathcal{P}$ at least $\sqrt{\Delta}/(2l)$ times to get a constant probability of success. Hence the expected time is $\Omega(\sqrt{\Delta}/l)$.
Locally Limited Changes
-----------------------
The previous section shows that under an adversary that is allowed to use arbitrary correlations then any simple procedure need polynomial time in the worst case.
In this section we want to consider the adversary that can use correlations but cannot change the degree too much in successive steps. Of course once every at most $\tau$ steps the adversary is allowed to define a completely new distribution over the unreliable edges. We want to argue that it is possible to build a simple algorithm resistant to such an adversary. Intuitively the changes of the degree are problematic only if the changes are by a large (non-constant) factor. Note by Lemma \[lem:prosing\] that if we perturb the effective degree by only a constant factor then the bound also changes only by a constant factor. Hence in order to design an algorithm that is immune to such changes we should add more “coverage” to the small-degree nodes. We do this by enhancing each phase of algorithm ${\texttt{RLB}}$ with additional steps in which we assume that the effective degree of a node is small. The adversary may try to avoid the successful transmission in these steps by changing the degree (the adversary knows the probabilities used by the algorithm). But having the restriction on the distance the adversary can move the degree allows us to define overlapping “zones” such that in two consecutive steps we are sure to find the degree in one of the zones. We also have to make sure that the whole phase of the new algorithm fits into $\tau$ steps.
Now we present algorithm ${\texttt{RLBC}}$ (Robust Local Broadcast with Correlations). We first show that the algorithm works under $(l,\tau)$–deterministic adversary that can change at most $l$ edges adjacent to each node per round and all the edges from $E' \setminus E$ once every at most $\tau$ rounds. Our algorithm will be resistant to deterministic adversary that can change at most $\tau\Delta^{1/(\tau- o(\tau))}$ edges adjacent to each node in every step.
Then we show that it also works under restricted fading adversary with parameters $\tau$ and $l$. Restricted fading adversary can change the distribution arbitrarily once every at most $\tau$ steps, if the distribution is not changed then the expected change of the degree of any node can be at most $l$. Under these restrictions, the adversary can design arbitrary correlations between successive steps. We show that ${\texttt{RLBC}}$ works with restricted fading adversary with $l$ of at most $\Delta^{1/(\tau- o(\tau))}$.
$\bar{\tau} = \min\{ \lceil \log_{2e}\Delta / 2 \rceil, \tau \}$\
$a \gets \lceil\bar{\tau}/\log_{2e}{\bar{\tau}}\rceil$\
$k \gets \lceil \Delta^{1/(\tau -2a)} \rceil$\
$e_1 \gets k \cdot a$\
$e_2 \gets k^2 \cdot \tau \cdot a $\
($2r$ times)[ [`RLB`]{}$(1,\bar{\tau} -2 a )$\
($a$ times)[ [`Uniform`]{}$(1,1/e_1)$\
[`Uniform`]{}$(1,1/e_2)$ ]{} ]{}
\[thm:corr\_deter\] If $\tau \geq 1000$ Algorithm [`RLBC`]{}$( 8 e \lceil \ln(1/\epsilon) \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil ,\tau)$ solves local broadcast in the presence of $\left( \left\lfloor\Delta^{\frac{1}{\tau- 2\lceil \tau/\log_{2e}\tau\rceil }} \right\rfloor \tau / 2,\tau\right)$-deterministic adversary in time $O(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau \log(1/\epsilon))$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
Assume that $\tau \leq \lceil \log_{2e}\Delta / 2 \rceil$ and note that in this case $\bar{\tau} = \tau$. In the opposite case we use the algorithm for $\tau = \lceil \log_{2e}\Delta / 2 \rceil $ which works also for any larger $\tau$. Denote $k = \lfloor \Delta^{1/(\tau - 2a)} \rfloor$, $l = k\tau /2$ and observe that for $\tau \geq 1000$ we have $a > 200$ and $\tau - 2a \geq \tau /2$ and $k \geq 2$. We divide the time into intervals of length $\tau$, called *cycles*. In each interval algorithm ${\texttt{RLBC}}$ repeats the same probabilities. In the first $\tau -2a$ steps of the cycle it uses probabilities $p_i = k^{-i}$ for $i = 1,2,\dots,\tau -2a$, in the next $2a$ steps it uses probabilities $1/e_1$ and $1/e_2$. We take two consecutive cycles and note that in each such a pair of cycles we can find $\tau$ consecutive steps in which the distribution over the unreliable edges is the same (since global changes can happen at most once every $\tau$ steps) and moreover the algorithm uses all the probabilities from a cycle. Let us call a sequence of these steps $T = [t_1,\dots,t_{\tau}]$. Note that in this sequence we have either one full procedure [`RLB`]{}$(1,\tau - 2a)$ or parts of two procedures [`RLB`]{}$(1,\tau - 2a)$ (call them $R_1$ and $R_2$). In the second case sequence $T$ contains some suffix of $R_1$ and some prefix of $R_2$. Connect these steps together into a procedure $R$, which contains all steps of procedure [`RLB`]{}$(1,\tau-2a)$ executed in a possibly different order. Fix a receiver $v$ and assume that at least one reliable neighbor of $v$ tries to transmit a message to $v$. We want to show that in each such a pair of cycles $v$ receives the message independently with probability at least $p_s = \frac{1}{8e k}$.
We know by the definition of the adversary that the effective degree cannot change by too much between steps in the same cycle: $|d_{t_i}(v) - d_{t_{i} + 1}(v)| \leq l$. We can consider two cases depending on the effective degree in the first considered step $t_1$:
##### Case 1:
$d_{t_1}(v) \geq 2 l^2$\
Here we want to show that procedure $R$ is successful with probability at least $p_s$. Observe that here since $l \geq \tau$ we have $d_{t_i}(v) \geq d_{t_i}(v)/2 + l^2 \geq d_{t_i}(v) /2 + l\tau $ for each $i = 1,2,\dots,\tau$. Thus $d_{t_i}(v) - l\tau \geq d_{t_i}(v)/2$ and $d_{t_i}(v) +l\tau \leq 2 d_{t_i}(v)$ thus the effective degree in the whole considered sequence of steps can change by a factor of at most $2$. Recall from the definition of ${\texttt{RLB}}$ that It uses probabilities $p_i = k^{-i}$. Consider the smallest $i$ such that $1/p_i \geq 2 d_{t_1}(v)$ by the minimality of $i$ we have that $1/(kp_i) \leq 2 d_{t_1}(v)$. Probability $p_i$ is used in some step of sequence $T$. Call this step $t_j$. We have: $$1/p_i \geq 2d_{t_1}(v) \geq d_j(v) \geq d_{t_1}(v)/2 \geq 1/(4kp_i).$$ Thus by Lemmas \[lem:prosing\] and \[lem:interval\]: $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_j}^{(v)}\,\right]} = \min\left\{ (2e)^{-1}, \frac{(2e)^{-1/(4k)}}{4k} \right\} \geq \frac{1}{8ek} = p_s.$$
##### Case 2:
$d_{t_1}(v) <2 l^2 $\
Here we want to show that a successful transmission occurs with probability at least $p_s$ in one of the $2a$ additional steps (see lines $7-11$ of the pseudocode).
Note that since $d_1(v) < 2l^2$ then $d_{t_i}(v) \leq d_{t_1}(v) + l\tau \leq 4 l^2$ Pick two consecutive steps $t_i,t_i+1$ such that in step $t_i$ the algorithm uses probability $1/e_1$ and in $t_i+1$ it uses $1/e_2$. Note that in the considered sequence we have at least $a-1$ such pairs.
##### Case 2.1: $d_{t_i}(v) \leq 2l$
Here the probability is $1/e_1$ and the degree is within interval $[1,2l]$ hence we have that: $$\frac{\tau}{a} = \frac{2l}{e_1} \geq \frac{d_{t_i}}{e_1} \geq \frac{1}{e_1}.$$ By Lemma \[lem:prosing\] \[lem:interval\]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i}^{(v)}\,\right]} & \geq \min\left\{\frac{2l}{e_1}e^{-2l/e_1}, 1/e_1 e^{-1/e_1}\right\}\geq \min\left\{\frac{\ln\tau}{\tau}, \frac{1}{eka}\right\} \geq \frac{1}{eka}.
\end{aligned}$$
##### Case 2.2: $4l^2 \geq d_{t_i}(v) > 2l$
Note that in this case $d_{t_{i}+1} (v) \in [l,4l^2]$ and the probability used in this step is $1/e_2$ hence: $$\frac{\tau}{a} =\frac{4l^2}{e_2} \geq \frac{d_{i+1}(v)}{e_2} \geq \frac{2l}{e_2} = \frac{1}{e_1},$$ and we can use Lemmas \[lem:prosing\] and \[lem:interval\] exactly the same as in the previous case and obtain ${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,R_{t_i +1}^{(v)}\,\right]} \geq \frac{1}{eka}$.
In each pair the stations are making independent choices hence the probability of failure in all the pairs is by Lemma \[lem:wpi\] at most:
$$\left(1-\frac{1}{eka}\right)^{a-1} \leq 1 - \frac{a-1}{eka} + {a-1 \choose 2}\frac{1}{e^2 k^2 a^2} \leq 1-\frac{1}{2ek},$$ where in the last inequality we used the fact that $a > 20$. Thus also in this case with probability at least $1/(2ek) \geq p_s$ node $v$ receives a message during this cycle.
The two considered cases showed that any full two cycles deliver the message with probability at least $p_s$. If we perform at least $2r = 2\lceil \ln(1/\epsilon)/p_s \rceil = O(\Delta^{1/\tau})$ cycles then the probability that $v$ does not receive a message is at most $
(1-p_s)^{\ln(1/\epsilon)/p_s} \leq \epsilon.
$
The case with deterministic adversary can be generalized to stochastic restricted adversary.
\[thm:corr\_random\] If $\tau \geq 1000$ Algorithm [`RLBC`]{}$( 16 e \lceil \ln(1/\epsilon) \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil ,\tau)$ solves local broadcast in the presence of $l$-restricted fading adversary using correlations with $l = \left\lfloor \Delta^{\frac{1}{\tau (1-1/\log_{2e}\tau)}} \right\rfloor / 4$ in time $O(\Delta^{1/\tau} \tau \log(1/\epsilon))$ with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
Fix any receiver $v$. We know that [`RLBC`]{}$( 8 e \lceil \ln(1/\epsilon) \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil ,\tau)$ solves local broadcast in the presence of $(l\tau,\tau)$ - deterministic adversary. But in the case with arbitrary correlations we can still bound the probability that the degree of $v$ does not change too much. Take any two consecutive steps $t,t+1$. We have by Markov Inequality: $${\mathbf{Pr}\!\left[\,|d_{t}(v) - d_{t+1}(v)| > 2 \tau l\,\right]} \leq 1/(2 \tau)$$ If we pick $\tau$ steps like in the proof of Theorem \[thm:corr\_deter\] then by the union bound with probability at least $1/2$ in each of these steps the degree changes by at most $2l\tau$. From now on we can use the same analysis as in Theorem \[thm:corr\_deter\] and we obtain only a constant slowdown compared to the case with deterministic adversary. Hence [`RLBC`]{}$( 16 e \lceil \ln(1/\epsilon) \Delta^{1/\tau} \rceil ,\tau)$ solves local broadcast with restricted fading adversary with probability at least $1-\epsilon$.
#### Acknowledgements
Many thanks to William Kuszmaul and Zachary Newman for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
[^1]: Definitions and preliminary results concerning the local broadcast problem appeared in the brief announcement [@ba], published in the Proceedings of 32nd International Symposium on DIStributed Computing (DISC) 2018.
[^2]: The broadcast algorithm from [@Bar-YehudaGI92] requires $O(D\log{n}+\log^2{n})$ rounds, whereas the corresponding lower bound is $\Omega(D\log{(n/D)} + \log^2{n})$. This gap was subsequently closed by a tighter analysis of a natural variation of the simple [*Decay*]{} strategy used in [@Bar-YehudaGI92]
[^3]: To make it match exactly, set $\Delta=n$ and $\epsilon = 1/n$, as is often assumed in this prior work.
[^4]: This bound is actually stated as $\Omega(\log^2{n})$, but $\Delta = \Theta(n)$ in the lower bound network, so it can be expressed in terms of $\Delta$ as well for our purposes here.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By introducing a concept of thermal expansion (TE) of a Josephson junction as an elastic response to an effective stress field, we study (both analytically and numerically) the temperature and magnetic field dependence of TE coefficient $\alpha $ in a single small junction and in a square array. In particular, we found that in addition to [*field*]{} oscillations due to Fraunhofer-like dependence of the critical current, $\alpha $ of a small single junction also exhibits strong flux driven [*temperature*]{} oscillations near $T_C$. We also numerically simulated stress induced response of a closed loop with finite self-inductance (a prototype of an array) and found that $\alpha $ of a $5\times 5$ array may still exhibit temperature oscillations provided the applied magnetic field is strong enough to compensate for the screening induced effects.'
author:
- 'S. Sergeenkov$^{1,2}$, G. Rotoli$^{3}$, G. Filatrella$^{4}$, and F.M. Araujo-Moreira$^{1}$'
title: Thermal expansion of Josephson junctions as an elastic response to an effective stress field
---
I. Introduction
===============
Inspired by new possibilities offered by the cutting-edge nanotechnologies, the experimental and theoretical physics of increasingly sophisticated mesoscopic quantum devices (heavily based on Josephson junctions and their arrays) is becoming one of the most exciting and rapidly growing areas of modern science (see, e.g., [@a1; @a2; @a3; @a4] for the recent reviews on charge and spin effects in mesoscopic 2D Josephson junctions and quantum-state engineering with Josephson-junction devices). In particular, a remarkable increase of the measurements technique resolution made it possible to experimentally detect such interesting phenomena as flux avalanches [@a5] and geometric quantization [@a6] as well as flux dominated behavior of heat capacity [@a7] in Josephson junctions (JJs) and their arrays (JJAs).
At the same time, given a rather specific magnetostrictive [@a8] and piezomagnetic [@a9] response of Josephson systems, one can expect some nontrivial behavior of the thermal expansion (TE) coefficient in JJs as well. Of special interest are the properties of TE in applied magnetic field. For example, some superconductors like $Ba_{1-x}K_xBiO_3$, $BaPb_xBi_{1-x}O_3$ and $La_{2-x}Sr_xCuO_4$ were found [@a10] to exhibit anomalous temperature behavior of both magnetostriction and TE which were attributed to the field-induced suppression of the superstructural ordering in the oxygen sublattices of these systems.
By introducing a concept of TE of Josephson contact (as an elastic response of JJ to an effective stress field), in the present paper we consider the temperature and magnetic field dependence of TE coefficient $\alpha (T,H)$ in a small single JJ and in a single plaquette (a prototype of the simplest JJA). In a short contact, the field-induced $\alpha (T,H)$ is found to exhibit strong temperature oscillations near $T_C$. At the same time, in an array (described via a closed loop with finite self-inductance) for these oscillations to manifest themselves, the applied field should be strong enough to overcome the screening induced self-field effects.
II. Thermal expansion of a small Josephson contact
==================================================
Since thermal expansion coefficient $\alpha (T,H)$ is usually measured using mechanical dilatometers [@1], it is natural to introduce TE as an elastic response of the Josephson contact to an effective stress field $\sigma $ [@a9; @2]. Namely, we define the TE coefficient (TEC) $\alpha (T,H)$ as follows: $$\alpha (T,H)=\frac{d \epsilon }{dT}
\label{alphadefinition}$$ where an appropriate strain field $\epsilon$ in the contact area is related to the Josephson energy $E_J$ as follows ($V$ is the volume of the sample): $$\epsilon =-\frac{1}{V}\left [\frac{dE_J}{d\sigma}\right ]_{\sigma
=0}$$ For simplicity and to avoid self-field effects, we start with a small Josephson contact of length $w<\lambda _J$ ($\lambda
_J=\sqrt{\Phi _0/\mu _0dj_{c}}$ is the Josephson penetration depth) placed in a strong enough magnetic field (which is applied normally to the contact area) such that $H>\Phi _0/2\pi \lambda
_Jd$, where $d=2\lambda _{L}+t$, $\lambda _{L}$ is the London penetration depth, and $t$ is an insulator thickness.
The Josephson energy of such a contact in applied magnetic field is governed by a Fraunhofer-like dependence of the critical current [@orlando]: $$E_J=J\left (1-\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}\cos \varphi _0\right ),
\label{Josenergy}$$ where $\varphi =\pi \Phi /\Phi _0$ is the frustration parameter with $\Phi =Hwd$ being the flux through the contact area, $\varphi
_0$ is the initial phase difference through the contact, and $J\propto e^{-t/\xi}$ is the zero-field tunneling Josephson energy with $\xi$ being a characteristic (decaying) length and $t$ the thickness of the insulating layer. The neglected here self-field effects (screening) will be treated in the next Section for an array.
Notice that in non-zero applied magnetic field $H$, there are two stress-induced contributions to the Josephson energy $E_J$, both related to decreasing of the insulator thickness under pressure. Indeed, according to the experimental data [@2], the tunneling dominated critical current $I_c$ in granular high-$T_C$ superconductors was found to exponentially increase under compressive stress, viz. $I_c(\sigma )=I_c(0)e^{\kappa \sigma }$. More specifically, the critical current at $\sigma =9 kbar$ was found to be three times higher its value at $\sigma =1.5 kbar$, clearly indicating a weak-links-mediated origin of the phenomenon. Hence, for small enough $\sigma $ we can safely assume that [@a9] $t(\sigma )\simeq t(0)(1-\beta \sigma/\sigma_0)$ with $\sigma _0$ being some characteristic value (the parameter $\beta $ is related to the so-called ultimate stress $\sigma _m$ as $\beta =\sigma _0/\sigma _m$). As a result, we have the following two stress-induced effects in Josephson contacts:
\(I) amplitude modulation leading to the explicit stress dependence of the zero-field energy $$J(T,\sigma )=J(T,0)e^{\gamma \sigma/\sigma_0}$$ with $\gamma =\beta t(0)/\xi$, and\
(II) phase modulation leading to the explicit stress dependence of the flux $$\Phi (T,H,\sigma )=Hwd(T,\sigma )$$ with $$d(T,\sigma )=2\lambda _{L}(T)+t(0)(1-\beta \sigma/\sigma_0 )$$
Finally, in view of Eqs.(1)-(6), the temperature and field dependence of the small single junction TEC reads (the initial phase difference is conveniently fixed at $\varphi _0=\pi$): $$\alpha (T,H)=\alpha (T,0)\left [1+F(T,H)\right ]+\epsilon
(T,0)\frac{dF(T,H)}{dT}, \label{TEcoefficient}$$ where $$F(T,H)=\left [\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}+\frac{\xi}{d(T,0)}
\left (\frac{\sin \varphi}{\varphi}-\cos \varphi \right )\right ],$$ with $$\varphi(T,H)=\frac{\pi \Phi (T,H,0)}{\Phi _0}=\frac{H}{H_0(T)},$$ $$\alpha (T,0)=\frac{d\epsilon (T,0)}{dT},$$ and $$\epsilon (T,0)=-\left (\frac{\Phi _0}{2\pi}\right )\left
(\frac{2\gamma}{V \sigma_0}\right )I_C(T).$$ Here, $H_0(T)=\Phi _0/\pi wd(T,0)$ with $d(T,0)=2\lambda
_{L}(T)+t(0)$.
{width="8.5cm"}
For the explicit temperature dependence of $J(T,0)=\Phi
_0I_C(T)/2\pi$ we use the well-known [@3] analytical approximation of the BCS gap parameter (valid for all temperatures), $\Delta (T)=\Delta (0)\tanh
\left(2.2\sqrt{\frac{T_{C}-T}{T}}\right)$ with $\Delta
(0)=1.76k_BT_C$ which governs the temperature dependence of the Josephson critical current $$I_C(T)=I_C(0)\left[ \frac{\Delta (T)}{\Delta (0)}\right] \tanh
\left[ \frac{\Delta (T)}{2k_{B}T}\right]$$ while the temperature dependence of the London penetration depth is governed by the two-fluid model: $$\lambda _{L}(T)=\frac{\lambda _{L}(0)}{\sqrt{1-(T/T_C)^2}}$$
{width="8.5cm"}
From the very structure of Eqs.(1)-(9) it is obvious that TEC of a single contact will exhibit [*field*]{} oscillations imposed by the Fraunhofer dependence of the critical current $I_C$. Much less obvious is its temperature dependence. Indeed, Fig. \[fig:1\] presents the temperature behavior of the contact area strain field $\epsilon (T,f)$ (with $t(0)/\xi = 1$, $\xi /\lambda _L(0)=0.02$ and $\beta =0.1$) for different values of the frustration parameter $f=H/H_0(0)$. Notice characteristic flux driven temperature oscillations near $T_C$ which are better seen on a semi-log plot shown in Fig. \[fig:2\] which depicts the dependence of the properly normalized field-induced TEC $\alpha
(T,f)$ as a function of $1-T/T_C$ for the same set of parameters.
III. Thermal expansion in the presence of screening currents
============================================================
To answer an important question how the neglected in the previous Section screening effects will affect the above-predicted oscillating behavior of the field-induced TEC, let us consider a more realistic situation with a junction embedded into an array (rather than an isolated contact) which is realized in artificially prepared arrays using photolithographic technique (that nowadays allow for controlled manipulations of the junctions parameters [@array-artificial]). Besides, this is also a good approximation for a granular superconductor (if we consider it as a network of superconducting islands connected with each other via Josephson links [@orlando]). Our goal is to model and simulate the elastic response of such systems to an effective stress $\sigma$ (described in the previous Section for an isolated contact). For simplicity, we will consider an array with a regular topology and uniform parameters (such approximation already proved useful for describing high-quality artificially prepared structures [@a6]).
A. Model equations for a planar square array
--------------------------------------------
Let us consider a planar square array as shown in Fig. \[fig:3\]. The total current includes the bias current (flowing through the vertical junctions) and the induced screening currents (circulating in the plaquette [@nakajima]). This situation corresponds to the inclusion of screening currents only into the nearest neighbors, neglecting thus the mutual inductance terms [@phillips]. Therefore, the equation for the vertical contacts will read (horizontal and vertical junctions are denoted by superscripts $h$ and $v$, respectively):
{width="6.5cm"}
$$\frac{\hbar C}{2e}\frac{d^2\phi_{i,j}^v}{dt^2} + \frac{\hbar}{2eR}
\frac{d\phi_{i,j}^v}{dt} +
I_c \sin \phi_{i,j}^v = \Delta I^s_{i,j} + I_b,
\label{currentcons-nostress}$$
where $\Delta I^s_{i,j}=I^s_{i,j}-I^s_{i-1,j}$ and the screening currents $I^s$ obey the fluxoid conservation condition: $$-\phi^v_{i,j}+\phi^v_{i,j+1} - \phi^h_{i,j} + \phi^h_{i+1,j} =
2\pi \frac{\Phi^{ext}}{\Phi_0} - \frac{2\pi L I^s_{i,j}}{\Phi_0}.
\label{fluxoid}$$
Recall that the total flux has two components (an external contribution and the contribution due to the screening currents in the closed loop) and it is equal to the sum of the phase differences describing the array. It is important to underline that the external flux in Eq.(\[fluxoid\]), $\eta = 2\pi
\Phi^{ext}/\Phi_ 0$, is related to the frustration of the whole array (i.e., this is the flux across the void of the network [@fernando; @grimaldi]), and it should be distinguished from the previously introduced applied magnetic field $H$ across the junction barrier which is related to the frustration of a single contact $f=2\pi Hdw/\Phi _0$ and which only modulates the critical current $I_C(T,H,\sigma )$ of a single junction while inducing a negligible flux into the void area of the array.
B. Stress induced effects
-------------------------
For simplicity, in what follows we will consider the elastic effects due to a uniform (homogeneous) stress imposed on the array. With regard to the geometry of the array, the deformation of the loop is the dominant effect with its radius $a$ deforming as follows: $$a(\sigma)=a_0(1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0).$$ As a result, the self-inductance of the loop $L(a)=\mu_0 a F(a)$ (with $F(a)$ being a geometry dependent factor) will change accordingly: $$L(a)=L_0(1-\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0).
\label{induct-dep}$$ The relationship between the coefficients $\chi$ and $\chi_g$ is given by $$\chi_g = \left( 1+a_0 B_g \right)\chi
\label{chirelation}$$ where $B_g=\frac{1}{F(a)}\left(\frac{dF}{da}\right)_{a_0}$.
It is also reasonable to assume that in addition to the critical current, the external stress will modify the resistance of the contact: $$R(\sigma ) =\frac{\pi \Delta(0)}{2 e I_C(\sigma )}=R_0 e^{-\chi
\sigma/\sigma_0} \label{resistance}$$ as well as capacitance (due to the change in the distance between the superconductors):
$$C(\sigma )=\frac{C_0}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0}\simeq C_0 (1+\chi\sigma/\sigma_0).
\label{capacitance}$$
To simplify the treatment of the dynamic equations of the array, it is convenient to introduce the standard normalization parameters such as the Josephson frequency:
$$\omega_J = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi I_C(0)}{C_0 \Phi_0}}, \label{omegaj}$$
the analog of the SQUID parameter:
$$\beta_L = \frac{2\pi I_C(0)L_0}{\Phi_0},
\label{squidpar}$$
and the dissipation parameter:
$$\beta_C = \frac{2\pi I_C(0)C_0R_0^2}{\Phi_0}.
\label{betac}$$
Combining Eqs.(\[currentcons-nostress\]) and (\[fluxoid\]) with the stress-induced effects described by Eqs. (\[resistance\]) and (\[capacitance\]) and using the normalization parameters given by Eqs.(\[omegaj\])-(\[betac\]), we can rewrite the equations for an array in a rather compact form. Namely, the equations for vertical junctions read: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \ddot{\phi}_{i,j}^v + \frac{e^{-\chi
\sigma/\sigma_0}}{\sqrt{\beta_C}} \dot{\phi}_{i,j}^v +
e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \sin \phi_{i,j}^v = \hspace{6cm} \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{\beta_L \left( 1 -\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0 \right) }
\left[ \phi^v_{i,j-1} - 2\phi^v_{i,j} + \phi^v_{i,j+1} + \phi^h_{i,j} - \phi^h_{i-1,j} +
\phi^h_{i+1,j-1} - \phi^h_{i,j-1} \right] + \gamma_b.
\label{arr-eq-vert}\end{aligned}$$ Here an overdot denotes the time derivative with respect to the normalized time (inverse Josephson frequency), and the bias current is normalized to the critical current without stress, $\gamma_b = I_b/I_C(0)$.
The equations for the horizontal junctions will have the same structure safe for the explicit bias related terms: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{1-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \ddot{\phi}_{i,j}^h + \frac{e^{-\chi
\sigma/\sigma_0}}{\sqrt{\beta_C}} \dot{\phi}_{i,j}^h +
e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0} \sin \phi_{i,j}^h = \hspace{6cm} \nonumber \\
\frac{1}{\beta_L \left( 1 -\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0 \right) } \left[
\phi^h_{i,j-1} -2\phi^h_{i,j}+\phi^h_{i,j+1} + \phi^v_{i,j} -
\phi^v_{i-1,j} + \phi^v_{i+1,j-1} - \phi^v_{i,j-1} \right].
\label{arr-eq-hor}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, Eqs.(\[arr-eq-vert\]) and (\[arr-eq-hor\]) should be complemented with the appropriate boundary conditions [@binder] which will include the normalized contribution of the external flux through the plaquette area $\eta
= 2\pi \frac{\Phi^{ext}}{\Phi_0}$.
It is interesting to notice that Eqs.(\[arr-eq-vert\]) and (\[arr-eq-hor\]) will coincide with their stress-free counterparts if we introduce the stress-dependent re-normalization of the parameters:
$$\tilde{\omega}_J = \omega_J e^{\chi \sigma /2\sigma_0}, \label{omegajren}$$
$$\tilde{ \beta}_C = \beta_C e^{- 3 \chi \sigma/\sigma_0}, \label{betacren}$$
$$\tilde{\beta}_L = \beta_L (1-\chi_g \sigma/\sigma_0) e^{\chi \sigma/\sigma_0 },
\label{squidparren}$$
$$\tilde{\eta} = \eta (1- 2 \chi \sigma/\sigma_0 ), \label{etaren}$$
$$\tilde{\gamma}_b = \gamma_b e^{-\chi \sigma/\sigma_0 }.
\label{gammaren}$$
C. Numerical results and discussion
-----------------------------------
Turning to the discussion of the obtained numerical simulation results, it should be stressed that the main problem in dealing with an array is that the total current through the junction should be retrieved by solving self-consistently the array equations in the presence of screening currents. Recall [@orlando] that the Josephson energy of a single junction for an arbitrary current $I$ through the contact reads:
$$E_J(T,f,I)=E_J(T,f,I_C)\left[1-\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{I}{I_C}\right)^2}
\right]. \label{Josenergybias}$$
The important consequence of Eq.(\[Josenergybias\]) is that if no current flows in the array’s junction, such junction will not contribute to the TEC (simply because a junction disconnected from the current generator will not contribute to the energy of the system).
Below we sketch the main steps of the numerical procedure used to simulate the stress-induced effects in the array:
- a bias point $I_b$ is selected for the whole array;
- the parameters of the array (screening, Josephson frequency, dissipation, etc) are selected and modified according to the intensity of the applied stress $\sigma$;
- the array equations are simulated to retrieve the static configuration of the phase differences for the parameters selected in step $2$;
- the total current flowing through the individual junctions is retrieved as:
$$I^{v,h}_{i,j} = I_C\sin \phi^{v,h}_{i,j}; \label{totalcurrent}$$
- the energy dependence upon stress is numerically estimated using the value of the total current $I^{v,h}_{i,j}$ (which is not necessarily identical for all junctions) found in step $4$ via Eq.(\[totalcurrent\]);
- the array energy $E_J^A$ is obtained by summing up the contributions of all junctions with the above-found phase differences $\phi^{v,h}_{i,j}$;
- the stress-modified screening currents $I^s_{i,j}(T,H,\sigma )$ are computed by means of Eq.(\[fluxoid\]) and inserted into the magnetic energy of the array $E_M^A = \frac{1}{2L}
\Sigma_{i,j}(I^s_{i,j})^2$;
- the resulting strain field and TE coefficient of the array are computed using numerical derivatives based on the finite differences:
$$\epsilon^A \simeq \frac{1}{V} \left[
\frac{\Delta\left(E_M^A+E_J^A\right)}{\Delta
\sigma}\right]_{\Delta\sigma \rightarrow 0},
\label{estimstrain}$$
$$\alpha (T,H) \simeq \frac{ \Delta\epsilon^A}{ \Delta T}.
\label{estimalpha}$$
{width="8.5cm"}
The numerical simulation results show that the overall behavior of the strain field and TE coefficient in the array is qualitatively similar to the behavior of the single contact. In Fig. \[fig:4\] we have simulated the behavior of both the small junction and the array as a function of the field across the barrier of the individual junctions in the presence of bias and screening currents. As is seen, the dependence of $\alpha (T,f)$ is very weak up to $f\simeq 0.5$, showing a strong decrease of about $50
\%$ when the frustration approaches $f=1$.
{width="7.2cm"} {width="7.5cm"} {width="7.8cm"} {width="7.5cm"}
A much more profound change is obtained by varying the temperature for the fixed value of applied magnetic field. Fig. \[fig:5\] depicts the temperature behavior of $\alpha (T,f)$ (on semi-log scale) for different field configurations which include barrier field $f$ frustrating a single junction and the flux across the void of the network $\eta$ frustrating the whole array. First of all, comparing Fig. \[fig:5\](a) and Fig. \[fig:2\] we notice that, due to substantial modulation of the Josephson critical current $I_C(T,H)$ given by Eq.(\[Josenergy\]), the barrier field $f$ has similar effects on the TE coefficient of both the array and the single contact including temperature oscillations. However, finite screening effects in the array result in the appearance of oscillations at higher values of the frustration $f$ (in comparison with a single contact). On the other hand, Fig. \[fig:5\](b-d) represent the influence of the external field across the void $\eta$ on the evolution of $\alpha (T,f)$ (recall that in the absence of stress this field produces a well-defined magnetic pattern [@fernando; @grimaldi; @binder]). As is seen, in comparison with a field-free configuration (shown in Fig. \[fig:5\](a)), the presence of external field $\eta$ substantially reduces the magnitude of the TE coefficient of the array. Besides, with $\eta$ increasing, the onset of temperature oscillations markedly shifts closer to $T_C$.
IV. Conclusion
==============
We have investigated the influence of a homogeneous mechanical stress on a small single Josephson junction and on a plaquette (array of $5\times 5$ junctions). We have shown how the stress-induced modulation of the parameters describing the junctions (as well as the connecting circuits) produces such an interesting phenomenon as a thermal expansion (TE) in a single contact and two-dimensional array (plaquette). We also studied the variation of the TE coefficient with an external magnetic field and temperature. In particular, near $T_C$ (due to some tremendous increase of the effective “sandwich” thickness of the contact) the field-induced TE coefficient of a small junction exhibits clear [*temperature*]{} oscillations scaled with the number of flux quanta crossing the contact area. Our numerical simulations revealed that these oscillations may actually still survive in an array if the applied field is strong enough to compensate for finite screening induced self-field effects. And finally, it is important to emphasize that our analysis refers to regular arrays with square geometry (similar to already existing artificially prepared arrays [@a6; @fernando]). However, we can argue that the predicted here effects should manifest themselves also in granular superconductors which exhibit quite pronounced stress dependent behavior upon mechanical loading [@a9; @2].
We are thankful to the Referee for very useful comments which helped improve the presentation of this paper and better understand the obtained here results. SS and FMAM gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Brazilian agency FAPESP (Projeto 2006/51897-7). GF and GR wish to acknowledge financial support from the CNISM-INFM-CNR Progetto Supercalcolo 2006 and by ESF in the framework of the network-programme: Arrays of Quantum Dots and Josephson Junctions.
[99]{} , Eds. R. Fazio, V.F. Gantmakher, and Y. Imry (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003). I.V. Krive, S.I. Kulinich, R.I. Shekhter, and M. Jonson, Low Temp. Phys. [**30**]{}, 554 (2004). S. Sergeenkov, in [*Studies of High Temperature Superconductors*]{}, Ed. A. Narlikar (Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2006), vol. 50, pp.80-96. Yu. Makhlin, G. Schon, and A. Shnirman, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 357 (2001). E. Altshuler and T.H. Johansen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 471 (2004). S. Sergeenkov and F.M. Araujo-Moreira, JETP Lett. [**80**]{}, 580 (2004). O. Bourgeois, S. E. Skipetrov, F. Ong, and J. Chaussy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 057007 (2005). S. Sergeenkov and M. Ausloos, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 604 (1993). S. Sergeenkov, J. of Phys.: Cond. Matter [**10**]{}, L265 (1998); S. Sergeenkov, JETP Lett. [**70**]{}, 36 (1999). N. V. Anshukova, B. M. Bulychev, A. I. Golovashkin, L. I. Ivanova, A. A. Minakov, and A. P. Rusakov, JETP Lett. [**71**]{}, 377 (2000). P. Nagel, V. Pasler, C. Meingast, A. I. Rykov, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2376 (2000). A.I. D’yachenko, V.Y. Tarenkov, A.V. Abalioshev, R.V. Lutciv, Y.N. Myasoedov, and Y.V. Boiko, Physica C [**251**]{}, 207 (1995). T.P. Orlando and K.A. Delin, [*Foundations of Applied Superconductivity*]{} (Addison, 1991). R. Meservey and B.B. Schwartz, in [*Superconductivity*]{}, vol.1, ed. by R.D. Parks (M. Dekker, New York, 1969), p.117. R.S. Newrock, C.J. Lobb, U. Geigenmuller, M. Octavio, Sol. State Phys. [**54**]{}, 263 (2000). K. Nakajima and Y. Sawada, J. Appl. Phys. [**52**]{}, 5732 (1981). J.R. Phillips, R.S.J. van der Zant, J. White, and T.P. Orlando, Phys. Rev. [**B47**]{}, 5219 (1993). F.M. Araujo-Moreira, P. Barbara, A.B. Cawthorne, and C.J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4625 (1997); F.M. Araujo-Moreira, W. Maluf, and S. Sergeenkov, Eur. Phys. J. B [**44**]{}, 33 (2005). G. Grimaldi, G. Filatrella, S. Pace, and U. Gambardella, Phys. Lett. A [**223**]{}, 463 (1996). P. Binder, P. Caputo, M. V. Fistul, A. V. Ustinov and G. Filatrella, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 8679 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study within the Faddeev framework the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e'' p)d$ as well as the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e'' p)pn$ and $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e'' n)pp$ reactions in order to extract information on the proton and neutron polarization in polarized $^3$He. We achieve clear analytical insight for simplified dynamical assumptions and define conditions for experimental access to important $^3$He properties. In addition we point to the possibility to measure the electromagnetic proton form factors in the process $ ^3{\rm He} (e,e'' p)d$ which would test the dynamical picture and put limits on medium corrections of the form factors.'
author:
- 'J. Golak, R. Skibiński, H. Wita[ł]{}a'
- 'W. Glöckle'
- 'A. Nogga'
- 'H. Kamada'
title: Proton polarizations in polarized He studied with the and processes
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
With the possibility of solving precisely few-nucleon equations and the availability of high precision nucleon-nucleon potentials it is tempting to ask very detailed questions about the properties of light nuclei. Spin dependent momentum distributions of nuclear clusters inside light nuclei have been studied at many places, see for instance [@Fentometer]. Especially the $^3$He nucleus is interesting. The availability of highly polarized $^3$He allows one to perform very detailed electron scattering experiments, which, due to the recent progress in the calculations of three-nucleon (3N) bound and scattering states, can be analyzed very precisely. This makes it tempting to extract information on its properties. In a recent paper [@spindep] we addressed the question whether momentum distributions of polarized proton-deuteron (pd) clusters in polarized $^3$He could be accessed through the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec p})d$ or $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec d})p$ processes. Final state interactions (FSI) and meson exchange currents (MEC) turned out to destroy the clear picture offered by the plane wave impulse approximation (PWIA) and the assumption of the single nucleon current operator. This we found for most of the cases studied in the kinematical regime below the pion production threshold. Only for small relative pd momenta direct access to the sought $^3$He properties appeared possible. The $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec p})d$ or $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec d})p$ experiments would require, however, measuring the polarizations of the outgoing particles, which is very demanding.
In this paper we would like to investigate theoretically two processes, $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ and $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)pn$, measured recently at MAMI [@Achenbach05] and show that under the same PWIA assumption they provide equivalent information about $^3$He properties. We remind the reader of our formalism in Sec. \[sec:2\]. Section \[sec:3\] shows our results for the exclusive proton-deuteron breakup of $^3$He and Sec. \[sec:4\] deals with different aspects of the semi-exclusive $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)pn$ reaction. We end with a brief summary in Sec. \[sec:5\].
Theory {#sec:2}
======
The spin dependent momentum distributions of proton-deuteron clusters inside the $^3$He nucleus are defined as: $${\cal Y} ( m_3, m_d, m_p ; {\vec q} \, ) \ \equiv \
\left\langle \Psi m_3 \left|
| \phi_d m_d \rangle
| {\vec q} \, \frac12 m_p \rangle
\langle {\vec q} \, \frac12 m_p |
\langle \phi_d m_d |
\right| \Psi m_3 \right\rangle ,
\label{eq1}$$ where $ {\vec q} $ is the proton momentum (the deuteron momentum is $-{\vec q} $); $m_p$, $m_d$ and $m_3$ are spin magnetic quantum numbers for the proton, deuteron and $^3$He, respectively. These quantities can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y} ( m_3, m_d, m_p ; {\vec q} \, ) \, = \,
\left|
\sum_{\lambda = 0,2 } \,
Y_{ \lambda , m_3 - m_d - m_p } ( {\hat q} ) \,
C( 1 I_\lambda \frac12 ; m_d , m_3 - m_d , m_3 ) \right. \cr
\left. C( \lambda \frac12 I_\lambda ; m_3 - m_d - m_p , m_p, m_3 - m_d )
\ H_\lambda (q) \right|^2 ,
\label{eq3.3}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_\lambda (q) $ is the overlap of the deuteron state and the $^3$He state calculated in momentum space [@Gloecklebook] $$\begin{aligned}
H_\lambda (q) \,\equiv \,
\sum_{l = 0,2 } \,
\int_0^\infty d p \, p^2 \, \phi_l (p) \,
\langle p q \alpha_{l \lambda} | \Psi \rangle \ \ , \ \lambda = 0, 2.
\label{eq3.4}\end{aligned}$$ Here $ \langle p q \alpha | \Psi \rangle $ are the partial wave projected wave function components of $^3$He and $ \phi_l (p) $ are the s- and d-wave components of the deuteron. The set $ \alpha_{l \lambda} $ contributes only for the deuteron quantum numbers $s=1$, $j=1$ and $t=0$. Further $I_\lambda = \frac12 $ for $\lambda =0$ and $\frac32 $ for $\lambda =2$. It is clear that using this quantity $H_\lambda (q) $ the spin dependent momentum distribution $ {\cal Y} ( m_3, m_d, m_p ; {\vec q}\, ) $ can be constructed for any combination of magnetic quantum numbers and any direction ${\hat q}$.
In [@spindep] we also showed that under the PWIA treatment and in the non-relativistic limit there are simple relations between different $ {\cal Y} $’s and the response functions $W_i$, which enter the laboratory cross section for the process $ {\vec e} + \vec{{}^3{\rm He}} \rightarrow e' + p + d$. This cross section has the form [@Donnelly] $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma ({\vec S} , h) \ & = & \
\sigma_{\rm Mott} \,
\left\{ \,
\left( v_L W_L + v_T W_T + v_{TT} W_{TT} + v_{TL} W_{TL} \right) \, \right. \nonumber \\
& + & \left. h \, \left( v_{T'} W_{T'} + v_{TL'} W_{TL'} \right) \,
\right\} \,
\rho ,
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{\rm Mott}$, $v_i$ and $\rho$ are analytically given kinematical factors, $h$ is the helicity of the incoming electron and ${\vec S}$ represents the initial $^3$He spin direction. This means that both the cross section and the helicity asymmetry $ A ( {\vec S} ) $ $$\begin{aligned}
A ( {\vec S} ) \equiv
\frac{\sigma ({\vec S} , h=+1) - \sigma ({\vec S} , h=-1)}{ \sigma ({\vec S} , h=+1) + \sigma ({\vec S} , h=-1) }
\label{A}\end{aligned}$$ for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ process can be obtained, assuming PWIA, in terms of $ H_\lambda $, the electromagnetic proton form factors $G_E^p$ and $G_M^p$, and simple kinematical quantities. The response functions read $$\begin{aligned}
W_L =
\frac{{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,\left( {\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 +
{\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \right) }{4\,\pi }
\label{wl}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_T =
\frac{\left( {\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 + {\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \right) \,
\left(
{\,{G_M^p}}^2\,{\,{Q}}^2 +
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2 -
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\,{\theta_1})
\right) }{8\,{\,{M}}^2\,\pi }
\label{wt}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT} =
\frac{- {\,{G_E^p}}^2\,
\left( {\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 + {\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \right) \,
{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\phi)\,{\sin^2 (\,{\theta_1})} \ }
{4\,{\,{M}}^2\,\pi }
\label{wtt}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL} =
\frac{{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,\left( {\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 +
{\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \right) \,\,{q_f}\,\cos (\phi)\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1})}{{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{M}\,\pi }
\label{wtl}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} = \frac{B_1 \, \cos \theta^\star \ +
\ B_2 \, \sin \theta^\star \cos ( \phi - \phi^\star ) }
{48 \, \pi \, M^2}
\label{wtp}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{{TL}^\prime} =
\frac{
{C}_1 \, \cos ( 2 \phi - \phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star ) \, + \,
{C}_2 \, \cos ( \phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star )
}
{48 \, \pi \, M} \nonumber \\
+ \
\frac{
{C}_3 \, \cos (\theta^\star ) \, + \,
{C}_4 \, \cos ( \phi - \phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star )
}
{48 \, \pi \, M} .
\label{wtplp}\end{aligned}$$ The auxiliary quantities $B_1$, $B_2$, $C_1$–$C_4$, which appear in the helicity-dependent response functions $W_{{T}^\prime}$ and $W_{{TL}^\prime}$ in Eqs. (\[wtp\]) and (\[wtplp\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 =
\, \left( {G_M^p}\, Q \right)^2 \, \left( 2\,{\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 +
2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)}\,\,{H_2 (q)} + {\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \
\right) \, \nonumber \\
+ \ 3\,
\left( 2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)} - \,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{H_2 (q)}\, \left( {G_M^p}\,{Q} \right)^2 \, \cos (2\,\theta)
\nonumber \\
- \ 6\,
\left( 2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)} - \,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{H_2 (q)}\, {G_E^p}\,\,{q}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q} \,
\sin (2\,\theta)\,\sin (\,{\theta_1})
\label{b1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_2 =
\ -3\,\, \left( {G_M^p}\, Q \right)^2 \,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)} + \,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,\sin (2\,\theta) \nonumber \\
- \ 2\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{q_f}\, {G_M^p}\, Q \,
\left( 2\,{\,{H_0 (q_f)}}^2 +
2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q_f)}\,\,{H_2 (q_f)} +
{\,{H_2 (q_f)}}^2 \right) \, \sin (\,{\theta_1})
\nonumber \\
- \ 6\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{q_f}\, {G_M^p}\, Q \,
\,{H_2 (q)}\,\left( -2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)} + \,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\cos (2\,\theta)
\sin (\,{\theta_1})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{C}_1 =
3\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -4\,\,{H_0 (q)} + {\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{Q}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{C}_2 =
\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,
\left( 4\,\,{H_0 (q)}\,\,{H_2 (q)} -
{\sqrt{2}}\,\left( 4\,{\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 + 5\,{\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \
\right) \right) \,\,{Q}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{C}_3 =
6\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -4\,\,{H_0 (q)} + {\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{Q}\,\cos (\phi)\,\sin (2\,\theta)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{C}_4 =
-6\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -4\,\,{H_0 (q)} + {\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{Q}\,\cos (\phi)\,\cos (2\,\theta) .
\label{c4}\end{aligned}$$ We assume the reference frame, for which the three-momentum transfer $\vec{Q} \equiv {\vec k} - {\vec k}^{\, \prime} $ is parallel to $\hat{z}$ and $\hat{y} \equiv \frac{ {\vec k}^{\, \prime} \times {\vec k}}
{\mid {\vec k}^{\, \prime} \times {\vec k} \mid}$, as well as $\hat{x} = \hat{y} \times \hat{z}$. Here $ {\vec k}$ and ${\vec k}^{\, \prime} $ are the initial and final electron momenta. In this system $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ are the polar and azimuthal angles corresponding to the direction of the final proton-deuteron relative momentum $\vec{q}_f \equiv \vec{p}_p - \frac13 \vec{Q} $, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the polar and azimuthal angles corresponding to the direction of $ \vec{q} \equiv \vec{q}_f - \frac23 \vec{Q} = \vec{p}_p - \vec{Q} = - \vec{p}_d$. The initial $^3$He spin orientation is defined in terms of the $\theta^\star$ and $\phi^\star$ angles. Further, $Q \equiv \mid \vec{Q} \mid$, $ q_f \equiv \mid {\vec q}_f \mid$ and $q \equiv \mid \vec{q}_f - \frac23 \vec{Q} \mid = \mid \vec{p}_d \mid $, where $ \vec{p}_p $ and $ \vec{p}_d $ are the final proton and deuteron momenta. Finally $M$ is the nucleon mass.
These expressions simplify significantly if the so-called parallel kinematics is assumed, for which the final proton is ejected parallel to $ \vec{Q} $. Then $\theta = \theta_1 = \phi = \phi_1 = 0$ and the response functions given in Eqs. (\[wt\])–(\[wtplp\]) and (\[b1\])–(\[c4\]) reduce to
$$\begin{aligned}
W_T =
\frac{ \left( \,G_M^p \,Q \right)^2 \,
\left( {\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 + {\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \right) \,
}{8\,{\,{M}}^2\,\pi }
\label{wt.2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT} = 0
\label{wtt.2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL} = 0
\label{wtl.2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} =
\frac{
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \right)^2 \, \left( 2\,{\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 +
2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)}\,\,{H_2 (q)} + {\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \
\right) \, \, \cos ( \theta^\star ) }
{48 \, \pi \, M^2}
\nonumber \\
+ \ \frac{
3\, \left( {G_M^p}\,{Q} \right)^2 \,
\left( 2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_0 (q)} - \,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\,{H_2 (q)}\,
\, \cos ( \theta^\star ) } {48 \, \pi \, M^2}
\label{wtp.2}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{{TL}^\prime} =
\frac{ 3\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\, Q \,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -4\,\,{H_0 (q)} + {\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\cos (\phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star )
}
{48 \, \pi \, M} \nonumber \\
+ \
\frac{
\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\, Q \,
\left( 4\,\,{H_0 (q)}\,\,{H_2 (q)} -
{\sqrt{2}}\,\left( 4\,{\,{H_0 (q)}}^2 + 5\,{\,{H_2 (q)}}^2 \
\right) \right) \,
\cos ( \phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star )
}
{48 \, \pi \, M} \nonumber \\
- \
\frac{
6\,\,{G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\, Q \,{H_2 (q)}\,
\left( -4\,\,{H_0 (q)} + {\sqrt{2}}\,\,{H_2 (q)} \right) \,
\, \cos ( \phi^\star ) \, \sin (\theta^\star )
}
{48 \, \pi \, M} .
\label{wtplp.2}\end{aligned}$$
This allows us to express the parallel and perpendicular helicity asymmetries in terms of $H_\lambda (q) $. For the parallel kinematics they are $$\begin{aligned}
A_\parallel \equiv A ( \theta^\star = 0, \phi^\star = 0 ) = & \nonumber \\
\frac{ \left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \,
\left( {H_0 (q)}^2 + 4\,{\sqrt{2}}\,{H_0 (q)}\,{H_2 (q)} - {H_2 (q)}^2 \, \right) \, v_{T^\prime}
}
{ 3 \, \left( {H_0 (q)}^2 + {H_2 (q)}^2 \right) \,
\left( 2 \left( {G_E^p}\, \right)^2 \, M^2 \, v_L +
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \, v_T \right)
} &
\label{apara}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
A_\perp \equiv A ( \theta^\star = \frac{\pi}{2}, \phi^\star = 0 ) = & \nonumber \\
\frac{ -2 \, {G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\, M \, Q \,
\left( {\sqrt{2}}\, {H_0 (q)}^2 - 4\,{H_0 (q)}\,{H_2 (q)} + 2 \, {\sqrt{2}}\, {H_2 (q)}^2 \,
\right) \, v_{{TL}^\prime}
}
{ 3 \, \left( {H_0 (q)}^2 + {H_2 (q)}^2 \right) \,
\left( 2 \left( {G_E^p}\, \right)^2 \, M^2 \, v_L +
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \, v_T \right)
} &
\label{aperp}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the $^3$He wave function enters through the combinations $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 \equiv
\frac{ {H_0 (q)}^2 + 4\,{\sqrt{2}}\,{H_0 (q)}\,{H_2 (q)} - {H_2 (q)}^2 }
{ 3 \, \left( {H_0 (q)}^2 + {H_2 (q)}^2 \right) }
\label{p1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
P_2 \equiv
\frac{ {H_0 (q)}^2 - 2 \,{\sqrt{2}}\,{H_0 (q)}\,{H_2 (q)} + 2 \,{H_2 (q)}^2 }
{ 3 \, \left( {H_0 (q)}^2 + {H_2 (q)}^2 \right) } .
\label{p2}\end{aligned}$$ in terms of which $$\begin{aligned}
A_\parallel =
\frac{
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \, v_{T^\prime}
}
{
2 \left( {G_E^p}\, \right)^2 \, M^2 \, v_L +
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \, v_T
} \ P_1
\label{Aparap1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A_\perp =
\frac{
-2 \, \sqrt{2} \, {G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\, M \, Q \, v_{{TL}^\prime}
}
{
2 \left( {G_E^p}\, \right)^2 \, M^2 \, v_L +
\left( {G_M^p}\, Q \, \right)^2 \, v_T
} \ P_2 .
\label{Aperpp2}\end{aligned}$$
The crucial observation is now that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are related to the spin-dependent momentum distributions ${\cal Y} ( m_3, m_d, m_p ; {\vec q} \, ) $ in the following manner $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 =
\frac{ {\cal Y}_1 - {\cal Y}_2 }
{ {\cal Y}_1 + {\cal Y}_2 } ,
\label{p1.1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}_1 \equiv
{\cal Y} ( m_3=\frac12, m_d=1, m_p=-\frac12 ; {\vec q} \parallel {\hat w} )
\nonumber \\
= \frac{1}{12 \, \pi} \, \left( 2 H_0^2 + 2 \sqrt{2} H_0 H_2 + H_2^2 \right)
= \frac{1}{12 \, \pi} \, \left( \sqrt{2} H_0 + H_2 \right)^2
\label{y1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}_2 \equiv
{\cal Y} ( m_3=\frac12, m_d=0, m_p= \frac12 ; {\vec q} \parallel {\hat w} )
\nonumber \\
= \frac{1}{12 \, \pi} \, \left( H_0^2 - 2 \sqrt{2} H_0 H_2 + 2 H_2^2 \right)
= \frac{1}{12 \, \pi} \, \left( H_0 - \sqrt{2} H_2 \right)^2 ,
\label{y2}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\hat w}$ denotes the spin quantization axis. Similarly $P_2$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
P_2 =
\frac{ {\cal Y}_3 + {\cal Y}_4 - {\cal Y}_5 }
{ {\cal Y}_3 + {\cal Y}_4 + {\cal Y}_5 } ,
\label{p1.2}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}_3 \equiv {\cal Y} ( m_3=\frac12, m_d=-1, m_p=-\frac12 ; {\vec q} \perp {\hat w} )
\ = \ \frac{3}{16 \, \pi} \, H_2^2 ,
\label{y3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}_4 \equiv {\cal Y} ( m_3=\frac12, m_d= 1, m_p=-\frac12 ; {\vec q} \perp {\hat w} )
\nonumber \\
= \frac{1}{48 \, \pi} \, \left( 8 H_0^2 - 4 \sqrt{2} H_0 H_2 + H_2^2 \right) ,
\label{y4}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Y}_5 \equiv {\cal Y} ( m_3=\frac12, m_d= 0, m_p= \frac12 ; {\vec q} \perp {\hat w} )
\nonumber \\
= \frac{1}{24 \, \pi} \, \left( 2 H_0^2 + 2 \sqrt{2} H_0 H_2 + H_2^2 \right) .
\label{y5}\end{aligned}$$ The values of spin projections appearing in Eqs. (\[p1.1\]) and (\[p1.2\]) suggest that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are just the (negative) proton polarizations for two different proton momenta ${\vec q}$ inside polarized $^3$He. To see that this is true we formally define the proton polarization $P (\vec q \, )$ $$\begin{aligned}
P (\vec q \, ) \equiv
\frac{
\sum\limits_{m_p, m_d} \left| \left\langle \Psi m_3= \frac12 \right|
| \phi_d m_d \rangle
| \, {\vec q} \, \frac12 \, m_p \, \rangle \right|^2 \, m_p
}
{\frac12 \,
\sum\limits_{m_p, m_d} \left| \left\langle \Psi m_3= \frac12 \right|
| \phi_d m_d \rangle
| \, {\vec q} \, \frac12 \, m_p \, \rangle \right|^2 \,
} .
\label{Pnew}\end{aligned}$$ Then it is easy to verify that $$\begin{aligned}
P (\vec q \, \parallel {\hat z} \, ) = -P_1
\label{Pnew1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
P (\vec q \, \perp {\hat z} \, ) = -P_2 .
\label{Pnew2}\end{aligned}$$ We also define the total (integrated) proton polarization as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\rm int} & \equiv &
\frac{\int d{\vec q} \,
\sum\limits_{m_p, m_d} \left| \left\langle \Psi m_3= \frac12 \right|
| \phi_d m_d \rangle
| \, {\vec q} \, \frac12 \, m_p \, \rangle \right|^2 \, m_p
}
{\frac12 \, \int d{\vec q} \,
\sum\limits_{m_p, m_d} \left| \left\langle \Psi m_3= \frac12 \right|
| \phi_d m_d \rangle
| \, {\vec q} \, \frac12 \, m_p \, \rangle \right|^2 \,
} \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{- \frac{\pi}{24} \, \int\limits_0^\infty d q \, q^2 \,
\left( \sqrt{2} H_0 + H_2 \, \right)^2 }
{ \frac{\pi}{4} \, \int\limits_0^\infty d q \, q^2 \,
\left( H_0^2 + H_2^2 \, \right) }
\equiv \frac{-\int\limits_0^\infty d q \, f_1 (q ) }
{ \int\limits_0^\infty d q \, f_2 ( q ) }
.
\label{Pnewtotal}\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that $P_{\rm int}$ is negative. Its numerical value obtained with the nuclear forces used in this paper will be given below.
Thus we can conclude that $P_1$ and $P_2$, which can be extracted from the parallel and perpendicular helicity asymmetries for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ process, if the PWIA approximation is valid, are directly the proton polarizations inside the polarized $^3$He nucleus. In the following we will check this simple dynamical assumption and compare the results based on the PWIA approximation to the results of our full Faddeev calculations. We refer the reader to [@report] for a detailed description of our numerical techniques, which we do not want to repeat here.
Note that $P_1$ and $P_2$ are not independent: they are simply related since according to Eqs. (\[p1\]) and (\[p2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
2 P_2 = 1 - P_1 .
\label{p1-2}\end{aligned}$$ If Eqs. (\[Aparap1\]) and (\[Aperpp2\]) are used to obtain the $P_1$ and $P_2$ values from an experiment, then Eq. (\[p1-2\]) gives some measure of the validity of the PWIA assumption, since the relation (\[p1-2\]) will in general not hold for the extracted $P_1$ and $P_2$.
When the argument of $H_0$ and $H_2$ is small ($q \lesssim 50 $ MeV/c), then $H_2$ is much smaller than $H_0$. Thus one can expect, quite independent of the details of the electron kinematics, that $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 \approx P_2 \approx \frac13 .
\label{p1-2.2}\end{aligned}$$
Results for the process {#sec:3}
=======================
We studied the spin dependent momentum distributions in [@spindep] and had to conclude that (at least in the nonrelativistic regime) one can access these quantities only for rather small pd relative momenta. The results of [@spindep] applied to the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec p})d$ and $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} (e,e' {\vec d})p$ processes but are also valid for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ reaction, since the same current matrix elements enter in both calculations. The important difference is, however, that a measurement of the latter reaction, which requires only a polarized electron beam and a polarized $^3$He target, can be easier realized. In fact, this paper is motivated by a very recent experiment [@Achenbach05], where for the first time the electron-target asymmetries $A_\parallel$ and $A_\perp$ were measured for both the two- and three-body breakup of $^3$He. Here we restrict ourselves to one electron kinematics from [@Achenbach05] and show its parameters in Table \[tab1\].
------------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ------------- -------
E $\theta_{e}$ $\omega$ $Q$ $\theta_{Q}$ $q^2$ $p_d$
\[-8pt\] MeV deg MeV MeV/c deg (GeV/c)$^2$ MeV/c
\[2pt\] 735 50 179 569 48.5 0.29 5
\[2pt\]
------------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -------------- ------------- -------
: \[tab1\] Electron kinematics from [@Achenbach05]. E: beam energy, $\theta_{e}$: electron scattering angle, $\omega$: energy transfer, $Q$: magnitude of the three-momentum transfer $\vec Q$, $\theta_{Q}$: angle of the three-momentum transfer with respect to the electron beam, $q^2$: four-momentum transfer squared, $p_d$: magnitude of the deuteron momentum for proton ejected parallel to $\vec Q$
The dynamical input for our calculations is the nucleon-nucleon force AV18 [@AV18] alone or together with the 3N force UrbanaIX [@UrbanaIX]. We include in addition to the single nucleon current the $\pi$- and $\rho$-like two-body currents linked to the AV18 force, following [@Riska85]
Two-body electron induced breakup of $^3$He is a very rich process. For example, the description of the deuteron-knockout is not possible within the simplest PWIA approximation and complicated rescattering effects as well as the details of the nuclear current operator play there an important role. A much simpler dynamical picture is expected in the vicinity of the proton knock-out peak. We focus on this angular region and show in Fig. \[sigma\] the proton angular distribution for the selected electron configuration.
The FSI effects for strictly parallel kinematics amount to 5-7 %. Note that the PWIA results shown in Fig. \[sigma\] are obtained without inclusion of a 3N force but the full results including the 3N force required both the initial and the final state to be calculated with this dynamical component. The 3N force effects come mainly from the initial bound state and altogether reach almost 20 % at $\theta_p = \theta_Q$. Note that in this case MEC do not play a big role.
Let us now turn to the helicity asymmetries shown in Figs. \[apara.fig\] and \[aperp.fig\].
For $A_\parallel$ the 3N force effects are much smaller (below 1 % for strictly parallel kinematics). FSI are still visible and slightly reduce the value of $A_\parallel$ in relation to the PWIA result for parallel kinematics (by nearly 6 %).
The least sensitivity to the different dynamical ingredients is observed for $A_\perp$. In Fig. \[aperp.fig\] we see that in a certain angular interval around $\theta_Q$ all curves overlap. That means that in this case one has direct access to important properties of $^3$He.
Let us now address the question how (in the given dynamical framework) different $^3$He wave function components contribute to $H_0$, $H_2$, $P_1$ and $P_2$. We compare in Figs. \[h0.v4.fig\]–\[Y1-2.v4.fig\] results, for the full $^3$He wave function to results obtained with truncated wave functions. Besides the full results, we show curves including the dominant principal $S$-state, dropping the $D$- or the $S^\prime$-state contribution. The results, where only the principal $S$-state is included, and the ones with the $D$-state dropped agree rather well but differ visibly from the full prediction. The neglection of the $S^\prime$-state is hardly noticeable. The same is true for the $P$-state (not shown).
Further we show in Fig. \[Y1-2.cmp.fig\] that the 3N force effects for the quantity $P_1$ are rather small. The same holds for $P_2$ (not shown).
We end this section with Fig. \[f1-f2.fig\], which shows the integrands $f_1 (q ) $ and $f_2 (q ) $ appearing in the second line of Eq. (\[Pnewtotal\]). We see that relatively small $q$ values ($ q \lesssim 350 $ (MeV/c) contribute to $P_{\rm int}$. The $P_{\rm int}$ value calculated with (without) the inclusion of the 3N force is -0.364 (-0.362). For completeness we give also the values of the two integrals appearing in Eq. (\[Pnewtotal\]): $ \int\limits_0^\infty d q \, f_1 (q ) $ = 0.127 (0.128), $ \int\limits_0^\infty d q \, f_2 (q ) $ = 0.348 (0.354) when calculated with (without) the 3N force. The latter integral gives up to the factor $\pi/4$ the probability to find a proton-deuteron cluster inside $^3$He.
Results for the and processes {#sec:4}
=============================
In this section the results for the three-body breakup will be discussed. A general discussion would require that all the elements of our dynamical framework are involved, i.e. that the initial $^3$He and final scattering states are calculated consistently and many-body currents are taken into account. We refer the reader to [@report] for a discussion of the numerical techniques necessary to perform calculations for such an approach. It, however, precludes any analytical insight. Thus, as for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ process, we start with the PWIA approximation. Additionally, we restrict the full $^3$He state to its main, principal $S$-state component. In this case the six nonrelativistic response functions $W_i$ for the exclusive $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)pn$ reaction take especially simple forms $$\begin{aligned}
W_L =
\frac{4\,{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,H^2}{6}
\label{wl.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_T =
\frac{2\,H^2\,\left(
{\,{G_M^p}}^2\,{\,{Q}}^2 +
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2 -
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\,{\theta_1})
\right) }{6\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wt.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT} =
\frac{-4\,{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,H^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,
\cos (2\,\,{\phi_1})\,{\sin^2 (\,{\theta_1})}}{6\, {\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtt.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL} =
\frac{8\,{\sqrt{2}}\,{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,H^2\,\,{q_f}\,
\cos (\,{\phi_1})\,\sin (\,{\theta_1})}{6\,\,{M}}
\label{wtl.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} = 0
\label{wtprime.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{{TL}^\prime} = 0
\label{wtlprime.ppn}\end{aligned}$$ As before, $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ are the polar and azimuthal angles corresponding to the $\vec{q}_f \equiv
\frac23 \left[ \vec{p}_1 - \frac12 \left( \vec{p}_2 + \vec{p}_3 \right) \right]
= {\vec p}_p - \frac13 {\vec Q} $ direction. The quantity $H$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
H \, = \,
\Psi^{\rm PSS} \left( \vec{p}_f , \vec{q}_f - \frac23 \vec{Q} \, \right) ,
\label{HPss}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{p}_f$ is the Jacobi momentum describing the relative motion within the $23$ (proton-neutron) pair: $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{p}_f = \frac12 \left( \vec{p}_2 - \vec{p}_3 \right) .
\label{pf}\end{aligned}$$ The individual final nucleon momenta are denoted by $\vec{p}_1$, $\vec{p}_2$ and $\vec{p}_3$ and the proton, to which the virtual photon is coupled, is the nucleon 1. The wave function $ \Psi^{\rm PSS} \left( \vec{p} , \vec{q} \, \right)$ is the momentum part of the principal $S$-state: $$\begin{aligned}
\mid \Psi^{\rm PSS} \rangle \equiv
\int d^3 p \, \int d^3 q \,
\mid \vec{p} \, \rangle \, \mid \vec{q} \, \rangle \,
\Psi^{\rm PSS} \left( \vec{p} , \vec{q} \, \right) \, \mid \zeta_a \, \rangle ,
\label{Pss}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \mid \zeta_a \, \rangle $ is the completely anti-symmetric 3N spin-isospin state. The vanishing of the $ W_{{T}^\prime} $ and $W_{{TL}^\prime} $ response functions reflects the well known fact that for the principal $S$-state the proton in $^3$He is totally unpolarized.
The situation for the case where the photon ejects the neutron is quite different and corresponds very closely to electron scattering on a free, fully polarized neutron at rest. The six nonrelativistic response functions $W_i$ for the exclusive $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' n)pp$ reaction under the PWIA approximation and assuming only the principal S-state in the $^3$He wave function can be written in the laboratory frame as
$$\begin{aligned}
W_L =
\frac{2\,{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,H^2}{6}
\label{wl.npp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_T =
\frac{H^2\,\left(
{\,{G_M^n}}^2\,{\,{Q}}^2 +
{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2 -
{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\,{\theta_1})
\right) }{6\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wt.npp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT} =
\frac{-2\,{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,H^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,
\cos (2\,\,{\phi_1})\,{\sin^2 (\,{\theta_1})}}{6\, {\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtt.npp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL} =
\frac{4\,{\sqrt{2}}\,{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,H^2\,\,{q_f}\,
\cos (\,{\phi_1})\,\sin (\,{\theta_1})}{6\,\,{M}}
\label{wtl.npp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} =
\frac{-{G_M^n}\,H^2\,\,{Q}\,
\left( \,{G_M^n}\,\,{Q}\,\cos (\,{\theta^\star}) -
2\,\,{G_E^n}\,\,{q_f}\,
\cos (\,{\phi_1} - \,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1})\,\sin (\,{\theta^\star}) \right)
}{6\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtprime.npp}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{{TL}^\prime} =
\frac{2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{G_E^n}\,\,{G_M^n}\,H^2\,\,{Q}\,
\cos (\,{\phi^\star})\,\sin (\,{\theta^\star})}{6\,\,{M}}
\label{wtlprime.npp}\end{aligned}$$
Now the $\theta_1$ and $\phi_1$ angles correspond to the $\vec{q}_f = {\vec p}_1 - \frac13 {\vec Q}
\equiv {\vec p}_n - \frac13 {\vec Q} $ direction and $\vec{p}_f$ is the Jacobi momentum describing the relative motion within the $23$ proton-proton pair.
Let us first illustrate the influence of different $^3$He wave function components on the asymmetries $A_\parallel$ and $A_\perp$ performing calculations that take various components of the $^3$He wave function into account. This is done in Figs. \[apara.PWIA.ppn\] and \[aperp.PWIA.ppn\] for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)np$ reaction. We note that the formulas (\[wl.ppn\])–(\[wtlprime.ppn\]) and (\[wl.npp\])–(\[wtlprime.npp\]) apply also to the semi-exclusive reaction. One has to make a simple replacement $$\begin{aligned}
H^2 \longrightarrow \int d \, {\hat p}_f \, H^2 ,
\label{semi-exclusive}\end{aligned}$$ i.e., to integrate over the unobserved direction of the relative momentum within the $23$ pair.
We see that both asymmetries change quite significantly in the given $E_p$ range and become very small for the largest $E_p$ values. For the principal $S$-state alone both asymmetries are zero. Therefore the smaller $^3$He components (except the $P$-wave) are significant in PWIA and change the asymmetry in the proton case. Thereby the $S^\prime$-contribution is more important than the $D$-wave piece.
The situation is quite different for the neutron knock-out asymmetries shown in Figs. \[apara.PWIA.npp\] and \[aperp.PWIA.npp\]. In this case the asymmetries are non-zero even for the principal $S$-state wave function.
All results are quite stable in the shown $E_n$ range. The change due to different $^3$He states for $A_\parallel$ amounts to 2 % and $A_\perp$ varies by $ \approx $ 3 %. The asymmetries reach the specific values which depend only on the neutron electromagnetic form factors and trivial kinematic factors $v_i$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq4\]).
The PWIA picture is very simple but quite unrealistic. That is why FSI has to be taken into account. In order to retain analytical insight but make our framework more realistic we will in the following additionally allow for the rescattering effects in the subsystem $23$ and call the resulting approximation $FSI23$. The $^3$He wave function will still be restricted to the principal $S$-state. Thus we need the following matrix elements $N^\mu$ of the single nucleon current $j_1^\nu ( {\vec Q} )$ (see [@report] for more details of our notation) $$\begin{aligned}
N^\mu =
\langle \,
{\vec p}_1 \,
{\vec p}_{23} \,
{\vec p}_f \,
s m_s \, \frac12 m_1 ; t m_t \, \frac12 \nu_1 \mid
\left( 1 + t_{23} G_0 \right) j_1^\nu ( {\vec Q} )
\mid \Psi^{\rm PSS} M_S M_T = \frac12 \rangle ,
\label{fsi23}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\vec p}_{23} \equiv {\vec p}_2 + {\vec p}_3 ,
%\nonumber \\ {\vec p} \equiv \frac12 \left( {\vec p}_2 - {\vec p}_3 \right) ,
\label{p23}\end{aligned}$$ the $23$ pair spin and spin projection are denoted by $s$ and $m_s$, the $23$ pair isospin and isospin projection are $t$ and $m_t$ and the spin and isospin magnetic quantum numbers of the nucleon 1 are $m_1$ and $\nu_1$. The total $^3$He spin and isospin projections are $M_S$ and $M_T$, respectively. Further $t_{23}$ is the NN $t$-matrix acting within the $23$ pair and $G_0$ is the free 3N propagator.
The six nonrelativistic response functions $W_i$ for the exclusive $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)pn$ reaction under the FSI23 approximation and assuming only the principal S-state in the $^3$He wave function can be written in the laboratory frame as
$$\begin{aligned}
W_L = \frac{ {G_E^p}^2\, H_1 }{6}
\label{wl.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_T =
\frac{\left( {\,{G_M^p}}^2\,{\,{Q}}^2 +
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2 -
{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\,{\theta_1}) \
\right) \, H_1 \,
}{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wt.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT} =
\frac{- {\,{G_E^p}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,
\cos (2\,\,{\phi_1})\,
\,{\sin^2 (\,{\theta_1})} \, H_1 \, }{6\, {\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtt.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL} =
\frac{{\sqrt{2}}\,{\,{G_E^p}}^2\,\,{q_f}\,
\cos (\,{\phi_1})\,
\,\sin (\,{\theta_1}) \, H_1 \, }{3\,\,{M}}
\label{wtl.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} & = &
\frac{\,
-\left( {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, \right)^2 \, H_2 \, \cos (\,{\theta^\star})\, }{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\,
2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, {q_f}\, H_3 \, \cos (\,{\phi_1})\, \sin (\,{\theta_1} )
\, \cos (\,{\theta^\star}) \,}
{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& + & \frac{\,
2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, {q_f}\, i \, H_4 \, \sin (\,{\phi_1})\, \sin (\,{\theta_1} )
\, \cos (\,{\theta^\star}) \,}
{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& - &
\frac{
\, {\sqrt{2}}\, \left( {G_M^p}\,\,{Q}\, \right)^2 \,
\left( \cos (\,{\phi^\star})\, \, H_3 \, + i \, H_4 \, \sin (\,{\phi^\star}) \right)
\,\sin (\,{\theta^\star})
}
{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{\, 2 \, {G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, {q_f}\, H_5 \, \cos (\,{\phi_1} + \,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1}) \,\sin (\,{\theta^\star}) }{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{\, 2 \, {G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, {q_f}\, H_6 \, \cos (\,{\phi_1} - \,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1}) \,\sin (\,{\theta^\star}) }{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\nonumber \\
& - &
\frac{\, 2 \, {G_E^p}\, {G_M^p}\,{Q}\, {q_f}\, i \, H_7 \, \sin (\,{\phi_1} + \,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1}) \,\sin (\,{\theta^\star}) }{12\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtprime.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL^\prime} & = &
\frac{\, 2 \, {G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{Q}\, H_3 \, \cos (\,{\theta^\star})\, }{6\, \,{M}}
\nonumber \\
& + &
\frac{\, {\sqrt{2}}\, {G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{Q}\, H_8 \, \cos (\,{\phi^\star})\, \sin (\,{\theta^\star}) \, }{6\, \,{M}}
\nonumber \\
& - &
\frac{\, 4\,{\sqrt{2}}\, {G_E^p}\,\,{G_M^p}\,\,{Q}\, H_9 \, \sin (\,{\phi^\star})\,\sin (\,{\theta^\star}) \, }{6\, \,{M}}
\label{wtlprime.ppn.fsi23}\end{aligned}$$
The auxiliary quantities $H_1$–$H_9$ are $$\begin{aligned}
H_1 \ \equiv \
{\mid G(1) \mid}^2 +
2\,\left( {\mid G(4) \mid}^2 + {\mid G(5) \mid}^2 +
{\mid G(6) \mid}^2 + {\mid G(7) \mid}^2 \right) +
{G(8)}^2
\label{H1}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_2 \ \equiv \
{\mid G(1) \mid }^2 -
2\,\left( {\mid G(4) \mid }^2 -
{\mid G(5) \mid }^2 + {\mid G(6) \mid }^2 +
{\mid G(7) \mid }^2 \right) + {G(8)}^2
\label{H2}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_3 \ \equiv \
\left( (G(4))^\star - (G(6))^\star \right) \,G(5) +
(G(5))^\star\, \left( G(4) - G(6) \right) +
2\,G(8)\, \Re {G(7)}
\label{H3}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_4 \ \equiv \
- \left( \left( (G(4))^\star + (G(6))^\star \right) \,G(5) \ \right)
+ (G(5))^\star \, \left( G(4) + G(6) \right) + 2\, i \,G(8)\, \Im {G(7)}
\label{H4}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_5 \ \equiv \
{(G(7))^\star}^2
- 2\, (G(6))^\star\,G(4)
- 2\,(G(4))^\star \,G(6)
+ {G(7)}^2
\label{H5}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_6 \ \equiv \
{ \mid G(1) \mid }^2
- 2\,{ \mid G(5) \mid }^2
- {G(8)}^2
\label{H6}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_7 \ \equiv \
{(G(7))^\star}^2
+ 2\,(G(6))^\star \,G(4)
- 2\,(G(4))^\star\,G(6)
- {G(7)}^2
\label{H7}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_8 \ \equiv \
{ \mid G(1) \mid }^2
- 2\,{\mid G(5) \mid }^2
+ {(G(7))^\star}^2
\nonumber \\
- 2\,(G(6))^\star\,G(4)
- 2\,(G(4))^\star \,G(6)
+ {G(7)}^2 - {G(8)}^2 \
\label{H8}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_9 \ \equiv \
\Im {G(6)}\,\Re {G(4)}
- \Im {G(4) }\,\Re {G(6)}
+ \Im {G(7) }\,\Re {G(7)}
\label{H9}\end{aligned}$$ The different $G(i)$ functions that appear in the equations are the integrals $$\begin{aligned}
F ( s , m_s , m_{s^\prime} , t , m_t ) \ \equiv \
\int d {\vec p}^{\, \prime} \,
\langle {\vec p}_f \, s m_s \, t m_t \mid 1 + t_{23} G_0 \mid
{\vec p}^{\, \prime} \, s m_{s^\prime} \, t m_t \rangle \,
\Psi^{\rm PSS} \left( {\vec p}^{\, \prime} , \vec{q}_f - \frac23 \vec{Q} \, \right)
\label{Fs}\end{aligned}$$ for different combinations of $s$, $m_s$, $m_{s^\prime}$, $t$ and $m_t$: $$\begin{aligned}
G (1) = F ( 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 )\nonumber \\
G (2) = F ( 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 )\nonumber \\
G (3) = F ( 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , -1 ) \nonumber \\
G (4) = F ( 1 , -1 , -1 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (5) = F ( 1 , -1 , 0 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (6) = F ( 1 , -1 , 1 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (7) = F ( 1 , 0 , -1 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (8) = F ( 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (9) = F ( 1 , 0 , 1 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (10) = F ( 1 , 1 , -1 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (11) = F ( 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 ) \nonumber \\
G (12) = F ( 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 )\end{aligned}$$ In the case of $^3$He $ G (3) $ is absent.
Due to the assumed $t$-matrix properties (isospin invariance and invariance with respect to time reversal) $$\begin{aligned}
G(3) = G(2) = G(1) \nonumber \\
G(10) = \left( G(6) \right)^\star \nonumber \\
G(9) = -\left( G(7) \right)^\star \nonumber \\
G(12) = \left( G(4) \right)^\star \nonumber \\
G(11) = -\left( G(5) \right)^\star \nonumber \\
G(8) = \left( G(8) \right)^\star \end{aligned}$$ some of the combinations could be eliminated. When the term $ t_{23} G_0 $ in Eq. (\[Fs\]) is dropped then $$\begin{aligned}
F ( s , m_s , m_{s^\prime} , t , m_t ) = \delta_{ m_s , m_{s^\prime} } \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the quantities $H_2$–$H_9$ vanish and $H_1$ reduces to $ 4 \left( G(1) \right)^2 $. In this way the PWIA results of Eqs. (\[wl.ppn\])–(\[wtlprime.ppn\]) are recovered.
For the sake of completeness we give also the corresponding (and much simpler) expressions for the six nonrelativistic response functions $W_i$ in the case of the exclusive $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' n)pp$ reaction under the same dynamical assumptions: $$\begin{aligned}
W_L= \frac{{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\mid G(2) \mid}^2}{3}
\label{wl.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_T= \frac{{\mid G(2) \mid}^2\,
\left( {\,{G_M^n}}^2\,{\,{Q}}^2 +
{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2 -
{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,\cos (2\,\,{\theta_1}) \
\right) }{6\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wt.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TT}= \frac{- {\mid G(2) \mid}^2\,
{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,{\,{q_f}}^2\,
\cos (2\,\,{\phi_1})\,
{\sin^2 (\,{\theta_1})} }{3\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtt.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL}=
\frac{2\,{\sqrt{2}}\,{\,{G_E^n}}^2\,\,{q_f}\,
{\mid G(2) \mid}^2\,\cos (\,{\phi_1})\,
\sin (\,{\theta_1})}{3\,\,{M}}
\label{wtl.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{T^\prime} =
\frac{- {G_M^n}\,\,{Q}\,{\mid G(2) \mid}^2\,
\left( \,{G_M^n}\,\,{Q}\,\cos (\,{\theta^\star}) -
2\,\,{G_E^n}\,\,{q_f}\,
\cos ({\phi_1} - \,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin ({\theta_1})\,\sin ({\theta^\star}) \,
\right) }{6\,{\,{M}}^2}
\label{wtprime.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
W_{TL^\prime} =
\frac{{\sqrt{2}}\,\,{G_E^n}\,\,{G_M^n}\,\,{Q}\,
{\mid G(2) \mid}^2\,\cos (\,{\phi^\star})\,
\sin (\,{\theta^\star})}{3\,\,{M}}
\label{wtlprime.npp.pss.fsi23} \end{aligned}$$ The response functions have the same form as for the PWIA approximation displayed in Eqs. (\[wl.npp\])–(\[wtlprime.npp\]). The simple form of Eqs. (\[wl.npp.pss.fsi23\])–(\[wtlprime.npp.pss.fsi23\]) is guaranteed by the fact that for the neutron emission only $t$-matrices with the total subsystem isospin $t=1$ contribute. If one forms now the helicity asymmetries $A (\theta^\star \, , \, \phi^\star \, )$, then exactly the same form is obtained as in the case of PWIA, i.e., all information from $^3$He (restricted to the principal $S$-state) disappears.
The formula (\[fsi23\]) and the following $t$-matrices are given in the three-vector representation. Since we work with partial wave decomposed $t$-matrices, it is adequate to ask the question if the interaction is dominated by one or very few channel states. Further we would like to see if the truncation of the $^3$He wave function to the principal $S$-state is reasonable, at least for the highest energies of the emitted nucleon.
Let us start with the more intricate case of the proton emission. In Figs. \[apara.fsi23\] and \[aperp.fsi23\] we show different curves obtained with the full $^3$He state (thick lines) and with $^3$He truncated to the principal $S$-state (thin lines) for different number of $t$-matrix partial waves.
We note first of all that both cases of the parallel and perpendicular asymmetries are quite similar, especially for the range of the asymmetry values. It is clear that the truncation of the full $^3$He wave function to the principal $S$-state is valid only for the highest emission energies. Otherwise the influence of the smaller $^3$He wave function components is very strong. Another important observation is that even for these highest energies the action of the $t$-matrix cannot be restricted to just one $^1S_0$ channel and the inclusion at least of the $^3S_1$ partial wave state is inevitable. Since then both spins $s=0$ and $s=1$ appear for the $np$ subsystem, the photon couples to the proton which is polarized along and opposite to the spin of polarized $^3$He. If in the $np$ subsystem only the spin $s=0$ were active, the photon would couple to the 100 % polarized proton. The situation for the neutron emission shown in Figs. \[apara.fsi23.npp\] and \[aperp.fsi23.npp\] is much simpler and we do not observe so much sensitivity to different dynamical components. The $t$-matrix is anyway forced to act in the total isospin $t=1$ states. Since additionally for the highest neutron energies (the lowest subsystem $23$ energies) the nucleon-nucleon interaction is restricted to $s$-waves, that implies that only the $^1S_0$ partial wave should be important. This expectation is confirmed by our results.
In the group of figures \[apara.full.ppn\]–\[aperp.full.npp\] we demonstrate results for much more complicated dynamical frameworks. We show first the results based on the full treatment of FSI. Then we add to our single nucleon current the $\pi$- and $\rho$-like meson exchange currents. Finally we show the results where on top of all that the UrbanaIX 3N force is present both for the initial $^3$He bound state and for the final scattering states. For proton emission the $FSI23$ approximation but taking the full $^3$He state into consideration turns out to be satisfactory at the upper end of the energy spectrum. This is valid for the both asymmetries. In the case of neutron emission the situation is different and the full dynamics, especially for $A_\perp$ is required. It is only in the case of $A_\parallel$ that at the highest neutron energies all curves coincide.
As pointed out before [@spindep; @Groningen04] that means that the extraction of $G_M^n$ from a measurement of the parallel asymmetry $A_\parallel$ seems to be quite model independent. This is not the case for the extraction of $G_E^n$ from a measurement of the perpendicular asymmetry $A_\perp$, which shows more sensitivity to different dynamical ingredients (see Fig \[aperp.full.npp\]). To minimize the effects from complicated dynamics, measurements are performed on top of the quasi-elastic peak. Since the cross section drops very fast for the neutron energies below the maximal one (see Fig \[sigma.full.npp\]), $A_\perp$ receives main contributions from the regions where the model dependence is somewhat reduced.
Finally in Figs. \[sigma.full.ppn\] and \[sigma.full.npp\] we show for the sake of completeness our predictions for the six fold differential cross sections both for the proton and neutron knock-out processes.
Summary {#sec:5}
=======
The present paper is motivated by a recent experiment [@Achenbach05], where for the first time the $A_\parallel$ and $A_\perp$ asymmetries were measured for proton emission in the two- and three-body breakup of $^3$He. We present results for one of the electron kinematics measured in [@Achenbach05]. For the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)d$ process this paper is a continuation of work in [@spindep], where the spin dependent momentum distributions of proton-deuteron clusters in polarized $^3$He were investigated. Thus we can confirm that choosing the so-called parallel kinematics and small final deuteron momenta, information about proton polarization in $^3$He is directly available. We found that in such a case the polarizations extracted from the parallel and perpendicular asymmetries are not independent but simply related. This relation has been to some extent confirmed in [@Achenbach05]. For these specific kinematical conditions FSI (including the 3N force effects) and MEC do not play a big role and the PWIA picture is sufficient. One should exploit this opportunity and obtain all possible information about $^3$He. On the other hand, this could also be a method to measure the proton electromagnetic form factors, even though they are known from direct electron scattering on a proton target. Such a measurement on $^3$He would verify our knowledge about this nucleus and help set a limit on medium corrections of the form factors.
The situation for the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' p)pn$ reaction is more complicated since the simplest PWIA approximation is not valid. For the proton emission we find a lot of sensitivity to the smaller $^3$He wave function components because for the main principal $S$-state of $^3$He the asymmetries are zero. FSI has to be taken into account but for the parallel kinematics and high emitted proton energies it can be approximated by a simpler $FSI23$ prescription. This is in agreement with the results of a study performed in [@spectral]. We find, however, that no picture of electron scattering on a polarized proton arises. The reason is that even at the highest proton energies partial waves with spin $s=0$ and $s=1$ contribute.
For the $ \vec{^3{\rm He}} ({\vec e},e' n)pp$ reaction we see again (see [@sensitivity]) different sensitivities of the $A_\parallel$ and $A_\perp$ asymmetries to the dynamical ingredients of our Faddeev framework. This proves that the extraction of $G_M^n$ from a measurement of the parallel asymmetry $A_\parallel$ would be very simple. This is not quite the case for the extraction of $G_E^n$ from a measurement of the perpendicular asymmetry $A_\perp$, where corrections from FSI, MEC and 3N forces would play a more important role. The theoretical uncertainties can be, however, minimized by a proper choice of experimental conditions.
Finally, we would like to emphasize that the results reflect our present day understanding of the reaction mechanism and the structure of $^3$He. Therefore new data for the processes addressed in this paper would be extremely useful.
This work was supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under grant no. 2P03B00825, by the NATO grant no. PST.CLG.978943, and by DOE under grants nos. DE-FG03-00ER41132 and DE-FC02-01ER41187. One of us (W.G.) would like to thank the Foundation for Polish Science for the financial support during his stay in Kraków. We would like to thank Dr. Rohe and Dr. Sirca for reading the manuscript and important remarks. The numerical calculations have been performed on the Cray SV1 and on the IBM Regatta p690+ of the NIC in Jülich, Germany.
[99]{}
J. L. Forest, V. R. Pandharipande, Steven C. Pieper, R. B. Wiringa, R. Schiavilla, A. Arriaga, Phys. Rev. C[**54**]{}, 646 (1996).
J. Golak, W. Glöckle, H. Kamada, H. Wita[ł]{}a, R. Skibiński, A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. C[**65**]{}, 064004 (2002).
P. Achenbach [*et al.*]{}, nucl-ex/0505012.
W. Glöckle, [*The Quantum Mechanical Few-Body Problem*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983).
T. W. Donnelly, A. S. Raskin, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**169**]{}, 247 (1986).
J. Golak, R. Skibiński, H. Wita[ł]{}a, W. Glöckle, A. Nogga, H. Kamada, Phys. Rep. [**415**]{}, 89 (2005).
R. B. Wiringa, V.G.J. Stoks, R. Schiavilla, Phys. Rev. C[**51**]{}, 38 (1995).
B. S. Pudliner, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, Steven C. Pieper and R. B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C[**56**]{}, 1720 (1997).
D. O. Riska, Phys. Scr. [**31**]{}, 107 (1985); D. O. Riska, Phys. Scr. [**31**]{}, 471 (1985).
J. Golak, R. Skibiński, H. Wita[ł]{}a, W. Glöckle, A. Nogga, H. Kamada, in: N. Kalantar-Nayestenaki, R.G.E. Timmermans, B.L.G. Bakker (Eds.), Few-Body Problems in Physics, AIP Conference Proceedings No. 768, AIP, Melville, NY, 2005, p. 91.
J. Golak, H. Wita[ł]{}a, R. Skibiński, W. Glöckle, A. Nogga, H. Kamada, Phys. Rev. C[**70**]{}, 034005 (2004).
J. Golak, W. Glöckle, H. Kamada, H. Wita[ł]{}a, R. Skibiński, A. Nogga, Phys. Rev. C[**65**]{}, 044002 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
1
amssym.tex
cmb16 cmr14 cmr12 cmr12 cmmi12
cmr9 cmti9 cmbx9
cmcsc9
Ø[[O]{}]{}
.5
=1em
Nonhomogeneous Quadratic Duality and Curvature
0.85 truecm
L. E. Positselski
1 truecm
Introduction
0.45 truecm
A [*quadratic algebra*]{} is a graded algebra with generators of degree $1$ and relations of degree $2$. Let $A$ be a quadratic algebra with the space of generators $V$ and the space of relations $I\sub V\ot V$. The classical quadratic duality assigns the quadratic algebra $A^!$ with generators from $V^*$ and the relations $I^\perp\sub V^*\ot V^*$ to the algebra $A$. According to the classical results of Priddy and Löfwall \[1, 3\], $\,A^!$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra of $\Ext^*_A(k,k)$ generated by $\Ext_A^1(k,k)$. Priddy called an algebra $A$ a [*Koszul algebra*]{} if this subalgebra coincides with the whole of $\Ext_A^*(k,k)$. Koszul algebras constitute a wonderful class of quadratic algebras, which is closed under a large set of operations, contains the main examples, and perhaps admits a finite classification.
In this paper, we propose an extension of the quadratic duality to the nonhomogeneous case. Roughly speaking, a [*nonhomogeneous quadratic algebra*]{} (or a [*quadratic-linear-scalar algebra*]{}, a QLS-[*algebra*]{}) is an algebra defined by (generators and) nonhomogeneous relations of degree $2$. A [*quadratic-linear algebra*]{} (QL-[*algebra*]{}) is an algebra defined by nonhomogeneous quadratic relations without the scalar parts; in other words, it is an augmented QLS-algebra. The precise definition takes into account the fact that a collection of nonhomogeneous relations does not necessarily “make sense” (its coefficients must satisfy some equations; the Jacobi identity is a classical example).
The dual object for a QL-algebra is \[6\] a quadratic DG-algebra \[7\]. The dual object for a QLS-algebra is a set of data which we call a [*quadratic [CDG-]{}algebra*]{} (“curved”), defined up to an equivalence. The classical Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem on the universal enveloping algebra structure \[9\] finds its natural place in this context as a particular case of the fact that [*every Koszul [CDG-]{}algebra corresponds to a [QLS-]{}algebra*]{}.
Remarkable examples of nonhomogeneous quadratic duality are provided by Differential Geometry. The algebra of differential operators on a manifold may be considered as a QL-algebra defined by the commutation relations for the vector fields. The dual object for this algebra is the de Rham complex; the corresponding equivalence of the categories of modules is constructed in \[4\]. The algebra of differential operators in a vector bundle is a QLS-algebra. The dual object is the algebra of differential forms with coefficients in linear operators in this bundle and with the exterior differential defined by means of a connection. Its square is not zero—it is equal to the commutator with the curvature; the equivalence relation mentioned in the previous paragraph corresponds to changing the connection. Thus, the curvature corresponds to the scalar part of the relations.
A question arises about the obstructions to existence of a QL-algebra structure (i.e., of “a flat connection”) on a given QLS-algebra. In the present paper we construct obstructions of this kind generalizing the Chern classes of vector bundles \[8\] and (which is less evident) the Chern–Weil classes of principal $G$-bundles. Our analogues of the secondary characteristic classes \[5\] form the [*Chern–Simons functor*]{} on the category of CDG-algebras.
The author is grateful to A. B. Astashkevich, R. V. Bezrukavnikov, M. V. Finkelberg, V. A. Ginzburg, A. E. Polishchuk, and V. S. Retakh for numerous and very helpful discussions, and to A. A. Kirillov and A. N. Rudakov for their constant attention to his work.
=0
An [*algebra*]{} is an associative algebra with a unit $e$ over a fixed ground field $k$; all graded and filtered algebras are assumed to be locally finite-dimensional. The symbol $[a,b]$ denotes the supercommutator $ab-(-1)^{\tilde{a}\tilde{b}}ba$.
0.75 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
§1. Definitions
0.4 truecm
[**Definition 1.**]{} A [*weak [QLS-]{}algebra*]{} is an algebra $A$ together with a [*subspace of generators*]{} $W\sub A$, $\,e\in W$, satisfying the following conditions. Let $V$ be a hyperplane in $W$ complementary to $k\cdot e$, $\,T(V)$ the tensor algebra, $T_n(V)$ the subspace of elements of degree $\le n$, and $J$ the kernel of the natural projection $T(V)\to A$. It is required that
1\) an algebra $A$ be generated by its subspace $W$;
2\) the ideal $J$ be generated by its subspace $J_2=J\cap T_2(V)$.
(Clearly, this conditon does not depend on the choice of $V$.) In this case, the [*underlying quadratic algebra*]{} $A^{(0)}$ is defined by the generators $V\simeq W/k\cdot e$ and the relations $I=J_2\bmod J_1\sub V\ot V$.
A QLS-[*algebra*]{} is an algebra $A$ together with a filtration $F$: $\,0\sub F_0A\sub F_1A\sub F_2A
\sub\cdots\sub A$, $\,\bigcup F_iA=A$, $\,F_0A=k$, $F_iA\cdot F_jA\sub F_{i+j}A$, such that the associated graded algebra $\Gr_FA$ is quadratic.
A (weak) QLS-algebra $A$ is said to be [*Koszul*]{} if $A^{(0)}$ is a Koszul algebra. The second of our two definitions implies the first one for $W=F_1A$. We shall show in 3.3 that in the Koszul case these definitions are equivalent.
A (weak) QL-[*algebra*]{} is a (weak) QLS-algebra together with an augmentation (a ring homomorphism) $\eps\:A\to k$; let $A_+=\Ker\eps$ denote the augmentation ideal.
A [*morphism of weak [QLS-]{}algebras*]{} is an algebra homomorphism preserving the subspace $W$. A [*morphism of [QLS-]{}algebras*]{} is an algebra homomorphism preserving the filtration. A [*morphism of weak [QL-]{}algebras*]{} is an algebra homomorphism preserving $W$ and the augmentation. This defines the [*category ${\cal WQLS}$ of weak [QLS-]{}algebras*]{} and its full subcategory ${\cal QLS}$, as well as the [*category ${\cal WQL}$ of weak [QL-]{}algebras*]{} and its full subcategory ${\cal QL}$. The [*categories of Koszul*]{} QLS- and QL-[*algebras*]{} are denoted by ${\cal KLS}$ and ${\cal KL}$, respectively.
Now we define the dual objects.
A DG-[*algebra*]{} $B^\bu$ is a graded algebra (with upper indices) together with a derivation $d\:B\to B$ of degree $+1$ $\,$($d(a\cdot b)=d(a)\cdot b+(-1)^{\tilde{a}}a\cdot d(b)$) such that $d^2=0$. A [*morphism of [DG-]{}algebras*]{} is a homomorphism of graded algebras commuting with the derivations. We assume below that $B^i=0$ for $i<0$. A DG-algebra $B^\bu$ is said to be [*quadratic*]{} ([*Koszul*]{}) if the algebra $B$ is quadratic (Koszul). Let ${\cal QDG}$ and ${\cal KDG}$ be the [*categories of quadratic*]{} and [*Koszul [DG-]{}algebras*]{}, respectively.
A CDG-[*algebra*]{} is a triple $\Psi=(B,d,h)$, where $B$ is a graded algebra, $d$ is a derivation of $B$ of degree $+1$, and $h\in B^2$, such that
1\) $d^2=[h,{}\cdot{}]$,
2\) $d(h)=0$.
In the sequel we assume that $B^i=0$ for $i<0$. A CDG-algebra $\Psi$ is called [*quadratic*]{} ([*Koszul*]{}) if the algebra $B$ is quadratic (Koszul).
A [*morphism of*]{} CDG-[*algebras*]{} $\ph\:\Psi\to\Psi'$ is a pair $\ph=(f,\alpha)$, where $f\:B\to B'$ is a homomorphism of graded algebras and $\alpha\in B'{}^1$, satisfying the conditions
1\) $d'f(x)=f(dx)+[\alpha,f(x)]$,
2\) $h'=f(h)+d'\alpha-\alpha^2$.
The [*composition*]{} $(f,\alpha)\circ(g,\beta)$ is the morphism $(f\circ g\;\alpha+f(\beta))$. The [*identity morphism*]{} is $(\id,0)$. This defines the [*category ${\cal CDG}$ of [CDG-]{}algebras*]{} and its full subcategories ${\cal QCDG}$ and ${\cal KCDG}$ [*of quadratic*]{} and [*Koszul [CDG-]{}algebras*]{}, respectively. Two CDG-algebras $\Psi$ and $\Psi'$ are called [*equivalent*]{} if $B=B'$ and there exists a morphism of the form $(\id,\alpha)\:\Psi \to \Psi'$, in other words, if $d'=d+[\alpha,{}\cdot{}]$ and $h'=h+d\alpha+\alpha^2$; in this case we write $\Psi'=\Psi(\alpha)$.
0.75 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
§2. Duality Functor
0.4 truecm
[**2.1.**]{} Let $A$ be a weak QLS-algebra with the space of generators $W\sub A$. Set $B=A^{(0)}{}^!$; we will denote by upper indices the grading on $B$. Choose a hyperplane $V\sub W$ complementary to $k\cdot e$ in $W$; we have $J_2\sub k\oplus V\oplus V\ot V$. Note that $J_2\cap (k\oplus V)=0$ and $J_2\bmod (k\oplus V)=I$. Thus, $J_2$ can be represented as the graph of a linear map $I\to k\oplus V$, which we will denote by $(-h\;-\ph)$, where $h\in I^*\simeq B^2$ and $\ph\:I\to V$. Let $d_1=\ph^*\:B^1\to B^2$; then the relations in the algebra $A$ can be written in the form $$p+\ph(p)+h(p)=0, \quad p\in I\sub V\ot V, \quad \ph=d_1^*.
\eqno{(*)}$$
Tensoring the relation ($*$) by $V$ on the left and on the right, we obtain $$q+\ph_{12}(q)+h_{12}(q) = 0 = q + \ph_{23}(q) + h_{23}(q)
\pmod J$$ for any $q\in V\ot I\cap I\ot V$, whence $-\ph_{12}(q)+\ph_{23}(q)=h_{12}(q)-h_{23}(q)$ $\,({\rm mod}\ J)$. The latter equation implies $$\ph_{12}(q)-\ph_{23}(q)\in I \eqno{(1)}$$ and $$\ph(-\ph_{12}(q)+\ph_{23}(q)) + h(-\ph_{12}(q)+\ph_{23}(q))
+ h_{12}(q)-h_{23}(q) = 0 \pmod J.$$ Since the second summand lies in $k$, while the first and the third one belong to $V$, we have $$\eqalignno{
\ph(\ph_{12}(q)-\ph_{23}(q)) &= h_{12}(q)-h_{23}(q), &(2) \cr
h(\ph_{12}(q)-\ph_{23}(q)) &= 0. &(3) \cr}$$ Dualizing (1), (2), and (3) and taking into account the fact that the operator $d_2=(\ph_{12}-\ph_{23})^*$ continues $d_1$ by the Leibniz rule and that $(h_{12}-h_{23})^*=[h,{}\cdot{}]$, we obtain, respectively, the equations ($\bmod I^\perp\ot B^1 + B^1\ot I^\perp$): $$d_2(I^\perp)=0, \quad d_2\circ d_1=[h,{}\cdot{}], \quad d_2(h)=0.$$ The first equation means that $d_1$ can be extended to $B$; the second and the third one are equivalent to the CDG-algebra axioms.
Suppose that for $\alpha\in B^1=V^*$ we have $V'=\{v+\alpha(v),\ v\in V\}$, and let $\ph$ and $h$ correspond to the complementary hyperplane $V$. Then for any $p\in I\sub V\ot V$ we have $$\eqalign{
0 = p+\ph(p)+h(p)=[p&+\alpha_1(p)+\alpha_2(p)+\alpha\ot\alpha(p)] \cr
&+[\ph(p)-\alpha_1(p)-\alpha_2(p)+
\alpha(\ph(p)-\alpha_1(p)-\alpha_2(p))] \cr
&+[h(p)-\alpha(\ph(p))+\alpha\ot\alpha(p)]. \cr}$$ Thus, the operators $$\ph'=\ph-\alpha_1-\alpha_2, \qquad h'=h-\alpha\circ\ph+\alpha\ot\alpha$$ correspond to the choice of the direct complement $V'$. Dualizing and using the fact that $(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)^*=[\alpha,{}\cdot{}]$ and $\alpha\circ\ph=d(\alpha)$, we obtain $d'_1=d_1-[\alpha,{}\cdot{}]$ and $h'=h-d(\alpha)+\alpha^2$.
To define the functor on objects, choose the subspace $V$ arbitrarily for every weak QLS-algebra. The natural isomorphism $$\{f\in\Hom(k\oplus V\;k\oplus V'):f|_k=\id\}\simeq
\Hom(V,V')\oplus V^*,$$ together with Proposition 2.3, allows to define it on morphisms. It is obviously fully faithful.
Let $A$ be a weak QL-algebra with the augmentation ideal $A_+$. Set $V=A_+\cap F_1$. Then it is easy to see that $h=0$, and we obtain a DG-algebra $(B,d)$.
Conversely, let $\Psi$ be a quadratic CDG-algebra. Set $V=B_1^*$, $\,I=B_2^*\rightarrowtail V\ot V$, let $A=A(\Psi)$ be the algebra with generators from $V$ and relations ($*$), let $W$ be the image of $k\oplus V$ in $A$, and put $F_nA=W^n$. It is easy to see that if $(A(\Psi),W)$ is a weak QLS-algebra and $A^{(0)}{}^!\simeq B$, then $\D(A,W)=\Psi$.
1. Let $\g$ be a Lie algebra. Then the enveloping algebra $U\g$ is a QL-algebra, and any QL-algebra $A$ for which $\Gr_FA$ is a symmetric algebra can be obtained in this way. The dual DG-algebra $(\Lambda\!{}^\bu\g^*,d)$ is the standard cohomological complex of the Lie algebra $\g$. The QLS-algebras $A$ for which $\Gr_FA$ is a symmetric algebra correspond to central extensions of Lie algebras: the algebra $A=U\widetilde{\g}/(1-c)$ is assigned to a central extension $0\to k\cdot c\to\widetilde{\g}\to\g\to0$. The dual object is $\Psi=(\Lambda\!{}^\bu\g^*,d,h)$, where $h$ is the cocycle of the central extension.
2. The Clifford algebra $\{vw+wv=Q(v,w),\ v,\,w\in V\}$ is a QLS-algebra, and all QLS-algebras with $\Gr_FA=\Lambda\!{}^\bu V$ are Clifford algebras. The dual object is $\Psi=(S^\bu V,0,Q)$. All QL-algebras with $\Gr_FA=\Lambda\!{}^\bu V$ have the form $\{vw+wv=\lambda(v)w+\lambda(w)v\}$, $\,\lambda\in V^*$.
3\. Let $A=k\oplus A_+$ be a (finite-dimensional) augmented algebra. Let us endow $A$ with the structure of a QL-algebra by setting $F_iA=A$ for $i\ge1$. Then the dual DG-algebra is the reduced cobar-construction for $A$, $\,\D(A,F)=\C^\bu(A)=\sum^\oplus A_+^{*\ot n}$.
Under the quadratic duality, commutative algebras correspond to universal enveloping algebras of Lie algebras. In particular, we have
a) a duality between commutative QLS-algebras and quadratic Lie CDG-algebras, and
b) a duality between Lie QL-algebras and supercommutative quadratic DG-algebras.
0.75 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
§3. Bar Construction
0.4 truecm
[**3.1. Bar-complex for CDG-algebras.**]{} The following construction is due to A. E. Polishchuk. Let $\Psi=(B,d,h)$ be a CDG-algebra, $B_i=0$ for $i<0$, $\,B_0=k$. Put $\B(\Psi)=\sum^{\oplus\,\infty}_{n=0}B_+^{\ot n}$, where $B_+=\sum_{i=1}^\infty B_i$, and, denoting by $(b_1\mid b_2\mid\ldots\mid b_n)$ the element $b_1\ot b_2\ot\cdots\ot b_n\in\B(\Psi)$, endow $\B(\Psi)$ with a coalgebra structure: $$\Delta(b_1\mid b_2\mid\ldots\mid b_n) =
\sum_{k=0}^n(b_1\mid\ldots\mid b_k)\ot (b_{k+1}\mid\ldots\mid b_n).$$ There are two gradings on $\B(\Psi)$, namely, the internal and the homological ones: $$\deg_i(b_{i_1}\mid b_{i_2}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}) = i_1+i_2+\cdots+i_n,
\qquad \deg_h(b_{i_1}\mid b_{i_2}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}) = n$$ for $b_{i_j}\in B_{i_j}$; set $\B^k=\{b: \deg_ib-\deg_hb=k\}$. Let us define the differentials $\d$, $d$, and $\delta$ on $\B^\bu$ (of bidegrees $(0\;-1)$, $(1,0)$, and $(2,1)$, respectively) by the formulas $$\eqalign{
\d(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}) &=
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{i_1+\ldots+i_k+k-1}
(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_k}b_{i_{k+1}}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}), \cr
d(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}) &=
\sum_{k=1}^n (-1)^{i_1+\ldots+i_{k-1}+k-1}
(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid d(b_{i_k})\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}), \cr
\delta(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}) &=
\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} (-1)^{i_1+\ldots+i_{k-1}+k-1}
(b_{i_1}\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_{k-1}}\mid h\mid b_{i_k}
\mid\ldots\mid b_{i_n}). \cr}$$ It is straightforward to check that $\d$, $d$, and $\delta$ are superderivations of the coalgebra $\B$ and $(d+\d+\delta)^2=0$. Let $(\C_\bu(\Psi),D)$ be the dual DG-algebra to the DG-coalgebra $\B^\bu(\Psi)$: $$\C_\bu(\Psi)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\!{}^{{}^{\scriptstyle\oplus}}
\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^\infty\!{}^{{}^{\scriptstyle\oplus}}B_i^*\bigg)
^{\ot n}, \qquad D=(\d+d+\delta)^*.$$
The [*bar-cohomology algebra*]{} of a CDG-algebra $\Psi$ is the homology algebra of the DG-algebra $\C_\bu(\Psi)$, $H_\bu^b(\Psi)=H_\bu(\C(\Psi),D)$.
(Löfwall’s subalgebra theorem). [*If $\Psi$ is quadratic, then $H^b_0(\Psi)$ is isomorphic to the algebra $A(\Psi)$ constructed in [2.6.]{} The filtration $F_n=F_1^n$ on $A$ is induced by the $\deg_i$-filtration of the cobar-complex $\C_\bu(\Psi)$.*]{}
The proof is immediate.
[**Corollary.**]{} [*If $A$ is a weak [QLS-]{}algebra, then $H^b_0(\D(A))=A$.*]{}
(We shall see that the Koszul condition can be weakened to the requirement that $\Ext^i_B(k,k)_{i+1}=0$ for all $i$, or, equivalently $\Ext^3_{B^!}(k,k)=0$ for $i\ge4$.) There is a spectral sequence $E^1_{p,q}=\Ext_B^{-q}(k,k)_p
\Rightarrow H^b_{p+q}(\Psi)$ induced by the $\deg_i$-filtration on $\C_\bu(\Psi)$. Since $B$ is Koszul, we have $E^1_{p,q}=0$ for $p+q\ne0$, and $E^r_{p,q}$ degenerates at the term $E^1$. Therefore, $\Gr H^b_\bu(B,d,h)=\Ext_B(k,k)=B^!$.
Apply Subsection 2.6, the proof of the theorem, and the fact that the algebras $B$ and $B^!$ are Koszul simultaneously.
Without the Koszul condition the statement of Theorem 3.3 fails. A counterexample \[6\]: the relations $$xy=x+y, \quad x^2+yz=z$$ imply $yz=zy$, although they have the form ($*$) for a certain DG-algebra.
0.75 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
0=1=§4. An Example: $D$-$\Omega$-Duality
0.4 truecm
Strictly speaking, these examples do not keep within our scheme, and we shall only show that they are similar to it (however, the scheme can be extended to include them).
Let $M$ be a smooth manifold, $\O(M)$ the ring of smooth functions on $M$, $\,\E$ a vector bundle on $M$, $\,D(M,\E)$ the ring of differential operators in $\E$, and $F_nD(M,\E)$ the subspace of operators of degree at most $n$. The equation $$\Gr_F D(M,\E)=\End\E\ot_{\O(M)}S^*_{\O(M)}(\Vect(M))$$ allows us to consider $\Gr_FD(M,\E)$ as a “quadratic algebra over $\End\E$” and $D(M,\E)$ as a QLS-algebra; then $\Gr_FD(M,\E)^!=\Omega^*(M\;\END\E)$ is the algebra of differential forms on $M$ with coefficients in $\END\E$.
In order to construct a direct complement $V$ to $\End\E$ in $F_1D(M,\E)$, we choose a connection $\nabla$ on $\E$, define an embedding $$i\:\End\E\ot\Vect M\to F_1D(M,\E),
\qquad i(a\ot v)=a\circ \nabla_v,$$ and put $V=\Im i$. It is easy to see that all left $\End\E$-invariant direct complements to $\End\E$ in $F_1D(M,\E)$ can be obtained in this way.
Let $d^\nabla$ be the de Rham differential on $\Omega^*(M\;\END\E)$ defined by means of the connection on $\END\E$ induced by $\nabla$, and let $h^\nabla\in\Omega^*(M\;\END\E)$ be the curvature of the connection $\nabla$. Comparing the relation $$\nabla_X\nabla_Y - \nabla_Y\nabla_X =
\nabla_{[X,Y]} + h^\nabla(X,Y)$$ with the formula ($*$) and taking into account the relationship between $[{}\cdot{},{}\cdot{}]$ and $d_1$, we conclude that $\D(D(M,\E)^\opp\;F) = (\Omega^*(M\;\END\E)\;d^\nabla,h^\nabla)$.
Let $M$ be a manifold, $G$ a Lie group, $P$ a (right) principal $G$-bundle over $M$, and $\pi\:P\to M$ the corresponding projection. Let $\g_p$ be the bundle of Lie algebras over $M$ associated with $P$ by means of the adjoint representation of $G$ (in other words, the sections of $\g_p$ are $G$-equivariant vector fields on $P$), and let $\U_p$ be the corresponding bundle of enveloping algebras.
The [*ring of differential operators on a principal $G$-bundle*]{} is the ring of $G$-equivariant differential operators on its total space, $D(M,P)=D(P)^G$. The filtration $F$ “by the order along the base” on $D(M,P)$ is defined as follows: $$F_nD(M,P) = \{D\in D(M,P): \ad^{n+1}(\pi^*f)(D)=0
\ \forall f\in\O(M)\}.$$
$\Gr_FD(M,P)\simeq\U_p\ot_{\O(M)}S^*_{\O(M)}(\Vect(M))$.
First one has to show that $F_0D(M,P)\simeq\Gamma(\U_p)$. Then the isomorphism is defined using the highest symbol operator $$\sigma_n\: F_nD(M,P)\to \Gamma(M\;\U_p\ot S^nT(M)),$$ $\sigma_n(D)(\xi)=\ad^n(\pi^*f)(D)_m\in\U_{p,\.m}$ for $m\in M$, $\,\xi\in T^*_m(M)$, $\,f\in\O(M)$, and $d_mf=\xi$.
Let us choose a connection $\nabla$ on the principal $G$-bundle $P$ and construct a direct complement $V$ to $F_0D(M,P)$ in $F_1D(M,P)$ as follows: $V=\langle u\cdot H_\nabla(v), \ u\in\Gamma(\U_p), \
v\in\Vect(M)\rangle$, where $H_\nabla(v)$ is the horizontal (with respect to $\nabla$) lifting of the vector $v$ to $P$.
Then $\D_{\rm QLS}(D(M,P)\;F) = (\Omega^*(M,\U_p)\;d^\nabla\;h^\nabla)$, where $d^\nabla$ is defined by means of the connection $\nabla^u$ on $\U_p$ associated with $\nabla$, and $h^\nabla\in
\Omega^2(M,\g_p)\subset\Omega^2(M,\U_p)$ is the curvature of $\nabla$.
0.75 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
§5. Characteristic Classes
0.4 truecm
In this section we suppose that the characteristic of the ground field is equal to $0$.
Let $\Psi_0=(B,\delta_0,h_0)$ be a CDG-algebra, $[B,B]$ be the linear subspace generated by the supercommutators in $B$, $\,C=B/[B,B]$, and $T\:B\to C$ be the projection. It is clear from the Leibniz identity that the operator $\delta_C$ on $C$ induced by $\delta_0$ is well-defined. Notice that $\delta_C^2=0$ and $\delta_C$ does not change when a CDG-algebra $\Psi$ is replaced by an equivalent one. We put $h(\alpha) = h_0 + \delta_0\alpha + \alpha^2$ and $\delta(\alpha) = \delta_0 + [\alpha,{}\cdot{}]$ for any $\alpha\in B^1$.
We put $\omega_n^{(i)}=\sum (d\alpha)^i h^{n-i}$, where $d\alpha$ is the tautological $1$-form on $B^1$ with values in $B^1$ and $\sum$ denotes the summation over all rearrangements of the factors. Verification is based on the identities $\delta(h)=0$, $\,dh=\delta\,d\alpha$.
Set $c_n=T(h_0^n)\in C^{2n}$. The [*Chern classes*]{} are the cohomology classes of the elements $c_n$.
a) $\delta_C(c_n)=0$.
b) The cohomology class of $c_n$ does not change when a CDG-algebra $\Psi$ is replaced by an equivalent one.
a) Moreover, $\delta_0(h_0^n)=0$.
b) follows from the equation $d(h^n)=\delta(\omega_n^{(1)})$.
In characteristic $p$ the theorem remains true for $2n<p$.
If $\Psi_0=(\Omega^*(M,\END\E)\;d^\nabla\;h^\nabla)$, then $C^\bu=\Omega^\bu(M)$, the map $T$ is the (matrix) trace, and we obtain the usual Chern classes.
Let $A$ be a graded algebra generated by its graded vector subspace $W$. Then $[A,A]=[W,A]$.
Proceed by induction using the identity $$[ab,c] = [a,bc] + (-1)^{(\tilde b+\tilde c)\tilde a}[b,ca]. \mathqed$$
Let $\g$ be a Lie algebra. Then $$(U\g/[U\g,U\g])\simeq (S^\bu\g)_\g.$$
The map $S^\bu\g\to U\g$, $\,x^n\mapsto x^n$, is an isomorphism of $\g$-modules, and $U\g/[U\g,U\g]\simeq (U\g)_\g$ by the lemma.
$$(S^\bu\g^*)^\g\times(S^\bu\g)_\g\to \Bbb R.$$
a) If $A$ is a supercommutative algebra, then $$A\ot B/[A\ot B,A\ot B] = A\ot B/[B,B].$$
b\) The adjoint action of $G$ is trivial in $\U_p/[\U_p,\U_p]$.
c\) follows from the definition of the isomorphism in Proposition 5.5.1.
The [*category $\C2$ of two-term complexes*]{} is defined as follows. Its [*objects*]{} are pairs $(C;c)$, where $C=(\delta\:C_1\to C_0)$ is a morphism of vector spaces and $c\in C_0$. [*Morphisms*]{} from $(C;c)$ to $(C',c')$ are pairs $(f;c_1')$, where $f=(f_0,f_1)$, $\,f_i\:C_i\to C_i'$ is a pair of morphisms forming a commutative square with $\delta$ and $\delta'$, and $c_1'\in C_1'$ is an element for which $c'-f_0(c) = \delta'c'_1$. The [*composition of morphisms*]{} is defined by the formula $(f,c_1'')\circ(g,c_1')=(f\circ g\;c_1''+f(c_1'))$.
The [*Chern–Simons functor*]{} $CS_n\:{\cal CDG}\to \C2$ is constructed as follows. On objects: $$CS_n(\Psi) = (\delta_C\: C^{2n-1}/\delta_C C^{2n-2}\to
C^{2n}\cap\Ker\delta_C;\mskip\thickmuskip c_n),$$ where $c_n=T(h_0^n)$. On morphisms: $$CS_n(f,\alpha) = (f_*,c_n^{(1)}),
\qquad c_n^{(1)}=c_n^{(1)}(f,\alpha)=\int_\gamma\omega_n^{(1)},$$ where $f\:\Psi\to\Psi'$, $\,\omega_n^{(1)}$ is the $1$-form corresponding to the algebra $\Psi'(-\alpha)$, and $\gamma$ is a smooth path in $B'{}^1$ joining the points $0$ and $\alpha$.
Let $E=(E,\d)$ be a DG-algebra, and let $\phi\:\Psi\to E$ be a morphism of CDG-algebras. Then $c_n^{(1)}(\phi)\in E^{2n-1}/([E,E]+\d E)$, $\,\d c_n^{(1)}
= -f_*(c_n)$, and when the algebra $\Psi$ is replaced by an equivalent one the chain $c_n^{(1)}$ changes by an element from $f(B^{2n-1})$. Thus, the class $$c_n^{(1)}\in E^{2n-1}/(f(B)+[E,E]+\d E)$$ is an invariant of the morphism $\phi$.
Let $P$ be a principal $G$-bundle over $M$. When $\Psi=(\Omega^*(M,\U_p)\;d^\nabla\;h^\nabla)$, $\,(E,\d)=(\Omega^*(P,U\g)\;d)$, $\,f=\pi^*$, and $\alpha$ is the connection form, one obtains the usual Chern–Simons classes.
[*Corrections made twenty years later:*]{}
1\. The Chern classes of 5.4 are more precisely described as the components of the Chern character (up to factorial factors). In other words, they correspond to power sums of symmetric variables rather than to the elementary symmetric polynomials.
2\. Proposition 5.5.2(b) only holds as stated when the Lie group $G$ is connected. One has to make a separated consideration of invaritant polynomials for nonconnected Lie groups in this case.
[*Notes added twenty years later:*]{}
1\. The “extended scheme including the examples” promised in §4 was indeed worked out (even if not in the most detailed or easily accessible form) in the auxiliary material to the author’s monograph “Homological algebra of semimodules: Semi-infinite homological algebra of associative algebraic structures”, Sections 0.4.3–0.4.4 and 11.5–11.6.
2\. The most important aspect of the CDG-ring theory that was overlooked in the original 1992-93 paper is that CDG-rings actually form a [*$2$-category*]{} rather than just a 1-category. While CDG-rings themselves describe the curvatures and their 1-morphisms are responsible for changing connections, the 2-morphisms correpond to the [*gauge transformations*]{}.
Let $\Psi=(B,d,h)$ and $\Psi'=(B',d',h')$ be two CDG-algebras, and let $(f,\alpha)\:\Psi\to\Psi'$ and $(g,\beta)\:\Psi\to\Psi'$ be two CDG-morphisms between them. A [*$2$-morphism*]{} $(f,\alpha)\to(g,\beta)$ is an invertible element of degree zero $z\in B'{}^0$ satisfying the conditions
1\) $g(x) = zf(x)z^{-1}$ for all $x\in B$,
2\) $\beta = z\alpha z^{-1} + d'(z)z^{-1}$.
If a pair $(f,\alpha)$ is a morphism of CDG-algebras and $z$ is an invertible element in $B'{}^0$, then the pair $(g,\beta)$ defined by the above formulas is also a morphism of CDG-algebras. Notice the difference between DG- and CDG-morphisms: while invertible cocycles of degree zero act by adjunctions on DG-morphisms, invertible cochains of degree zero act by adjunction on CDG-morphisms.
The 2-category structure on CDG-rings may be possibly used to defined (quasi-coherent) stacks of CDG-algebras, extending the definitions of quasi-coherent sheaves of CDG-algebras given in Appendix B.1 to the author’s memoir “Two kinds of derived cagegories, Koszul duality, and comodule-contramodule correspondence” and Section 1.2 to the preprint “Cohenent analogoues of matrix factorizations and relative singularity categories”. Under the $D$-$\Omega$ duality, these would correspond to a certain kind of twisted differential operators (e.g., in the étale or analytic topology).
Finding a 2-category version of the Chern–Simons functor construction of Subsection 5.6 would be also interesting.
0.9 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
References
0.3 truecm
=0.9=0.9=0.9
\[1\] S. Priddy. [Koszul resolutions.]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [152]{}, \#1, p. 39–60, 1970.
\[2\] A. A. Beilinson, V. A. Ginzburg, V. V. Schechtman. [Koszul duality.]{} Journ. Geometry and Physics [5]{}, \#3, 317–350, 1988.
\[3\] C. Löfwall. [On the subalgebra generated by one-dimensional elements in the Yoneda Ext-algebra.]{} Lecture Notes in Math. [1183]{}, p. 291–338, 1986.
\[4\] M. M. Kapranov. [On DG-modules over the de Rham complex and the vanishing cycles functor.]{} Lecture Notes in Math. [1479]{}, p. 57–86, 1991.
\[5\] S.-S. Chern, J. Simons. [Characteristic forms and geometric invariants.]{} Annals of Math. (2) [99]{}, \#1, p. 48–69, 1974.
\[6\] A. E. Polishchuk, L. E. Positselski. [Quadratic algebras]{}, to appear.
\[7\] S. MacLane. [Homology]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1963.
\[8\] J. W. Milnor, J. D. Stasheff. [Characteristic Classes.]{} Annals of Math. Studies, 76, Princeton University Press, University of Tokyo Press, 1974.
\[9\] J.-P. Serre. [Lie Algebras and Lie Groups.]{} Benjamin, New York–Amsterdam, 1965.
\[10\] F. A. Beresin, V. S. Retakh. [A method of computing characteristic classes of vector bundles.]{} Reports on Math. Physics [18]{}, \#3, p. 363–378, 1980.
0.7 truecm plus 0.1 truecm
[Moscow State University 1992–93]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Albert Atserias\
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya\
- |
Joanna Ochremiak\
Université Paris Diderot\
bibliography:
- 'bibfileforthis.bib'
title: |
**Definable Ellipsoid Method,\
Sums-of-Squares Proofs, and\
the Isomorphism Problem**
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study theoretically how electrons, coherently injected at one point on the boundary of a two-dimensional electron system, are focused by a perpendicular magnetic field $B$ onto another point on the boundary. Using the non-equilibrium Green’s function approach, we calculate the generalized 4-point Hall resistance $R_{xy}$ as a function of $B$. In weak fields, $R_{xy}$ shows the characteristic equidistant peaks observed in the experiment and explained by classical cyclotron motion along the boundary. In strong fields, $R_{xy}$ shows a single extended plateau reflecting the quantum Hall effect. In intermediate fields, we find superimposed upon the lower Hall plateaus anomalous oscillations, which are neither periodic in $1/B$ (quantum Hall effect) nor in $B$ (classical cyclotron motion). The oscillations are explained by the interference between the occupied edge channels, which causes beatings in $R_{xy}$. In the case of two occupied edge channels, these beatings constitute a new commensurability between the magnetic flux enclosed within the edge channels and the flux quantum. Introducing decoherence and a partially specular boundary shows that this new effect is quite robust.'
author:
- Thomas Stegmann
- 'Dietrich E. Wolf'
- Axel Lorke
date: 'February 25, 2013'
title: |
Magnetotransport along a boundary:\
From coherent electron focusing to edge channel transport
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
When electrons are injected coherently at one point on the boundary of a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG), they can be focused by a perpendicular magnetic field $B$ onto another point of that boundary. [@Tsoi1999] In the classical regime, resonances are observed when a multiple of the cyclotron diameter equals the distance between the injecting and collecting point contacts. For large Fermi wavelength and long phase coherence length additional interference effects are observed. This regime of *coherent electron focusing* has been studied for the first time by van Houten et al.[@Houten1989] Recently, the effects of disorder[@Maryenko2012] and spin-orbit interaction[@Usaj2004; @Rokhinson2004; @Dedigama2006; @Reynoso2008; @Kormanyos2010] were studied. It was also suggested to investigate the structure of graphene edges by coherent electron focusing.[@Rakyta2010] Moreover, a 2DEG in a strong magnetic field shows the quantum Hall effect, which is explained by the transport through *edge channels* straight along the boundary of the system.[@Datta1997]
Here, we study theoretically the properties of the focusing experiment emerging at the transition from the classical cyclotron motion to the quantum Hall edge channel transport. Using the non-equilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) approach,[@Datta1997; @Datta2005; @Datta2012] we calculate the generalized 4-point Hall resistance $R_{xy}$ as a function of a perpendicular magnetic field $B$. In weak magnetic fields, the focusing spectrum shows equidistant peaks (see [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}), which can be explained by classical cyclotron orbits. In strong magnetic fields, the typical fingerprint of the quantum Hall effect can be observed, i.e. an extended Hall plateau with $R_{xy}=h/2e^2$. Additionally and somewhat unexpectedly, in intermediate fields, instead of lower Hall plateaus we find oscillations, which are neither periodic in $1/B$ (quantum Hall effect) nor periodic in $B$ (classical cyclotron motion). These oscillations can be explained by the interference of the occupied edge channels causing beatings in $R_{xy}$.
![(Color online) The Hall resistance $R_{xy}=\frac{\mu_{P_1}-\mu_{P_2}}{eI_{SD}}$ as a function of a magnetic field $B$ for the system sketched in the inset. In weak fields, $R_{xy}$ shows equidistant focusing peaks indicated by dashed vertical lines, when a multiple of the cyclotron diameter equals ${\Delta}x$. In intermediate fields, anomalous oscillations appear, which are neither periodic in $1/B$ nor in $B$. A single Hall plateau is found in large fields, whereas lower Hall plateaus can only by seen when specular reflections are suppressed by an absorbing diffusive wall between $S$ and $P_1$.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig_1.pdf)
System {#sec:System}
======
We consider a GaAs-AlGaAs heterojunction, where a 2DEG is formed at the interface of the two semiconductors. The 2DEG is described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:1}
H_{\text{2DEG}}= \frac{{\ensuremath{\left( {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{p}}}-e{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{A}}} \right)}}^2}{2m},$$ where $m=0.07m_e$ is the effective mass of the electrons, and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{A}}}=By{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{e}}}_x$ is the vector potential of a homogeneous magnetic field ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{B}}}= -B {\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{e}}}_z$, which is perpendicular to the 2DEG, see the inset of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}. The Hamiltonian is approximated by finite differences[@Gagel1995] $$\label{eq:2}
H_{\text{2DEG}}^{\text{FDA}} =\sum_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i,{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_j} t e^{{\mathrm{i}}\pi \frac{eB}{h} {\ensuremath{\left( x_j-x_i \right)}}
{\ensuremath{\left( y_j+y_i \right)}}} \ket{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i}\bra{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_j},$$ where the sum is over nearest neighbors in a square lattice of sites at a distance $a=5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}}$, and $t=\frac{\hbar^2}{2ma^2}\approx 21.8{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{meV}}}$. This approximation is valid when the magnetic flux through a unit cell $Ba^2$ is much smaller then a flux quantum $h/e$. We assume that experimentally, the influence of the temperature is negligible and thus, we set the temperature to $T=0{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{K}}}$. For simplicity, we also assume that the spin splitting is not resolved.[^1]
The system size is $800 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}} \times 500 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}}$. Metallic contact regions are attached at the boundaries of the system, separated by a distance ${\Delta}x= 500{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}}$, see the inset of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}. The chemical potential is set to $\mu=0.5t \approx 10.9 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{meV}}}$, corresponding to the carrier density $n_{\text{2D}}\approx 3.3
\cdot 10^{11} {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{cm}}}^{-2}$. The chemical potential of the voltage probes $\mu_{P_i}$ is calculated by assuming an infinitesimal bias voltage between $S$ and $D$, and by using the constraint that voltage measurements are done without a current flow through the voltage probes. The voltage between $P_1$ and $P_2$ divided by the current between $S$ and $D$ gives the generalized 4-point Hall resistance[@Houten1989] $R_{xy}=\frac{\mu_{P_1}-\mu_{P_2}}{eI_{SD}}$. Details of the NEGF calculation of the current and the chemical potential can be found in the following section.
Details of the calculations {#sec:DetailsCalculations}
---------------------------
Following the NEGF approach, as described in detail by Datta, [@Datta1997; @Datta2005; @Datta2012] the transmission from the $j$th to the $i$th contact is given by $$\label{eq:3}
T_{ij}= 4{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Tr}\left({\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im} \left({\Gamma}_i\right)}}G{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im} \left({\Gamma}_j\right)}}G^+\right)}},$$ where the Green’s function is defined as $$\label{eq:4}
G= \Big[E-H-\textstyle{\sum_{k=1}^{N_c} {\Gamma}_k} \Big]^{-1}.$$ The influence of each of the $N_c$ contacts is taken into account by an imaginary self-energy $$\label{eq:5}
{\Gamma}_k= -{\mathrm{i}}\eta \sum_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i} \ket{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i}\bra{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i}$$ with the broadening constant $\eta= 1.25t\approx 27.25{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{meV}}}$, representing metallic contact regions. The sum is over all sites which are coupled to the same contact $k$.
The total current at the $i$th contact is calculated by the Landauer-Büttiker formula in its linear response approximation $$\label{eq:6}
I_i= \frac{2e}{h} \sum_j T_{ij} {\ensuremath{\left( \mu_j-\mu_i \right)}},$$ and the generalized Hall resistance in units of $h/2e^2$ is given by $$\label{eq:7}
R_{xy}= \frac{\sum_j {\ensuremath{\left( \mathcal{T}_{P_1j}-\mathcal{T}_{P_2j} \right)}}T_{jS}}{T_{DS} +\sum_{ij}T_{Di}\mathcal{T}_{ij}T_{jS}},$$ where $$\label{eq:8}
\mathcal{T}^{\,-1}_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
-T_{ij} & i \neq j,\\
\sum_{k \neq i} T_{ik} & i = j.
\end{cases}$$ The sums in [(\[eq:7\])]{} are over the contacts with unknown chemical potential, whereas the sum in [(\[eq:8\])]{} is over all contacts including source and drain.
Finite system size effects, such as standing waves between the boundaries of the system, would distort the focusing spectrum strongly. Therefore, we introduce additional virtual contacts at those boundaries, which are not essential for the focusing experiment, see the gray sites in the inset of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}. Mathematically these virtual contacts can be considered as additional voltage probes with a chemical potential given by the current conservation constraint. By randomizing the electron phase and momentum,[@Zilly2009; @Stegmann2012] such *diffusive walls* mimic an open system and thus, suppress the standing waves. They also greatly reduce spurious focusing peaks arising from reflections at these boundaries.
The local current of electrons, which originate from the source with energy $\mu$ and which flow from the site ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_j$ to the neighboring site ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i$, is given by[@Caroli1971; @Cresti2003] $$\label{eq:9}
I_{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_i{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{r}}}_j}= \frac{2e}{\hbar} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im} \left(h_{ji}^*A_{ji}^S\right)}},$$ where the $h_{ij}$ are the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:2\])]{}. The spectral function for electrons from the source is defined as $$\label{eq:10}
A^S= -\frac{2}{\pi}G{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Im} \left({\Gamma}_S\right)}}G^+.$$ The diagonal elements of the spectral function give the local density of states (LDOS), which is accessible to these electrons.
Properties of the system {#sec:Properties}
========================
The calculated focusing spectrum, i.e. the generalized Hall resistance $R_{xy}$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$ is shown in [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}. In low magnetic fields, equidistant peaks at $$\label{eq:11}
B_n= \frac{\sqrt{8m\mu}}{e {\Delta}x} n, \qquad n= 1,2,3\hdots,$$ are found (vertical dashed lines). As sketched in the inset, electrons injected by the source $S$ are guided on cyclotron orbits and end in $P_1$ after $n-1$ reflections at the wall in between, when a multiple of the cyclotron diameter equals the distance ${\Delta}x$. These cyclotron orbits can be clearly seen in [Fig. \[fig:2\]]{}, which shows the local current and the LDOS of electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$.
![(Color online) The local current (arrows) and the LDOS (shading) of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The cyclotron orbits can be clearly seen. Also caustics are evident, which are caused by the interference of the electrons injected with a broad distribution of angles. Note that at $B=
1.08{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ and $B= 0.72{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig_2c.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) The local current (arrows) and the LDOS (shading) of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The cyclotron orbits can be clearly seen. Also caustics are evident, which are caused by the interference of the electrons injected with a broad distribution of angles. Note that at $B=
1.08{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ and $B= 0.72{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig_2b.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) The local current (arrows) and the LDOS (shading) of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The cyclotron orbits can be clearly seen. Also caustics are evident, which are caused by the interference of the electrons injected with a broad distribution of angles. Note that at $B=
1.08{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ and $B= 0.72{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:2"}](fig_2a.pdf "fig:")
When a diffusive wall is introduced also in between $S$ and $P_1$, the higher focusing peaks are strongly suppressed, and the extended plateaus of the quantum Hall effect appear, see the dashed curve in [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}. The Hall resistance is then given by the inverse number of occupied edge channels, which in turn equals the number of occupied Landau levels. Whenever a Landau level is pushed above the Fermi energy by an increasing magnetic field, an edge channel vanishes and a step in the resistance can be observed. [^2]
Because of the coherent injection of electrons with a broad distribution of angles, the local current shows caustics and the focusing spectrum a fine structure. Both effects can be observed experimentally.[@Aidala2007; @Houten1989] The caustics and the fine structure can be suppressed, if the distribution of the injection angles is narrowed by reducing the distance of the injector to the left diffusive wall, see the focusing spectrum and the local current in [Fig. \[fig:3\]]{}.
![(Color online) Focusing spectrum and local current, when the distribution of the electron injection angles is narrowed by reducing the distance of the injector to the left absorbing wall. Fine structure and caustics are suppressed.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig_3a.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) Focusing spectrum and local current, when the distribution of the electron injection angles is narrowed by reducing the distance of the injector to the left absorbing wall. Fine structure and caustics are suppressed.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig_3b.pdf)
![(Color online) Focusing spectrum and local current, when the distribution of the electron injection angles is narrowed by reducing the distance of the injector to the left absorbing wall. Fine structure and caustics are suppressed.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig_3d.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) Focusing spectrum and local current, when the distribution of the electron injection angles is narrowed by reducing the distance of the injector to the left absorbing wall. Fine structure and caustics are suppressed.[]{data-label="fig:3"}](fig_3c.pdf "fig:")
As expected, [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{} shows that the focusing peaks cannot be observed when the direction of the magnetic field is reversed. The single peak at a low magnetic field is an artifact, which arises when the cyclotron diameter equals the distance between $S$ and $P_2$.
Anomalous properties of the focusing spectrum {#sec:AnomalousProperties}
---------------------------------------------
When the strength of the magnetic field is further increased ($B>2{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$), we observe an additional set of resistance oscillations, which cannot be explained by classical trajectories. The frequency of these oscillations increases rapidly whenever a Landau level is pushed towards the Fermi energy and a transition between Hall plateaus appears (compare solid and dashed curves in [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{}). Moreover, when only two edge channels are occupied ($2.7{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}<B<4.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$), the oscillations become very clear and regular. Finally, the oscillations vanish completely, when only a single edge channel is occupied ($B>4.5{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$), and the typical Hall plateau $R_{xy}=1$ can be observed.
This suggests that these oscillations are an interference phenomenon between the occupied edge channels as explained in the following. We start by solving the stationary Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:1\])]{} and an infinite potential wall along the $x$-axis. The Hamiltonian can be rewritten as a harmonic oscillator, which is shifted by $y_k=\ell^2 k$ with $\ell^2= \frac{\hbar}{eB}$ and thus, the edge channels are given by[@Datta1997] $$\label{eq:12}
\psi_{k,\nu}(x,y)= c_{k,\nu} \, e^{i k x} e^{-\frac{1}{2}{\ensuremath{\left( y-y_k \right)}}^2/\ell^2} H_{\nu}\Bigl(\frac{y-y_k}{\ell}\Bigr),$$ where $c_{k,\nu}$ is a normalization constant. Note that the momentum of the plane wave $e^{ikx}$ parallel to the infinite wall determines the apex $y_k$ of the parabola. The $H_\nu$ are the Hermite polynoms with index $\nu$, which is here in general *non-integer* and which is determined numerically by the hard-wall condition $\psi_{k,\nu}(x,0)=0$.
The [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{} shows the resulting eigenenergy spectrum $$\label{eq:13}
E_{\nu}(k)= \hbar {\omega}_c {\ensuremath{\left( \nu(k)+1/2 \right)}},$$ with the cyclotron frequency ${\omega}_c=eB/m$. For sufficiently large $k$, the influence of the infinite wall is negligible and we observe the equidistant Landau levels for integer values of $\nu$. However, the energy bands are bent upwards, when the apex of the parabola approaches the wall. We numerically calculate the $k_n$, which agree with a given Fermi energy and a given magnetic field, see the marked intersection points in [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{}. The total number of the $k_n$ gives the number of occupied edge channels.
![(Color online) Eigenenergy spectrum [(\[eq:13\])]{} of a 2DEG bounded by an infinite potential wall at $y=0$. The solid curves give the first four energy bands at $B= 1.3{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ while the dashed and the dotted curves give the fourth energy band at $B=1.8{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ and $B=2.3{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$, respectively. The dots indicate the $k_n$ at the Fermi energy $\mu=0.5 t$. The arrow points out the increase of $k_4$, when the corresponding Landau level approaches $\mu$. The inset shows the $k_n$ as a function of $B$.[]{data-label="fig:4"}](fig_4.pdf)
We consider only the plane wave contribution in [(\[eq:12\])]{}, which propagates along the infinite wall, and calculate the superposition of the different $k_n$ with equal weights. The normalized probability density evaluated at the position of the collector shows remarkable agreement with the NEGF calculation of the focusing spectrum, see the [Fig. \[fig:5\]]{}. Thus, the focusing peaks in low magnetic fields, which correspond to classical trajectories, can also be explained by the interference of multiple edge channels.[@Houten1989; @Beenakker1991] Moreover, this explanation of the focusing spectrum is valid for every strength of the magnetic field and allows to understand the anomalous peaks.
![(Color online) Normalized probability density calculated by a superposition of plane waves with the $k_n$, evaluated at the position of the collector $x_{P_1}$ (solid curve). A remarkable agreement with the NEGF calculation of [Fig. \[fig:1\]]{} (dashed curve) can be observed.[]{data-label="fig:5"}](fig_5.pdf)
In intermediate fields, the current is carried by only a few edge channels and the focusing spectrum shows beatings due to the superposition of plane waves. In particular, when only two edge channels are occupied, only two plane waves are superimposed and a beating appears, whose frequency is determined by the difference of $k_1$ and $k_2$. The frequency of the oscillations increases rapidly, whenever the highest occupied Landau level approaches the Fermi energy, because its intersection point and thus, the corresponding $k_{\text{max}}$ increases strongly, see the divergences in the inset of [Fig. \[fig:4\]]{}. Its difference to the other, much smaller $k_n$ leads to a high frequency beating. Finally, when only a single edge channel is occupied, the beating and thus, the oscillations in the focusing spectrum vanish. The current then flows along an edge channel parallel to the wall, see the top of [Fig. \[fig:6\]]{}. This figure also illustrates that although the focusing peaks in intermediate fields cannot be explained by classical trajectories, the local current resembles to some extent cyclotron motion along the wall.
The clear and distinct oscillations due to the occupation of only two edge channels can also be understood as a new commensurability between the magnetic flux enclosed within the two edge channels and the flux quantum. At the maximum of the oscillations the two plane waves interfere constructively, and thus the difference of their momenta fulfills ${\Delta}k= 2\pi / {\Delta}x$. If we relate this momentum difference to the distance between the edge channels ${\Delta}y_k= \ell^2 {\Delta}k$, we obtain $$\label{eq:14}
{\Delta}x {\Delta}y_k B = \frac{h}{e}.$$ Thus, between two successive focusing peaks, the magnetic flux within the area enclosed by the two edge channels increases by one flux quantum. In this way, we can relate the focusing spectrum to the distance of the edge channels and the difference of their momenta. For the experimental observation of such interference effects with a fixed distance between the edge channels, see e.g. Ref. and references therein.
![(Color online) The local current and the LDOS of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The transport through the interfering edge channels in the lower figures resembles to some extent a cyclotron motion, while at $B=5 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ the current is carried through a single edge channel straight along the wall. Only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](fig_6c.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) The local current and the LDOS of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The transport through the interfering edge channels in the lower figures resembles to some extent a cyclotron motion, while at $B=5 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ the current is carried through a single edge channel straight along the wall. Only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](fig_6b.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) The local current and the LDOS of the electrons originating from $S$ with energy $\mu$. The transport through the interfering edge channels in the lower figures resembles to some extent a cyclotron motion, while at $B=5 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$ the current is carried through a single edge channel straight along the wall. Only the relevant part of the system is shown.[]{data-label="fig:6"}](fig_6a.pdf "fig:")
Note that indeed many properties of the system can be understood by a basic quantum calculation. However, this cannot replace the NEGF approach, which allows to include contacts in a controlled way and to obtain quantitative results for the Hall resistance. Moreover, the superposition of plane waves with equal weights is justified only by its good agreement with the NEGF calculation.
Effects of decoherence and non-specularity {#sec:EffDec}
------------------------------------------
Dynamic scattering like electron-phonon and electron-electron interaction causes decoherence in the system. We study the effects of weak decoherence on the focusing spectrum by a phenomenological model.[@Zilly2009; @Stegmann2012] In the finite-difference approximation of the 2DEG, bonds connecting neighboring sites are selected randomly with probability $p$ and replaced by virtual contacts. These act as scattering centers, where the electron phase and momentum are randomized completely. The focusing spectrum is averaged over multiple decoherence configurations until convergence is reached.
![(Color online) Influence of an increasing degree of decoherence on the focusing spectrum (top) as well as the LDOS and local current (bottom, $B=2.13{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$) for electrons originating from the source. The oscillations are gradually suppressed and isolated edge channels remain. Averages are over 75 decoherence configurations.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](fig_7a.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) Influence of an increasing degree of decoherence on the focusing spectrum (top) as well as the LDOS and local current (bottom, $B=2.13{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$) for electrons originating from the source. The oscillations are gradually suppressed and isolated edge channels remain. Averages are over 75 decoherence configurations.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](fig_7d.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) Influence of an increasing degree of decoherence on the focusing spectrum (top) as well as the LDOS and local current (bottom, $B=2.13{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$) for electrons originating from the source. The oscillations are gradually suppressed and isolated edge channels remain. Averages are over 75 decoherence configurations.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](fig_7c.pdf "fig:")\
![(Color online) Influence of an increasing degree of decoherence on the focusing spectrum (top) as well as the LDOS and local current (bottom, $B=2.13{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{T}}}$) for electrons originating from the source. The oscillations are gradually suppressed and isolated edge channels remain. Averages are over 75 decoherence configurations.[]{data-label="fig:7"}](fig_7b.pdf "fig:")
The averaged focusing spectrum in [Fig. \[fig:7\]]{} shows that with increasing degree of phase and momentum randomization all oscillations are suppressed and the surprisingly robust Hall plateaus appear. [@Gagel1996b; @Gagel1998; @Xing2008] The classical focusing peaks are even stronger suppressed than the anomalous oscillations, because the latter are located in a much narrower part of the system and thus, are less influenced by the scattering centers. The LDOS and the local current of electrons originating from the source show distinct edge states while the cyclotron orbits are vanishing, because the interference between the edge channels is annihilated by the decoherence. Note that the LDOS is also strongly broadened by the decoherence. As expected, when the degree of decoherence is further increased ($p\gtrsim0.05$) the quantum Hall plateaus vanish and the classical linear Hall resistance appears.
Our model also allows us to study the effects of partially specular reflections by introducing between $S$ and $P_1$ a diffusive wall with the broadening parameter $\eta_{\text{dw}}$. In this way, we can tune the scattering from specular ($\eta_{\text{dw}}=0 $) to diffusive ($\eta_{\text{dw}}\sim t$). The [Fig. \[fig:8\]]{} shows that the oscillations in the focusing spectrum are suppressed gradually with increasing degree of non-specularity and increasing number of reflections at the boundary.
![(Color online) Focusing spectra for an increasingly diffusive boundary. The oscillations in the focusing spectrum are suppressed gradually with increasing degree of non-specularity and increasing number of reflections.[]{data-label="fig:8"}](fig_8.pdf)
In closing, we discuss requirements to experimentally observe the novel oscillations reported in this paper. In our calculations we have used parameters ($m=0.07m_e,\: \mu= 10.9 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{meV}}}, \: n_{\text{2D}}= 3.3 \cdot
10^{11} {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}}}} $), which correspond to a standard 2DEG in a GaAs-AlGaAs heterojunction. We expect that the omission of the spin splitting will not change the results qualitatively. From the fact that the oscillations are seen up to $p=0.005$, see [Fig. \[fig:7\]]{}, we infer that a phase coherence length of $1{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{\mu m}}}$ is sufficient for their experimental observation. Likewise, a distance between $S$ and $P_1$ of $500 {\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{nm}}}$ is easily achievable with today’s nanolithography techniques. All this gives us confidence that the predicted oscillations can indeed be observed experimentally.
Summary {#sec:Summary}
=======
We have studied theoretically the coherent electron focusing in a 2DEG with a boundary. In a weak magnetic field $B$, the Hall resistance $R_{xy}$ shows equidistant peaks, which can be explained by classical trajectories. In a strong field, an extended plateau $R_{xy}=1$ reflects the quantum Hall effect. Moreover, in intermediate fields, superimposed on the lower Hall plateaus we find oscillations, which are neither periodic in $1/B$ (quantum Hall effect) nor periodic in $B$ (classical cyclotron motion).
In general, the focusing spectrum can be understood by the interference of the occupied edge channels. In intermediate fields only a few edge channels are occupied and their interference causes beatings. The beatings explain the clear and distinct oscillations in the case of two occupied Landau levels. They constitute a new commensurability between the flux enclosed within the two edge channels and the flux quantum. The frequency of the oscillations increases rapidly when a Landau level approaches the Fermi energy because one of the frequencies contributing to the beating increases strongly. When only a single edge channel is occupied, the beatings and thus, the oscillations in the focusing spectrum vanish abruptly. Weak decoherence suppresses all oscillations in the focusing spectrum and brings out the Hall plateaus.
This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under Grant No. SPP 1386. We are grateful to A. Ganczarczyk, O. Ujsághy and M. Zilly for useful discussions and helpful remarks.
[23]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ** (, ).
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
[^1]: This simplification is justified because in GaAs both, the effective $g$-factor and the effective mass are $\ll$ 1 and thus, the spin splitting is typically one order of magnitude smaller than the Landau splitting.
[^2]: In the experiment, usually the electron density is constant while the chemical potential is oscillating. However, this would only slightly displace the transitions between the Hall plateaus and would not qualitatively change our results, see also Ref. .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We give a necessary and sufficient condition for gluings of hyperconvex metric spaces along weakly externally hyperconvex subsets in order that the resulting space be hyperconvex. This leads to a full characterization of gluings of two isometric copies of the same hyperconvex space.
Furthermore, we investigate the case of gluings of finite dimensional hyperconvex linear spaces along linear subspaces. For this purpose, we characterize the convex polyhedra in $l_\infty^n$ which are weakly externally hyperconvex.
address: 'Department of Mathematics, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland'
author:
- 'Benjamin Miesch and Maël Pav'' on'
title: Weakly Externally Hyperconvex Subsets and Hyperconvex Gluings
---
Introduction
============
Hyperconvexity can be regarded as a general metric notion of weak non-positive curvature. In relation with Isbell’s injective hull, developing tools for hyperconvex metric spaces can lead to improvements and extensions of analogue results of CAT(0) geometry. The present work provides a new source of hyperconvex metric spaces via gluing along weakly externally hyperconvex subsets and proves new results on weakly externally hyperconvex subsets of $l_{\infty}(I)$.
A metric space $(X,d)$ is called *hyperconvex* if for any collection $\{ B(x_i,r_i)\}_{i\in I}$ of closed balls with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$, for all $i,j \in I$, we have $\bigcap_{i\in I} B(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset$. Hyperconvex spaces are the same as absolute 1-lipschitz retracts or injective metric spaces, see [@Aro].
A non-empty subset $A$ of a metric space $(X,d)$ is *externally hyperconvex* in $X$ if for any collection of closed balls $\{B(x_i,r_i)\}_{i \in I}$ in $X$ with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i+r_j$ and $d(x_i,A)\leq r_i$, for all $i,j \in I$, we have $A\cap \bigcap_{i\in I} B(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset$ and $A$ is *weakly externally hyperconvex* if for any $x \in X$, $A$ is externally hyperconvex in $A \cup \{x\}$.
We first extend the work initiated in [@Mie] by considering gluings along weakly externally hyperconvex subsets:
\[thm:gluing along WEH\] Let $(X,d)$ be the metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$ such that for each $\lambda\in \Lambda$, $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$. Then, $X$ is hyperconvex if and only if for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$ and all $x \in X \setminus X_\lambda$, the set $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$. Moreover, if $X$ is hyperconvex, the subspaces $X_\lambda$ are weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$.
We go on by showing that the above sufficient condition for hyperconvexity of the gluing is necessary in case isometric copies are glued together, namely
\[thm:gluing of copies\] Let $X$ be a hyperconvex metric space and let $A$ be a subset. Then $X \sqcup_A X$ is hyperconvex if and only if $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$ and for every $x \in X$, the intersection $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X$.
In particular, Theorem \[thm:gluing of copies\] shows that the conditions imposed in Theorem \[thm:gluing along WEH\] are natural.
In order to be able to apply Theorems \[thm:gluing along WEH\] and \[thm:gluing of copies\] to construct concrete examples of injective metric spaces by gluing, we turn our attention to weakly externally hyperconvex subsets of $l_{\infty}(I)$. A subset $Y$ of a metric space $X$ is called *proximinal* if for any $x \in X$, we have $B(x,d(x,Y)) \cap Y \neq \emptyset$. It is important to note that if $Y$ is weakly exernally hyperconvex in $X$, then it is necessarily proximinal.
\[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\] Let $I \ne {\emptyset}$ be any index set. Suppose that $Q$ is a non-empty proximinal subset of $l_\infty(I)$ given by an arbitrary system of inequalities of the form ${\sigma}x_i \le C$ or ${\sigma}x_i + \tau x_j \le C$ with ${\sigma},\tau \in \{ \pm 1 \} $ and $C \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then $Q \in \mathcal{W}(l_\infty(I))$.
This has consequences on the structure of Isbell’s injective hull ${{\rm E}(X)}$; see Remark \[RemarkInjectiveHull\]. In the finite dimensional case, we moreover obtain a characterization of weakly externally hyperconvex subspaces. In the following, $l_{\infty}^n$ denotes the vector space ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ endowed with the supremum norm. Moreover, for any metric space $(X,d)$, a non-empty subset $S \subset X$ is said to be *strongly convex* if for every $x,y \in S$, one has $I(x,y):= \{ z \in X : d(x,z) + d(z,y) = d(x,y)\} \subset S$.
In Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\], we characterize weakly externally hyperconvex subspaces of $l_{\infty}^n$. We show that they correspond exactly to the linear subspace that can be written as the intersection of hyperplanes having as normal vector a vector of the form $\sigma e_i$ or $ \sigma e_i + \tau e_j$ where $\sigma, \tau \in \{\pm 1\}$ and $i,j \in \{1, \cdots , n \} $. Now, a *convex polyhedron* in a finite dimensional normed linear space is a finite intersection of closed half-spaces. Using Proposition \[Prop:Cuboids\] and Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHConvexPolyhedra\], we obtain
Suppose that $Q$ is a convex polyhedron in $l_{\infty}^n$ with non-empty interior. Then, the following hold:
(i) $Q$ is externally hyperconvex in $l_{\infty}^n$ if and only if $Q$ is a cuboid.
(ii) $Q$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $l_{\infty}^n$ if and only if $Q$ is given by a finite system of inequalities of the form ${\sigma}x_i \le C$ or ${\sigma}x_i + \tau x_j \le C$ with ${\sigma},\tau \in \{ \pm 1 \} $ and $C \in {\mathbb{R}}$.
Finally, we use Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\] to give an explicit characterization for the gluing of $l^n_{\infty}$ and $l^m_{\infty}$ along a linear subspace to be hyperconvex:
\[Thm:CharacterizationGluingLInfinity\] Let $X_1=l_\infty^n$ and $X_2=l_\infty^m$. Moreover let $V$ be a linear subspace of both $X_1$ and $X_2$ such that $V \neq X_1,X_2$. Then $$X = X_1 {\sqcup}_V X_2$$ is hyperconvex if and only if there is some $k$ such that $X_1=l_\infty^k \times X_1'$, $X_2=l_\infty^k \times X_2'$, $V=l_\infty^k \times V'$ and $V'$ is strongly convex in both $X_1'=l_\infty^{n-k}$ and $X_2'=l_\infty^{m-k}$.
Externally and Weakly Externally Hyperconvex Subspaces
======================================================
In this section we collect a bench of results for externally and weakly externally hyperconvex metric subspaces, their neighborhoods and intersections.
First we fix some notation. Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. We denote by $$B(x_0,r) = \{x \in X : d(x,x_0) \leq r \}$$ the closed ball of radius $r$ with center in $x_0$. For any subset $A \subset X$ let $$B(A,r)= \{x \in X : d(x,A):= \inf_{y \in A} d(x,y) \leq r \}$$ be the closed $r$-neighborhood of $A$.
We call a non-empty subset of a metric space *admissible* if it can be written as an intersection of balls $A = \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)$. Furthermore, we denote by $\mathcal{A}(X), \mathcal{E}(X), \mathcal{W}(X)$ and $\mathcal{H}(X)$ the collection of all admissible, externally hyperconvex, weakly externally hyperconvex and hyperconvex subsets of $X$. We always have $\mathcal{E}(X) \subset \mathcal{W}(X)\subset \mathcal{H}(X)$. Moreover, it holds that $\mathcal{A}(X) \subset \mathcal{E}(X)$ if and only if $X$ is hyperconvex.
Externally hyperconvex subspaces have the following important intersection property proven in [@Mie]:
\[prop:intersection of EH\][@Mie Proposition 1.2]. Let $(X,d)$ be a hyperconvex space and $\{A_i\}_{i \in I}$ a family of pairwise intersecting externally hyperconvex subsets such that one of them is bounded. Then $\bigcap_{i \in I} A_i$ is nonempty and externally hyperconvex.
\[lem:properties nbhds\] Let $X$ be a hyperconvex metric space.
1. Let $A = \bigcap_{i \in I} B(x_i,r_i) \in \mathcal{A}(X)$ and $s \ge 0$. Then one has $$B(A,s) = \bigcap_{i \in I} B(x_i,r_i+s)\in \mathcal{A}(X).$$\[it:properties nbhds i\]
2. For $A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$ and $s \geq 0$ one has $B(A,s) \in \mathcal{E}(X)$.
\[lem:characterization WEH\] Let $A$ be a subset of the hyperconvex metric space $X$. Then, $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex if and only if for every $x \in X$ and setting $s := d(x,A)$, the following hold:
1. the intersection $B(x,s) \cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $A$ and
2. for every $y \in A$ there is some $a \in B(x,s) \cap A$ such $d(x,y)=d(x,a)+d(a,y)$.
If $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex, $(i)$ clearly follows. Moreover, for $y \in A$, it also follows by weak external hyperconvexity of $A$ that there is some $a \in A \cap B(x,s) \cap B(y,d(x,y)-s) \neq \emptyset$ and therefore $d(x,y) \leq d(x,a) + d(a,y) \leq s + d(x,y)-s = d(x,y)$.
For the converse first observe that $A$ must be hyperconvex since if $x \in \bigcap B(x_i,r_i)$ for $x_i \in A$ then $d(x_i,B(x,d(x,A))\cap A) \leq r_i$ by $(ii)$ and therefore there is also $x' \in A\cap B(x,d(x,A))\cap \bigcap B(x_i,r_i)$ by $(i)$.
Now pick $x \in X$ and $r \geq s=d(x,A)$. Then by $(ii)$ we have $B(x,r)\cap A = B^A(B(x,s)\cap A, r-s)$ and therefore $B(x,r)\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $A$ by $(i)$ and Lemma \[lem:properties nbhds\]. Moreover by $(ii)$ for $x_i \in a$ with $d(x,x_i) \leq r+r_i$ we have $d(x_i, B(x,r)\cap A) \leq r_i$ and therefore $B(x,r)\cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap A \neq \emptyset$ by Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\].
\[lem:retraction WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $A \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ and $s \geq 0$. Then there is an $s$-constant retraction ${\varrho}\colon B(A,s) \to A$, i.e. $d(x,{\varrho}(x)) \leq s$ for all $x \in B(A,s)$.
Consider the partially ordered set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} := \{ (B,{\varrho}) : B \subset B(A,s) \text{ and } {\varrho}\colon B \to A \text{ is an }s\text{-constant retraction} \}.
\end{aligned}$$ By Zorn’s Lemma there is some maximal element $(\tilde{B},\tilde{{\varrho}}) \in \mathcal{F}$. Assume that there is some $x \in B(A,s) \setminus \tilde{B}$. For all $y \in \tilde{B}$ define $r_y = d(x,y)$. Then we have $$d(x,{\varrho}(y)) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,{\varrho}(y)) \leq r_y + s$$ and therefore since $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex there is some $$z \in B(x,s) \cap \bigcap_{y \in \tilde{B}} B({\varrho}(y),r_y) \cap A.$$ But then defining $\tilde{{\varrho}}(x) := z$ we can extends $\tilde{{\varrho}}$ to $\tilde{B} \cup \{x\}$ contradicting maximality of $(\tilde{B},\tilde{{\varrho}})$. Hence we conclude $\tilde{B}=B(A,s)$.
This and the first part of the following result can also be found in [@Esp; @EKL] where a complete characterization of weakly externally hyperconvex subsets in terms of retractions is given.
\[lem:nbhd of WEH\] Let $A$ be a weakly externally hyperconvex subset of a hyperconvex space $X$. Then for any $s \geq 0$, the closed neighborhood $B(A,s)$ is weakly externally hyperconvex. Moreover, if for all $x \in X$ we have $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$, then this also holds for $B(A,s)$, i.e. $B(x,d(x,B(A,s)))\cap B(A,s) \in \mathcal{E}(X)$.
Let $x\in X$ and $x_i \in B(A,s)$ such that $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$, $d(x,x_i) \leq r + r_i$ and $d(x,B(A,s))\leq r$. By the previous lemma there is a retraction ${\varrho}\colon B(A,s) \to A$ such that $d(y,{\varrho}(y)) \leq s$. Then we have $d({\varrho}(x_i),x) \leq d({\varrho}(x_i),x_i) + d(x_i,x) \leq s + r + r_i$ and therefore there is some $$y \in B(x,s+r) \cap \bigcap_i B({\varrho}(x_i),r_i)\cap A$$ with $d(x,y) \leq r+s$ and $d(x_i,y)\leq d(x_i ,{\varrho}(x_i)) + d({\varrho}(x_i),y) \leq s+r_i$. Hence by hyperconvexity of $X$ there is some $$z \in B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(y,s) \subset B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(A,s)$$ as required.
Now, define $r=d(x,B(A,s))$. We claim that $$B(x,r)\cap B(A,s) = B(x,r) \cap B(B(x,d(x,A))\cap A,s)$$ and therefore if $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$ we also have $B(x,r)\cap B(A,s) \in \mathcal{E}(X)$.
Indeed if $y \in B(x,r)\cap B(A,s)$ there is some $a \in A$ such that $d(y,a)=s$ and hence $d(x,a) \leq d(x,y)+d(y,a) \leq r+s = d(x,A)$, i.e. $a \in B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$.
\[ex:nbhd of H\] In general it is not true that the neighborhood of a hyperconvex subset is hyperconvex as well. Consider the isometric embedding $\iota \colon \mathbb{R} \to l_\infty^3$ of the real line given by $$\begin{aligned}
\iota (t) = \begin{cases}
(t,t,-t), & t \leq 0, \\
(t,t,t), & 0 \leq t \leq 10, \\
(20-t,t,t)& t \geq 10,
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ and define $A=\iota(\mathbb{R}) \in \mathcal{H}(l_\infty^3)$. Then the two points $x=(-2,0,2), y=(8,10,12)$ are contained in $B(A,1)$ since $d(x,\iota(-1))=d(y,\iota(11))=1$. Now look at the intersection $B(x,5)\cap B(y,5)=\{z=(3,5,7)\}$. But $d(z,A) = d(z,\iota(5)) = 2$ and therefore $B(x,5) \cap B(y,5) \cap B(A,1) = \emptyset$, i.e. $B(A,1)$ is not hyperconvex, even not geodesic.
\[ex:intersection of WEH\] The intersection property for externally hyperconvex subsets stated in Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\] does not hold for weakly externally hyperconvex subsets. Indeed, consider the points $z:=(1,1)$, $w:=(-1,-1)$ and the half-space $H:=\{y \in l^2_{\infty} : y_1 - y_2 \ge 2\}$ in $l^2_{\infty}$. Clearly, $B(z,1)$, $B(w,1)$ and $H$ are all three elements of $\mathcal{W}(l^2_{\infty})$ and they are pairwise intersecting. However, $B(z,1) \cap B(w,1) \cap H = \emptyset$.
\[lem:subset of WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ and $A \in \mathcal{E}(Y)$. Then we have $A \in \mathcal{W}(X)$.
Let $x \in X$, $r \geq d(x,A)$ and let $\{B(x_i,r_i)\}_{i\in I}$ be a collection of balls with $x_i \in A$ , $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i,x) \leq r_i + r$. Then the sets $B_\epsilon := B(x,r+\epsilon)\cap Y$, $A_i := B(x_i,r_i)\cap Y$ and $A$ are pairwise intersecting externally hyperconvex subsets of $Y$ and therefore by Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\] we have $$B(x,r) \cap A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) = \bigcap_{\epsilon > 0} B_\epsilon \cap A \cap \bigcap_i A_i \neq \emptyset.$$
\[lem:intersection of WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $A \in \mathcal{E}(X), Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ such that $A\cap Y \neq \emptyset$. Let $\{ x_i \}_{i \in I} \subset Y$ be a collection of points with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i+r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$. Then for any $s > 0$ there are $a\in A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)$ and $y \in Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)$ with $d(a,y) \leq s$.
Let $y_0 \in A \cap Y$ and $d=d(y_0,\bigcap B(x_i,r_i))$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $s \leq d$. Then since $A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$ and $Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ there are $$\begin{aligned}
a_1 &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i+d-s) \cap B(y_0,s) \cap A, \\
y_1 &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i+d-s) \cap B(a_1,s) \cap Y.\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding this way, we can choose inductively $$\begin{aligned}
a_n &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i+d-ns) \cap B(y_{n-1},s) \cap A, \\
y_n &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i+d-ns) \cap B(a_n,s) \cap Y\end{aligned}$$ for $n \leq \lfloor \frac{d}{s} \rfloor =: n_0$ and finally there are $$\begin{aligned}
a &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i) \cap B(y_{n_0},s) \cap A, \\
y &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i, r_i) \cap B(a,s) \cap Y\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
\[prop:intersection of WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $A \in \mathcal{E}(X), Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ such that $A\cap Y \neq \emptyset$. Then we have $A\cap Y \in \mathcal{E}(Y)$ and therefore $A\cap Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$.
Let $\{ x_i \}_{i \in I} \subset Y$ with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i+r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$. We now construct inductively two converging sequences $(a_n) \subset \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap A$ and $(y_n) \subset \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap Y$ wirh $d(a_n,y_n) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$ as follows. By the previous lemma we may choose $$\begin{aligned}
a_0 &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap A, \\
y_0 &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap Y
\end{aligned}$$ with $d(a_0,y_0) \leq \frac{1}{2}$. Assume now that we have $$\begin{aligned}
a_n &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap A, \\
y_n &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap Y
\end{aligned}$$ with $d(a_n,y_n) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$. Then applying Lemma \[lem:intersection of WEH\] for the collection of balls $\{B(x_i,r_i) \}_{i \in I} \cup \{ B(y_n,\frac{1}{2^{n+1}})\}$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n+1} &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(y_n,\tfrac{1}{2^{n+1}}) \cap A, \\
y_{n+1} &\in \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(y_n,\tfrac{1}{2^{n+1}}) \cap Y
\end{aligned}$$ with $d(a_{n+1},y_{n+1}) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+2}}$. Especially we have $d(y_{n+1},y_n) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}$ and $$d(a_{n+1},a_n) \leq d(a_{n+1},y_n)+d(y_n,a_n) \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}+\frac{1}{2^{n+1}}=\frac{1}{2^n}.$$ Hence the two sequences are Cauchy and therefore converge to some common limit point $z \in A\cap Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset$. Finally $A\cap Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ by Lemma \[lem:subset of WEH\].
Looking at the proof carefully, we see that only $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$ is assumed. Therefore we may deduce the following corollary:
\[cor:distance in WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $A \in \mathcal{E}(X), Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ such that $A\cap Y \neq \emptyset$. Then for all $x \in Y$ we have $d(x,A)=d(x, A \cap Y)$.
\[cor:transitivity of WEH\] Let $X$ be a metric space, $A \in \mathcal{W}(Y)$ for $Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$. Then we have $A \in \mathcal{W}(X)$.
Let $x\in X$ with $d(x,A) \leq r$ and $\{ x_i \} _{i \in I} \subset A$ with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j, d(x_i,x) \leq r_i + r$. Then we have $B(x,r) \cap Y \in \mathcal{E}(Y)$ and $B(x,r) \cap A = (B(x,r) \cap Y) \cap A \in \mathcal{E}(A)$ by Proposition \[prop:intersection of WEH\]. Moreover, by applying Corollary \[cor:distance in WEH\] twice we have $$d(x_i,(B(x,r) \cap Y) \cap A) = d(x_i,B(x,r) \cap Y) = d(x_i,B(x,r)) \leq r_i$$ and hence $\bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x,r) \cap A \neq \emptyset$.
\[cor:admitting distance\] Let $X$ be a hyperconvex metric space, $A \in \mathcal{E}(X), Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$. Then there are $a\in A, y\in Y$ with $d(a,y)=d(A,Y)$
Let $s=d(A,Y)$. First observe that for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ we have $B(A,s+\frac{1}{2^{n}}) \in \mathcal{E}(X)$ and $B(A,s+\frac{1}{2^{n}})\cap Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ by Proposition \[prop:intersection of WEH\]. So given $y_n \in B(A,s+\frac{1}{2^n}) \cap Y$ by Corollary \[cor:distance in WEH\] there is some $y_{n+1} \in B(y_n, \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}) \cap B(A, s+ \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}) \cap Y$. Therefore we can find a sequence $(y_n) \subset Y$ with $d(y_n,A) \leq s+\frac{1}{2^n}$ and $d(y_n,y_{n-1})\leq \frac{1}{2^n}$. Hence $(y_n)$ is Cauchy and converges to some point $y \in Y$ with $d(y,A) \leq s$. Now since $A$ is proximinal there is some $a \in A$ with $d(a,y) \leq s=d(A,Y)$ as required.
The following proposition answers an open question on the intersection of weakly externally hyperconvex sets stated in [@EspK] for *proper* metric spaces, i.e. for spaces where all closed balls are compact.
\[prop:IntersectionWEH\] Let $X$ be a proper hyperconvex metric space and $Y,Y' \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ with non-empty intersection. Then we have $Y \cap Y' \in \mathcal{W}(X)$.
By Corollary \[cor:transitivity of WEH\] it is enough to show that $Y\cap Y' \in \mathcal{W}(Y)$. Therefore let $\{ B(x_i,r_i)\}_{i \in I}$ be a collection of balls with $x_i \in Y \cap Y'$ and $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $x \in Y$ with $d(x, Y\cap Y') \leq r$ and $d(x_i,x) \leq r_i + r$. Let $s > 0$. Since $d(x, Y\cap Y') \leq r$ there is some $y_0 \in Y \cap Y' \cap B(x,r+s).$ Define $d=d(y_0,\bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i))$. Then there is some $$y_0' \in B(y_0,s) \cap Y' \cap B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i+d).$$ Now for $n \leq \lfloor \frac{d}{s} \rfloor =: n_0$, we can choose inductively $$\begin{aligned}
y_n &\in B(y_{n-1}',s) \cap Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i + d - ns) \text{ and } \\
y_n' &\in B(y_n,s) \cap Y' \cap B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i + d - ns).
\end{aligned}$$ Finally there are $$\begin{aligned}
y &\in B(y_{n_0}',s) \cap Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \text{ and } \\
y' &\in B(y,s) \cap Y' \cap B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)
\end{aligned}$$ and hence $d(Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i),Y' \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x,r)) \leq d(y,y') \leq s$, i.e. $d(Y \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i),Y' \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x,r)) = 0$ and since $X$ is proper, both sets are compact and therefore their intersection $Y \cap Y' \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x,r)$ is non-empty.
\[Prop:IncreasingSequenceWEH\] Let $X$ be any metric space and let $(Y_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \subset \mathcal{W}(X)$ be an increasing sequence (for the inclusion) such that $Y := \overline{\bigcup_n Y_n}$ is proper. Then, one has $Y \in \mathcal{W}(X)$.
Consider a family $\{ (x_i,r_i ) \}_{i \in I}$ in $Y \times {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$. Moreover, let $(x,r) \in X \times {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfy $d(x,Y) \le r$ and $d(x,x_i) \leq r + r_i$.
There is a decreasing sequence $s_n \downarrow 0$ such that $d(x,Y_n) \leq r + s_n$. Now fix $\epsilon = \frac{1}{m} > 0$. Then for every $i \in I$ there is some $y_i \in B(x_i, \epsilon) \cap \bigcap_n Y_n$. For $n \in \mathbb{N}$ let $$I_n := \bigl \{ i \in I : y_i \in Y_n \bigr \}$$ and since $Y_n$ is weakly externally hyperconvex there is some $$z_n \in Y_n \cap B(x,r + s_n) \cap \bigcap_{i \in I_n} B(y_i,r_i+\epsilon).$$ Since $Y$ is proper and $(z_n) \subset Y \cap B(x,r+s_0)$, it follows that there is a convergent subsequence $z_{n_k} \to z^m \in Y \cap B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_{i \in I} B(x_i,r_i+\frac{1}{m})$. Moreover, since $Y$ is proper there is a subsequence $z^{m_l} \to z \in Y \cap B(x,r) \cap \bigcap_{i \in I} B(x_i,r_i)$. This proves that $Y$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$.
\[lem:locally externally hyperconvex\] Let $X$ be a hyperconvex metric space and $A \in \mathcal{W}(X)$. Assume that there is some $s > 0$ such that $A \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,s))$. Then $A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$.
First we show that $A \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,r))$ for any $r \geq 0$. By assumption this holds for $r=s > 0$. Therefore it is enough to prove $A \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,r)) \Rightarrow A \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,2r))$. Let $(x_i,r_i)_{i \in I} \in B(A,2r) \times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$. Define $A_i = B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(A,r) \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,r))$. Clearly $A \cap A_i \neq \emptyset$. By Lemma \[lem:nbhd of WEH\] $B(A,r) \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ and hence by Lemma \[lem:retraction WEH\] there is a retraction ${\varrho}\colon B(A,2r) \to B(A,r)$ with $d({\varrho}(x),x) \leq r$. Set $y_i = {\varrho}(x_i)$ and since $A \in \mathcal{E}(B(A,r))$ there is some $z \in A \cap \bigcap_i B(y_i,r_i)$ with $d(x_i,z) \leq r_i + r$. Therefore since $X$ is hyperconvex we get $\emptyset \neq B(z,r)\cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \subset B(A,r)$. Especially $A_i\cap A_j = B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_j,r_j) \cap B(A,r) \neq \emptyset$ and hence $A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) = A \cap \bigcap_i A_i \neq \emptyset$ by Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\].
To conclude that $A \in \mathcal{E}(X)$, let $(x_i,r_i)_{i \in I} \in X \times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$. Define $A_i = B(x_i,r_i) \cap A \in \mathcal{E}(A)$. For fixed $i,j \in I$ we have $x_i,x_j \in B(A,r)$ for some $r \geq 0$ and hence by the first step we have $A_i \cap A_j = A \cap B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_j,r_j) \neq \emptyset$. Therefore we get $A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) = \bigcap_i A_i \neq \emptyset$.
\[Lem:Products\] Let $X = X^1 \times_\infty X^2$ be the product of two metric spaces with $d(x,y) = \max_{\lambda = 1,2} d_\lambda(x^\lambda,y^\lambda)$. Moreover let $A = A^1 \times A^2$ be a subset of $X$. Then the following holds:
(i) $B(x,r) = B^1(x^1,r) \times B^2(x^2,r)$,
(ii) $A \in \mathcal{E}(X) \Leftrightarrow A^\lambda \in \mathcal{E}(X^\lambda)$ for $\lambda = 1,2$,
(iii) $A \in \mathcal{W}(X) \Leftrightarrow A^\lambda \in \mathcal{W}(X^\lambda)$ for $\lambda = 1,2$.
(iv) $X$ is hyperconvex $\Leftrightarrow$ $X^\lambda$ is hyperconvex for $\lambda = 1,2$.
Property (i) follows from the fact that $d(x,y) \leq r$ if and only if $d_\lambda(x^\lambda,y^\lambda) \leq r$ for $\lambda = 1,2$. For (ii) let first $x_i \in X$ be any collection of points with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$. Then $d(x_i^\lambda,x_j^\lambda) \leq d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i^\lambda,A^\lambda) \leq d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$ and therefore if $A^\lambda \in \mathcal{E}(X^\lambda)$ there is some $y^\lambda \in A^\lambda \cap \bigcap_i B^\lambda(x_i^\lambda,r_i)$ and hence $y=(y^1,y^2) \in A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)$. For the converse if $d(x_i^1,x_j^1) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i^1,A^1) \leq r_i$ fix some $x^2 \in A^2$. Then the points $x_i=(x_i^1,x^2)$ fulfill $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ and $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$, i.e. there is some $y = (y^1,y^2) \in A \cap \bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i)$ and hence $y^1 \in A^1 \cap \bigcap_i B^1(x_i^1,r_i) \neq \emptyset$. The proof of (iii) is similar and (iv) follows from (ii) by setting $A^\lambda = X^\lambda$.
Gluing along Weakly Externally Hyperconvex Subspaces
====================================================
\[def:gluing\] Let $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ be a family of metric spaces with closed subsets $A_\lambda\subset X_\lambda$. Suppose that all $A_\lambda$ are isometric to some metric space $A$. For every $\lambda\in\Lambda$ fix an isometry $\varphi_\lambda \colon A \to A_\lambda$. We define an equivalence relation on the disjoint union $\bigsqcup_\lambda X_\lambda$ generated by $\varphi_\lambda(a) \sim \varphi_{\lambda'}(a)$ for $a \in A$. The resulting space $X := (\bigsqcup_\lambda X_\lambda)/\sim$ is called the *gluing* of the $X_\lambda$ along $A$.
$X$ admits a natural metric. For $x \in X_\lambda$ and $y\in X_{\lambda'}$ it is given by $$d(x,y) = \begin{cases}
d_\lambda(x,y), &\text{ if } \lambda=\lambda', \\
\inf_{a \in A} \{ d_\lambda(x,\varphi_\lambda(a)) + d_{\lambda'}(\varphi_{\lambda'}(a),y) \}, &\text{ if } \lambda \neq \lambda'.
\end{cases}$$ For more details see for instance [@Bri Lemma I.5.24].
If there is no ambiguity, indices for $d_\lambda$ are dropped and the sets $A_\lambda=\varphi_\lambda(A) \subset X_\lambda$ are identified with $A$.
Balls inside the subset $X_\lambda$ are denoted by $B^\lambda(x,r)$.
\[lem:list properties gluing\] Let $X$ be a hyperconvex metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$. Then $A$ is hyperconvex.
Let $x_i \in A$ such that $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i +r_j$. Then for each $\lambda$, since $X_\lambda$ is hyperconvex there is some $y_\lambda \in \bigcap B(x_i,r_i) \cap X_\lambda$. Moreover $\bigcap B(x_i,r_i)$ is path-connected and a path from $y_\lambda$ to $y_{\lambda'}$ must intersect $A$, i.e. $\bigcap B(x_i,r_i)\cap A \neq \emptyset$.
In general we cannot say more about necessary conditions on $A$ such that the gluing along $A$ is hyperconvex. For instance gluing a hyperconvex space $X$ and any hyperconvex subset $A \in \mathcal{H}(X)$ along $A$ the resulting space is isometric to $X$ and therefore hyperconvex. But there are also plenty of non-trivial examples.
Let $f \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be any 1-lipschitz function. Consider its graph $A = \{ (x,y) \in l_\infty^2 : y=f(x)\}$ and the two sets $X_1 = \{ (x,y) \in l_\infty^2 : y \leq f(x)\}$, $X_2 = \{ (x,y) \in l_\infty^2 : y \geq f(x)\}$. Then $l_\infty^2 = X_1 \sqcup_A X_2$ is hyperconvex and occurs as the gluing of two hyperconvex spaces $X_1,X_2$.
But if we assume that the gluing set is weakly externally hyperconvex, we can do better.
\[lem:distance\] Let $(X,d)$ be the metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$ such that $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$ for each $\lambda$. For $x\in X_\lambda$ and $x'\in X_{\lambda'}$, there are then points $a\in B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ and $a' \in B(x',d(x',A))\cap A$ such that $$d(x,x')=d(x,a)+d(a,a')+d(a',x').$$
Since $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in each $X_\lambda$, by Lemma \[lem:characterization WEH\] $(ii)$, there are for every $y \in A$, points $a\in B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ and $a' \in B(x',d(x',A))\cap A$ such that both $d(x,y)=d(x,a)+d(a,y)$ and $d(y,x')=d(y,a')+d(a',x')$ hold. Hence, $$d(x,x') = d(x,A) + d(B(x,d(x,A))\cap A,B(x',d(x',A))\cap A)+d(x',A).$$ But the sets $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ and $B(x',d(x',A))\cap A$ are externally hyperconvex in $A$ and therefore by Lemma \[cor:admitting distance\] there are $a,a' \in A$ with $$d(a,a') = d(B(x,d(x,A))\cap A,B(x',d(x',A))\cap A).$$
\[lem:balls\] Let $(X,d)$ be the metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$ such that $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$ for each $\lambda$. Then, for $\lambda\neq\lambda'$, $x\in X_\lambda$ and $r \geq s:=d(x,A)$, one has $$B(x,r) \cap X_{\lambda'} = B^{\lambda'}(B^\lambda(x,s)\cap A,r-s).$$ Therefore, if $B^\lambda(x,s)\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X_{\lambda'}$, then so is $B(x,r) \cap X_{\lambda'}$.
Let $x' \in B(x,r) \cap X_{\lambda'}$. By Lemma \[lem:distance\], there is some $a \in B^\lambda(x,s)\cap A$ with $d(x,x')=d(x,a)+d(a,x')$ . We have $d(a,x') \leq r-s$ and hence $$x' \in B^{\lambda'}(B^\lambda(x,s)\cap A,r-s).$$
\[prop:externally hyperconvex balls\] Let $(X,d)$ be the metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$ such that $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$ for each $\lambda$. If $X$ is hyperconvex then for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$ and all $x \in X \setminus X_\lambda$ the set $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$.
Set $s:=d(x,A)$ and let $\{x_i\}_{i \in I}$ be a collection of point in $X_\lambda$ and $\{r_i\}_{i \in I}$ such that $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i+r_j$ and $d(x_i, B(x,s)\cap A) \leq r_i$. Then, by hyperconvexity of $X$ there is some $y \in B(x,s) \cap \bigcap B(x_i,r_i)$. Since $y\in B(x,s)$, we have $y\in X_{\lambda'}$ for some $\lambda' \neq \lambda$. Therefore, by Lemma \[lem:distance\] there is for each $i$ some $y_i \in B(x_i,d(x_i,A))\cap A$ with $d(y,x_i)=d(y,y_i)+d(y_i,x_i)$. Define $r_i' = r_i-d(y_i,x_i)$. We have $d(y_i,y_j) \leq d(y_i,y)+d(y,y_j) \leq r_i' + r_j'$ and $d(x,y_i) \leq s+r_i'$. Hence, since $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_{\lambda'}$, there is some $z \in \bigcap_i B(y_i,r_i') \cap B(x,s) \cap A$ and thus $\bigcap_i B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x,s) \cap A \neq \emptyset$.
\[prop:gluing along WEH\] Let $(X,d)$ be the metric space obtained by gluing a family of hyperconvex metric spaces $(X_\lambda,d_\lambda)_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ along some set $A$ such that for each $\lambda$ the set $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$ and for any $x\in X \setminus X_\lambda$ the intersection $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$. Then $X$ is hyperconvex and $X_{\lambda} \in \mathcal{W}(X)$ for every $\lambda$.
Note that this proposition generalizes the results for gluings along strongly convex and along externally hyperconvex subsets in [@Mie]. Clearly, in both cases the gluing set is weakly externally hyperconvex. In the first case, the intersection $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is a single point (the gate) and therefore externally hyperconvex in $X$. In the second case, we have $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A \in \mathcal{E}(A)$ and therefore by Proposition 4.9 in [@Mie] we get $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A \in \mathcal{E}(X_\lambda)$.
Let $\{ B(x_i,r_i) \}_{i \in I}$ be a family of balls with $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$. We divide the proof into two cases.\
\
*Case 1.* If for every $i,j \in I$, one has $$B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_j,r_j)\cap A \neq \emptyset,$$ setting $C_i := A \cap B(x_i,r_i)$, we obtain that the family $\{ C_i\}_{i \in I}$ is pairwise intersecting. Moreover, $\{ C_i\}_{i \in I}$ is contained in $\mathcal{E}(A)$ since $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex. By Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\] we obtain that $\bigcap_{i \in I} C_i \neq \emptyset$, hence $\bigcap_{i \in I} B(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset$.\
\
*Case 2.* Otherwise there are $i_0,j_0 \in I$ with $x_{i_0},x_{j_0} \in X_{\lambda_0}$ such that $$B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0})\cap A = \emptyset.$$ Indeed, either there is some $i_0 \in I$ such that $d(x_{i_0},A) > r_{i_0}$ and we may take $i_0=j_0$ or if $$B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0})\cap A = \emptyset$$ with $d(x_{i_0},A) \leq r_{i_0}$ and $d(x_{j_0},A) \leq r_{j_0}$, we get $x_{i_0},x_{j_0} \in X_{\lambda_0}$ by Lemma \[lem:distance\]. Observe that in both cases we may assume that for $x_i \in X_\lambda \neq X_{\lambda_0}$ we have $d(x_i,A) \leq r_i$.
Define $A_i^{\lambda_0} = B(x_i,r_i) \cap X_{\lambda_0}.$ The goal is now to show the following claim:\
\
*Claim. For every $i,j \in I$, one has $A_i^{\lambda_0} \cap A_j^{\lambda_0} \neq \emptyset$.*\
\
Then by Lemma \[lem:balls\] we have $A_i^{\lambda_0} \in \mathcal{E}(X_{\lambda_0})$ and by Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\] we get $$\bigcap B(x_i,r_i) \cap X_{\lambda_0} = \bigcap A_i^{\lambda_0} \neq \emptyset.$$
To prove the claim consider first the following two easy cases.
- If $x_i,x_j \in X_{\lambda_0}$, then we are done by hyperconvexity of $X_{\lambda_0}$.
- If $x_i \in X_{\lambda} \neq X_{\lambda'} \ni x_j$, we have $B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_j,r_j) \cap X_{\lambda_0} \neq \emptyset$ by Lemma \[lem:distance\] and we are done.
The remaining case is when $x_i,x_j \in X_{\lambda} \neq X_{\lambda_0}$. We do this in two steps.\
\
*Step I.* Set $$A' := B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}) = B^{\lambda_0}(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B^{\lambda_0}(x_{j_0},r_{j_0})$$ and $s := d(A,A')$. By Corollary \[cor:admitting distance\] we have $B(A',s)\cap A \neq \emptyset$. Furthermore we get $$B(A',s) = B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s)$$ and hence $B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \subset X_{\lambda_0}$.
To see this, observe first that by in Lemma \[lem:properties nbhds\], we have $$B(A',s) = B^{\lambda_0}(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B^{\lambda_0}(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \subset X_{\lambda_0}$$ and therefore $$\left( B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \right) \setminus B(A',s) \subset X \setminus X_{\lambda_0}.$$ Thus assume that there is some $$y \in B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap \left(X_\lambda \setminus X_{\lambda_0}\right).$$ Now since $$B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap A \neq \emptyset$$ and $$B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap X_\lambda$$ is externally hyperconvex in $X_\lambda$ and thus path-connected, there is some $$y' \in B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap X_\lambda \setminus X_{\lambda_0}$$ with $d(y',A) \leq s$. But then by Lemma \[lem:distance\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B(y',s) \cap X_{\lambda_0} &\neq \emptyset, \\
B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}) \cap B(y',s) \cap X_{\lambda_0} &\neq \emptyset\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}) \cap B(y',s) \cap X_{\lambda_0} \neq \emptyset,$$ i.e. $y' \in B(A',s)$ contradicting $y' \notin X_{\lambda_0}$.\
\
*Step II.* We now show that the family $$\mathcal{F} :=\{ B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s)\cap X_\lambda, B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s)\cap X_\lambda, B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i), B^{\lambda}(x_j,r_j) \}$$ is pairwise intersecting. We already observed that $$(B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s)\cap X_\lambda) \cap (B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s)\cap X_\lambda) \neq \emptyset.$$ Further, since $x_{i_0} \in X_{\lambda_0} \neq X_{\lambda} \ni x_i$, by Lemma \[lem:distance\], one has $$(B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s)\cap X_\lambda) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset$$ and similarly for $(i_0,i)$ replaced by $(i_0,j)$ as well as by $(j_0,i)$ and $(j_0,j)$. Finally, $$B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_j,r_j) \cap X_{\lambda} \neq \emptyset$$ by hyperconvexity of $X_{\lambda}$. Hence, we have shown that $\mathcal{F}$ is pairwise intersecting. Since $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{E}(X_{\lambda})$ it follows by Proposition \[prop:intersection of EH\] that $$C:= B^{\lambda}(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i) \neq \emptyset.$$ Since $B(x_{i_0},r_{i_0}+s) \cap B(x_{j_0},r_{j_0}+s) \cap X_\lambda \subset A$ we have in particular $C \subset A$. Hence $$B^{\lambda}(x_i,r_i) \cap B^{\lambda}(x_j,r_j) \cap A \supset C \cap A = C \neq \emptyset,$$ and this is the desired result.\
To see that $X_\lambda$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$, use that for $x \in X$, $r \geq d(x,X_\lambda)$, $x_i \in X_\lambda$ with $d(x,x_i) \leq r + r_i$, $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i + r_j$ we have $B(x,r) \cap B(x_i,r_i) \cap X_\lambda \neq \emptyset$ by Lemma \[lem:distance\] and therefore $\{ B(x,r) \cap X_\lambda, B^\lambda(x_i,r_i) \}$ is a family of pairwise intersecting externally hyperconvex subsets of $X_\lambda$.
Combining Propositions \[prop:externally hyperconvex balls\] and \[prop:gluing along WEH\] we get Theorem \[thm:gluing along WEH\].
Let $X_0$ be a hyperconvex metric space and $\{ X_\lambda \}_{\lambda \in \Lambda}$ a family of hyperconvex metric spaces with weakly externally hyperconvex subsets $A_\lambda \in \mathcal{W}(X_\lambda)$ such that for every $\lambda$ there is an isometric copy $A_\lambda \in \mathcal{W}(X_0)$ and $A_\lambda \cap A_{\lambda'}= \emptyset$ for $\lambda \neq \lambda'$. If for every $x_\lambda \in X_\lambda$ and every $x \in X_0$ we have $B(x_\lambda,d(x_\lambda,A_\lambda))\cap A_\lambda \in \mathcal{E}(X_0)$ and $B(x,d(x,A_\lambda))\cap A_\lambda \in \mathcal{E}(X_\lambda)$, then $X = X_0 \bigsqcup_{\{A_\lambda : \lambda \in \Lambda\}} X_\lambda$ is hyperconvex.
First by Theorem \[thm:gluing along WEH\] we get that $Y_\lambda = X_0 \sqcup_{A_\lambda} X_\lambda$ is hyperconvex and $X_0 \in \mathcal{W}(Y_\lambda)$. Observe that $X$ can be obtained by gluing the spaces $Y_\lambda$ along $X_0$, i.e. $X= \bigsqcup_{X_0} Y_\lambda$. Therefore it remains to prove that for $\lambda \neq \lambda'$ and $x \in Y_\lambda$ the intersection $B:=B(x,d(x,X_0)) \cap X_0 \in \mathcal{E}(Y_{\lambda'})$.
By Corollary \[cor:transitivity of WEH\] clearly we have $B \in \mathcal{W}(Y_{\lambda'})$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $x \notin X_0$. Then we have $d(x,X_0)=d(x,A_\lambda)$ and therefore $B=B(x,d(x,A_\lambda))\cap A_\lambda \in \mathcal{E}(X_0)$, especially $B \subset A_\lambda$. Hence by Corollary \[cor:admitting distance\] we get $d(B,A_{\lambda'}) > 0$, i.e. there is some $s > 0$ such that $B^{\lambda'}(B,s) \subset X_0$. Thus $B \in \mathcal{E}( B^{\lambda'}(B,s))$ and by Lemma \[lem:locally externally hyperconvex\] we get $B \in \mathcal{E}(Y_{\lambda'})$ as desired.
\[prop:gluing copies\] Let $X$ be a metric space and $A \subset X$ such that $X \sqcup_A X$ is hyperconvex. Then, the following hold
(i) $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$,
(ii) For every $x \in X$, the intersection $B(x,d(x,A))\cap A$ is externally hyperconvex in $X$.
Let us denote the second copy of $X$ by $X'$ and for any $y \in X$, let $y'$ denote its corresponding copy in $X'$. Pick $x_0 \in X$ and $r_0 \ge 0$ such that $d(x_0,A) \leq r_0$ and let $\{(x_i,r_i)\}_{i \in I} \subset A \times [0,\infty)$ be such that $d(x_i,x_j) \leq r_i+r_j$ for $i,j \in I \cup \{0\}$. It follows that $d(x_0,x_0') \leq 2r_0$ and since $X \sqcup_A X$ is hyperconvex we have $$B := \bigcap_{i\in I} B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_0,r_0) \cap B(x_0',r_0)\neq \emptyset.$$ By symmetry there are $y,y' \in B$ with $y\in X$ and $y' \in X'$. Then, since intersections of balls are hyperconvex there is some geodesic $[y,y'] \subset B$, which must intersect $A$. Therefore we get $$\bigcap_{i\in I} B(x_i,r_i) \cap B(x_0,r_0) \cap A \neq \emptyset$$ and hence $A$ is weakly externally hyperconvex.
For *(ii)* observe that $$B(x,d(x,A))\cap A=B(x,d(x,A))\cap B(x',d(x,A)) \in \mathcal{A}(X \sqcup_A X).$$
Condition $(i)$ is not enough as the following example shows.
Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be two copies of $l_{\infty}^3$. Consider the gluing $X := X_1 \sqcup_V X_2$ where $$V := \{x \in l_{\infty}^3 : x_1 = x_2 \text{ and } x_3 = 0\}.$$ and where the gluing maps are given by the inclusion maps for $V$. To see that $X$ is not hyperconvex, consider $p_1:=(0,0,1)$ in $X_1$ as well as $p_2:=(2,0,0)$ and $p_2':=(0,-2,0)$ both in $X_2$. Note that $B(p_1,1) \cap X_2 = \{(t,t,0):t \in [-1,1]\}$ and hence $B(p_1,1) \cap B(p_2,1)=\{(1,1,0)\} \in V$ as well as $B(p_1,1) \cap B(p_2',1)=\{(-1,-1,0)\} \in V$. Moreover, $B(p_2,1) \cap B(p_2',1) = \{1\} \times \{-1\} \times [-1,1] \subset X_2$. Hence, $$B(p_1,1) \cap B(p_2,1) \cap B(p_2',1) = \emptyset.$$
But as a consequence of Propositions \[prop:gluing along WEH\] and \[prop:gluing copies\] we get the necessary and sufficient condition stated in Theorem \[thm:gluing of copies\].
Let $A$ be a strongly convex subset of the hyperconvex space $X$ and $r \geq 0$. Then $B(A,r)$ is weakly externally hyperconvex and for any $x \in X$ the set $B(x,d(x,B(A,r)))\cap B(A,r)$ is externally hyperconvex in $X$ by Lemma \[lem:nbhd of WEH\]. Hence gluing along $B(A,r)$ preserves hyperconvexity.
The Case of $l_{\infty}(I)$
===========================
A *cuboid* in $l_\infty^n$ is the product $\prod_{i=1}^n I_i$ of closed (but not necessarily bounded) non-empty intervals $I_i \subset \mathbb{R}$.
\[Prop:Cuboids\] A subset $A$ of $l_\infty^n$ is externally hyperconvex if and only if it is a cuboid.
On the one hand, cuboids are externally hyperconvex by Lemma \[Lem:Products\]. On the other hand, if $A$ is externally hyperconvex it is closed. Hence it is enough to show that for any points $x,y \in A$ and $z \in l_\infty^n$ with $z_i \in I(x_i,y_i)$ for each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$, it follows that $z \in A$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $x_i \leq z_i \leq y_i$. Let $$r := \max_{i \in \{1, \ldots, n \} } \{z_i-x_i, y_i-z_i\}.$$ For each $i \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$, define $$\begin{aligned}
p^i &= (z_1, \ldots z_{i-1}, x_i-r, z_{i+1}, \ldots, z_n ) \ \text{ and } \ r_i = z_i-x_i + r, \\
q^i &= (z_1, \ldots z_{i-1}, y_i+r, z_{i+1}, \ldots, z_n ) \ \text{ and } \ s_i = y_i-z_i + r.
\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have $$\bigcap_{i=1}^n B(p^i,r_i) \cap \bigcap_{i=1}^n B(q^i,s_i) = \{z\}.$$ Moreover $d(p^i,A) \leq d(p^i,x) \leq r_i$ as well as $d(q^i,A) \leq d(q^i,y) \leq s_i$ and therefore since $A$ is externally hyperconvex $$\emptyset \neq \bigcap_{i=1}^n B(p^i,r_i) \cap \bigcap_{i=1}^n B(q^i,s_i) \cap A \subset \{z\}.$$ It follows that $z \in A$ and this concludes the proof.
The proof of Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\] is a direct adaptation of the proof of [@Lan Proposition 2.4]. Note moreover that the proximinality assumption is no restriction since any weakly externally hyperconvex subset of a hyperconvex metric space is proximinal, cf. [@EspK]. Furthermore, if the index set $I$ is countable, $Q$ given by a system of inequalities as in Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\] is always proximinal.
Suppose that $Q$ is a non-empty subset of $l_\infty(I)$, with $I$ countable, given by an arbitrary system of inequalities of the form ${\sigma}x_i \le C$ or ${\sigma}x_i + \tau x_j \le C$ with ${\sigma},\tau \in \{ \pm 1 \} $ and $C \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Then, $Q$ is proximinal.
Recall that $l_1(I)^*$ is isomorphic to $l_\infty(I)$. Note that the maps from $l_{\infty}(I)$ to ${\mathbb{R}}$ given by $\varphi_{\sigma e_i}: f \mapsto \sigma f_i$ and $\varphi_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j} : f \mapsto \sigma f_i + \tau f_j$ are continuous in the weak\* topology on $l_{\infty}(I)$ since $\sigma e_i$ and $\sigma e_i + \tau e_j$ are both in $l_1(I)$. Since by assumption $$Q = \bigcap_{(i,\sigma)} \varphi_{\sigma e_i}^{-1}((-\infty,C_{(i,\sigma)}]) \cap \bigcap_{(i,j,\sigma,\tau)} \varphi_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}^{-1}((-\infty,C_{(i,j,\sigma,\tau)}])$$ we deduce that $Q$ is weak\* closed and setting $\Delta := d(x,Q)$, it follows from the theorem of Banach-Alaoglu that the set $A:= B(x,\Delta+1) \cap Q$ is weak\* compact. Now, the sets $$(B(x,\Delta +\tfrac{1}{n}) \cap Q)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$$ form a decreasing sequence of weak\*-closed non-empty subsets of $A$. By the closed set criterion for compact sets, it follows that $$B(x,\Delta) \cap Q = \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \bigl(B(x,\Delta +\tfrac{1}{n}) \cap Q \bigr) \neq \emptyset.$$ This shows that $Q$ is proximinal.
We now turn to:
For $i \in I$, denote by $R_i$ the reflection of $l_\infty(I)$ that interchanges $x_i$ with $-x_i$.
Let $A \cup \{b \}$ be a metric space with ${\emptyset}\ne A$ and let $y \in l_\infty(I) \setminus Q$. For any $f \in {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A,Q \cup \{y\})$ satisfying that $d_{\infty}(y,Q) \leq d(a,b)$ if $f(a)=y$, we show that there is an extension ${\overline}f \in {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A \cup \{b \},Q \cup \{y\})$ such that ${\overline}f( b) \in Q$. It is easy to see that this implies that $Q \in \mathcal{W}(l_\infty(I))$, it is similar to showing that injectivity implies hyperconvexity, cf. [@Lan].
Let $A' := A \setminus f^{-1}(\{y\})$. By proximinality of $Q$, we have $Q \cap B(y,d_\infty(y,Q)) \neq {\emptyset}$. We can thus assume that $$\label{eq:l0}
0 \in Q \cap B(y,d_{\infty}(y,Q)) \subset Q \cap \bigcap_{a' \in f^{-1}(\{y\})}B(f(a'),d(a',b)),$$ so that all constants on the right sides of the inequalities describing $Q$ are non-negative. First, for a real valued function $f \in {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A,{\mathbb{R}})$, we combine the smallest and largest $1$-Lipschitz extensions and define ${\overline}f \colon A \cup \{b \} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $${\overline}f(b) := \sup \Bigl\{ 0,\,\sup_{a \in A}(f(a) - d(a,b)) \Bigr\} +
\inf \Bigl\{ 0,\,\inf_{a' \in A}(f(a') + d(a',b)) \Bigr\}.$$ Note that at most one of the two summands is nonzero since $f(a) - d(a,b) \le f(a') + d(a,a') - d(a,b) \le f(a') + d(a',b)$. It is not difficult to check that ${\overline}f$ is a $1$-Lipschitz extension of $f$ and that ${\overline}{R \circ f} = R \circ {\overline}f$ for the reflection $R \colon x \mapsto -x$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$. Moreover, by , it follows that $$\sup_{a \in f^{-1}(\{y\})}(f(a) - d(a,b)) \le 0$$ and $$\inf_{a \in f^{-1}(\{y\})}(f(a) + d(a,b)) \ge 0.$$ It follows that ${\overline}f$ can be defined by taking suprema and infima on $A'$ instead of $A$ without changing ${\overline}f(b)$. We define the extension operator $$\phi \colon {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A,l_\infty(I)) \to {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A \cup \{b \},l_\infty(I))$$ such that $\phi(f)$ satisfies $\phi(f)_i = {\overline}{f_i}$ for every $i$. Clearly $\phi(f) \in {\operatorname{Lip}}_1(A \cup \{b \},l_\infty(I))$ and $$\label{eq:l1}
\phi(R_i \circ f) = R_i \circ \phi(f)$$ for every $i$. To see that $\phi(f)(b) \in Q$, it thus suffices to show that the components of $\phi(f)$ satisfy $$\label{eq:l2}
\phi(f)_i + \phi(f)_j \le C$$ whenever $f_i + f_j \le C$ for some pair of possibly equal indices $i,j$ and some constant $C \ge 0$.
Suppose that $f_i(a) + f_j(a) \le C$ for some indices $i,j$, some constant $C \ge 0$ and every $a \in A' := A \setminus f^{-1}(\{y\})$. Assume that $\phi(f)_i(b) \ge \phi(f)_j(b)$. If $\phi(f)_j(b) > 0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(f)_i(b) + \phi(f)_j(b)
&= \sup_{a,a' \in A'} (f_i(a) + f_j(a') - d(a,b) - d(a',b)) \\
&\le \sup_{a,a' \in A'} (f_i(a) + f_j(a') - d(a,a')) \\
&\le \sup_{a \in A'} (f_i(a) + f_j(a)) \le C.\end{aligned}$$ If $\phi(f)_i(b) > 0 \ge \phi(f)_j(b)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(f)_i(b) + \phi(f)_j(b)
&\le \sup_{a \in A'} (f_i(a) - d(a,b)) + \inf_{a' \in A'} (f_j(a') + d(a',b)) \\
&\le \sup_{a \in A'} (f_i(a) + f_j(a)) \le C.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, if $\phi(f)_i(b) \le 0$, then $\phi(f)_i(b) + \phi(f)_j(b) \le 0 \le C$.
\[RemarkInjectiveHull\] By Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\], and borrowing the notation and terminology from [@Lan], for any metric space $X$ and for any admissible set $A \in {\mathscr{A}}(X)$, note that the set $$P(A) := \Delta(X) \cap H(A)$$ is isometric to a weakly externally hyperconvex subset of $l_{\infty}(X)$ if it is proximinal. Indeed, for any point $x_0 \in X$, let us denote by $\tau \colon {\mathbb{R}}^X \to {\mathbb{R}}^X$ the translation $f \mapsto f - d_{x_0}$ where $d_{x_0}: x \mapsto d(x_0,x) $. One has $$\tau(P(A)) \subset \tau({{\rm E}(X)}) \subset l_{\infty}(X),$$ see [@Lan Section 3 and 4]. Recall that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(X) &:= \{ f \in {\mathbb{R}}^X : f(x) + f(y) \ge d(x,y) \text{ for all } x,y \in X \} \text{ and } \\
H(A) &:= \{ g \in {\mathbb{R}}^X : g(x) + g(y) = d(x,y) \text{ for all } \{x,y\} \in A \}.\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\], if $P(A)$ is proximinal, it follows $\tau(P(A))$ is in $\mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}(X))$, as claimed. In particular, it follows that $\tau(P(A))$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $\tau({{\rm E}(X)})$ and since $\tau$ is an isometry, $P(A) \in \mathcal{W}({{\rm E}(X)})$. Finally, remember that under suitable assumptions on $X$, the family $\{P(A)\}_{A \in {\mathscr{A}}(X)}$ endows ${{\rm E}(X)}$ with a canonical polyhedral structure where for any $A \in {\mathscr{A}}(X)$, $P(A)$ is a cell of ${{\rm E}(X)}$ isometric to a convex polytope in $l^n_{\infty}$ hence it is compact and thus in particular proximinal and Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\] applies.
In the following, we use the notation $I_n :=\{1,\dots,n\}$.
[@Pav Theorem 2.1]\[Thm:HyperconvexSubspaces\] Let $\emptyset \neq V \subset l_{\infty}^n$ be a linear subspace and let $k:= \mathrm{dim}(V)$. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. $V$ is hyperconvex.
2. There is a subset $J \subset I_n$ with $|J|=k$ such that for any $i \in I_n \setminus J$ there exist real numbers $\{c_{i,j}\}_{j \in J}$ such that $\sum_{j \in J} |c_{i,j}| \le 1$ and $$V = \Biggl \{ (x_1,\dots,x_n) \in l_{\infty}^n : \text{ for all } i \in I_n \setminus J \ , \text{ one has } x_i = \sum_{j \in J} c_{i,j}x_j \Biggr \}.$$
\[Prop:StronglyConvex\] Let $n \ge 1$ and let $V$ denote any linear subspace of $l_{\infty}^n$. Then, $V$ is strongly convex if and only if one of the following three cases occurs:
(i) $V=\{0\}$,
(ii) $V={\mathbb{R}}e$ where $e$ denotes a vertex of the hypercube $[-1,1]^n$ or
(iii) $V=l_{\infty}^n$.
Let $k=\dim V$. Since strongly convex subspaces are hyperconvex, by Theorem \[Thm:HyperconvexSubspaces\], we may assume that $V$ is of the form $$V = \left \{ (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in l_\infty^n : x_l = \sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} x_i \text{ for } l=k+1, \ldots n \right \}$$ with $\sum_{i=1}^k |c_{l,i}| \leq 1$. Fix some $1 \leq i \leq k$ and consider $$x=(0, \ldots 0,1,0, \ldots 0, c_{k+1,i}, \ldots, c_{n,i}) \in V.$$ We have $c_{l,i} \neq 0$ since otherwise $$y=(0, \ldots 0,\tfrac{1}{2},0, \ldots 0, \tfrac{c_{k+1,i}}{2}, \ldots,\tfrac{c_{l-1,i}}{2},\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{c_{l+1,i}}{2}, \ldots, \tfrac{c_{n,i}}{2}) \in I(0,x) \setminus V.$$ Now take $l$ such that $|c_{l,i}|$ is minimal. Then $$y=(0, \ldots 0,|c_{l,i}|,0, \ldots 0, \tfrac{|c_{l,i}|}{|c_{k+1,i}|} c_{k+1,i}, \ldots, \tfrac{|c_{l,i}|}{|c_{n,i}|} c_{n,i}) \in I(0,x) \subset V$$ and therefore $c_{l,i} = c_{l,i} \cdot |c_{l,i}|$, i.e. $|c_{l,i}|=1$. Hence one has $c_{l,i} \in \{\pm 1\}$ for all $l=k+1, \ldots, n$ and $i=1, \ldots, k$. Since $\sum_{i=1}^k |c_{l,i}| \le 1$, it thus follows that either $k=0$, which corresponds to $(i)$, $k=1$, which corresponds to $(ii)$ or $k =n$, which corresponds to $(iii)$.
In the following, $\mathrm{relint}(S)$ denotes the relative interior of $S$ and $F_i$ denotes the facet $[-1,1]^n \cap \{x \in l_{\infty}^n : x_i=1\}$ of the unit ball $[-1,1]^n$ in $l_{\infty}^n$. Half-spaces are denoted by $H_v := \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n : x \cdot v \ge 0 \}$ (with $ \cdot $ denoting the standard scalar product) and $\partial H_v$ being the boundary of $H_v$.
\[Lem:IntersectingFacetsUnitCube\] Let $V$ denote any hyperconvex linear subspace of $l_{\infty}^n$ such that $V$ is not contained in any hyperplane of the form $\partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$. Then, the following hold:
(i) There is $(i,\sigma) \in I_n \times \{\pm 1\}$ such that $V \cap \mathrm{relint}(\sigma F_i) \neq \emptyset$. \[it:IntersectingRelativeInterior\]
(ii) If $V \neq l_{\infty}^n$, there is $i \in I_n$ and $\nu \in {\mathbb{R}}^n \setminus \{0\}$ such that $V \subset \partial H_{\nu}$ and $$\partial H_{\nu} \cap (F_i \cup (-F_i)) = \emptyset.$$\[it:NoIntersectingFacet\]
By Theorem \[Thm:HyperconvexSubspaces\], $V$ can without loss of generality be written as $$V:= \left \{(x_1,\dots,x_k,\sum_{j=1}^k c_{k+1,j}x_j,\dots,\sum_{j=1}^k c_{n,j}x_j) : x_1,\dots,x_k \in {\mathbb{R}}\right \},$$ where for every $m \in \{ k+1,\dots,n\}$, one has $\sum_{j=1}^k |c_{m,j}| \le 1$. It follows that $ V \subset \partial H_{\nu^m} $, where $$\nu^m := (c_{m,1},\dots,c_{m,k},0,\dots,0,-1,0,\dots,0)$$ (i.e. $-1$ in the $m$-th entry) and $\left\| \nu^m \right\|_1 = 1 + \sum_{j=1}^k |c_{m,j}| \le 2 = 2 \left\| \nu^m \right\|_{\infty}$. Since we assume that $V \not \subset \partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$, it follows that for every $m \in \{ k+1,\dots,n\}$ and every $i \in \{1,\dots,k\}$ we have $|c_{m,i}| < 1$. In particular, follows from the fact that $$(1,0,\dots,0,c_{k+1,1},\dots,c_{n,1}) \in V \cap \mathrm{relint}(F_1).$$ Now, follows from the fact that $ V \subset \partial H_{\nu} $ where $$\nu := (c_{k+1,1},\dots,c_{k+1,k},-1,0,\dots,0) \in \mathrm{relint}(-F_{k+1})$$ and $$\partial H_{\nu} \cap (F_{k+1} \cup (-F_{k+1})) = \emptyset.$$
We now proceed to the characterization of weakly hyperconvex polyhedra in $l^n_{\infty}$.
\[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\] Let $n \ge 1$ and let $V$ denote any linear subspace of $l_{\infty}^n$. Then, $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $l_{\infty}^n$ if and only if $V$ can be written as the intersection of hyperplanes of the form $\partial H_{\sigma e_i}$ or $\partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$ where $\sigma, \tau \in \{\pm 1\}$ and $i,j \in \{1, \cdots , n \} $. Equivalently, $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $l_{\infty}^n$ if and only if $$V = \{0\}^k \times l^m_{\infty} \times S_{p_1} \times \cdots \times S_{p_q},$$ where $S_{p_j}$ denotes a one-dimensional strongly convex linear subspace of $l^{p_j}_{\infty}$ for each $j \in \{1,\dots,q\}$. Note that then $n = k + m + \sum_j p_j$ and $\mathrm{dim}(V) = m + q$.
First, it is easy to see that both representations for $V$ given in the statement of Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\] are equivalent. To see this, remark that if $V$ has the desired product representation, then using Proposition \[Prop:StronglyConvex\], it is easy to express $V$ as an intersection of the desired form. Conversely, if $V$ can be written as such an intersection, then $V$ is given by a system of linear equalities which one can decompose into a set of minimal linear subsystems. Applying Proposition \[Prop:StronglyConvex\], one obtains the desired product representation for $V$.
Note that the hyperplanes of $l^n_{\infty}$ of the form $\partial H_{\sigma e_i}$ or $\partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$ are exactly the ones to which Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\] applies. Hence, whenever $V$ can be written as an intersection of such hyperplanes, it follows that $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex. This proves one implication in Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\].
We now assume that $V \in \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^n)$ and we show that $V$ can be written as $$V = \bigcap_{(i,\sigma)} \partial H_{\sigma e_i} \cap \bigcap_{(i,\sigma),(j,\tau)} \partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}.$$ If $V \subset W$, then $V \in \mathcal{W}(W)$. Now assume that $W = \partial H_{e_i}$ or $W= \partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$. Then there is a canonical bijective linear isometry $$\pi \colon W \to l_{\infty}^{n-1}, (x_1, \ldots, x_n) \mapsto (x_1, \ldots, x_{i-1},x_{i+1}, \ldots x_n)$$ with $\pi(V) \in \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^{n-1})$ and we can iterate this process.
We can therefore without loss of generality assume that $V$ is not contained in any hyperplane of the form $\partial H_{\sigma e_i}$ or $\partial H_{\sigma e_i + \tau e_j}$. It follows by in Lemma \[Lem:IntersectingFacetsUnitCube\] and hyperconvexity of $V$ that there is $(i,\sigma) \in I_n \times \{\pm 1\}$ such that $V \cap \mathrm{relint}(\sigma F_i) \neq \emptyset$.
By in Lemma \[Lem:IntersectingFacetsUnitCube\], there is a facet $\tau F_j$ of $[-1,1]^n$ such that $\tau F_j \cap V = \emptyset$. It follows that the facet $ \tau F_j':=\tau F_j \cap \sigma F_i$ of $\sigma F_i$ satisfies $\tau F_j' \cap V = \emptyset$.
But $\tau F_j'$ can be written as $\tau F_j'= \cap_{i \in \{1,2,3\}} B_i$ where we pick $v^{(0)} \in V \cap \mathrm{relint}(\sigma F_i)$ so that $[0,\infty)v^{(0)} \cap \partial H_{\tau e_j} \neq \emptyset$ and with $$\begin{aligned}
B_1 &= B(0,1), \\
B_2 &= B(R v^{(0)}, \| R v^{(0)} \|_{\infty} ) \text{ and } \\
B_3 &= B(\sigma e_i + \tau e_j + \widetilde{R} \tau e_j , \| \sigma e_i + \tau e_j + \widetilde{R} \tau e_j - ( \sigma e_i + \tau e_j ) \|_{\infty} ).\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, for $\widetilde{R}$ big enough, one has $B_3 \cap V \neq \emptyset$ since $V \not \subset \partial H_{e_j}$ and by the choice of $v^{(0)}$. For $\widetilde{R}$ chosen even bigger (if needed) and for $R$ big enough, one has $\sigma F_i = B_1 \cap B_2$ and $\tau F_j' = B_1 \cap B_2 \cap B_3$. It follows that the balls pairwise intersect and $V \cap B_1 \cap B_2 \cap B_3 = V \cap \tau F_j' = \emptyset$. This implies that $V \not \subset \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^n)$ which is a contradiction.
Let $V$ be a finite dimensional real vector space and let $Q$ be any convex non-empty subset of $V$. The *tangent cone* $\mathrm{T}_pQ$ to $Q$ at $p \in Q$ is defined to be the set $\overline{\cup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} ( p + n ( Q-p) ) }$ where $Q-p := \{ q-p : q \in Q\}$ and $nQ:=\{ nq : q \in Q\}$.
We can now proceed to the following:
\[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHConvexPolyhedra\] Suppose that $Q$ is a convex polyhedron in $l_{\infty}^n$ with non-empty interior. Then, the following are equivalent:
(i) $Q$ is given by a finite system of inequalities of the form ${\sigma}x_i \le C$ or ${\sigma}x_i + \tau x_j \le C$ with $|{\sigma}|,|\tau| = 1$ and $C \in {\mathbb{R}}$, \[it:ConvexPolyhedraItem1\]
(ii) $Q \in \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^n)$.\[it:ConvexPolyhedraItem2\]
The fact that implies is a direct consequence of Theorem \[Thm:CellsInjectiveHullWEH\]. On the other hand, the fact that implies follows by considering for each point $p$ in the relative interior of a facet of $Q$, the tangent cone $\mathrm{T}_pQ$. By the choice of $p$, $\mathrm{T}_pQ = H$ where $H$ is a closed half-space and from Proposition \[Prop:IncreasingSequenceWEH\] it follows that $H \in \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^n)$. Furthermore, $\partial H = H \cap (-H) \in \mathcal{W}(l_{\infty}^n)$ by Proposition \[prop:IntersectionWEH\]. Now, Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\] implies that $\partial H$ is given by an equality of the form ${\sigma}x_i = C$ or ${\sigma}x_i + \tau x_j = C$ with $\sigma,\tau \in \{ \pm 1 \}$ and $C \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Hence, $H$ is given by an inequality of the desired form. Since $Q$ can be written as the intersection of all such tangent cones $\mathrm{T}_pQ$, the result follows.
\[Lem:lem1\] Let $X_1=l_\infty^n$ and $X_2=l_\infty^m$. Moreover let $V$ be a linear subspace of both $X_1$ and $X_2$. Then for $x\in X_1$ and $r\geq 0$ we have $$B(x,r) \cap X_2 = \bigcup_{y \in B^1(x,r) \cap V} B^2(y,r-d(x,y)).$$ Moreover, $B(x,r) \cap X_2$ is connected.
Since $V$ is proper, for any $ x \in X_1$ and $ x'\in X_2$ there is some $y \in V$ with $d(x,x')=d(x,y)+d(y,x')$. Since $B^1(x,r) \cap V$ is connected, this is also true for $B(x,r) \cap X_2$.
If $V$ is any finite dimensional real vector space and $Q$ is any convex non-empty subset of $V$, we say that $e \in Q$ is an *extreme point* of $Q$, and we write $e \in \mathrm{ext}(Q)$, if for any $c,c' \in Q$ and $t \in [0,1]$ such that $e = (1-t) c + t c'$, it follows that $t \in \{0,1\}$. Finally, by a *convex polytope* in $V$, we mean a bounded intersection of finitely many closed half-spaces or equivalently the convex hull of finitely many points. A compact convex set in $V$ is a convex polytope if and only if it has finitely many extreme points (cf. [@Gru Section 3.1]).
\[Lem:lem2\] Let $X_1=l_\infty^n$ and $X_2=l_\infty^m$. Moreover let $V$ be a linear subspace of both $X_1$ and $X_2$ such that $V \neq X_1,X_2$ and $$X = X_1 \sqcup_V X_2$$ is hyperconvex. Then for $x\in X_1$ and $r > d(x,V)$ the set $B(x,r) \cap X_2$ is a cuboid.
We first show that $Q := B(x,r) \cap X_2$ is convex. Let $p,q \in Q$, there are then $\bar{p},\bar{q} \in V$ such that $$\label{eq:EquationIntervals}
d(x,\bar{p}) + d(\bar{p},p)= d(x,p) \ \text{ as well as } \ d(x,\bar{q}) + d(\bar{q},q)= d(x,q).$$ Consider now any point $z:= p + t(q-p) \in p + [0,1](q-p) \subset X_2$ and let $\bar{z}:= \bar{p} + t(\bar{q}-\bar{p}) \in V$. On the one hand $$d(z, \bar{z}) \le (1-t) d( p, \bar{p}) + t d( q, \bar{q})$$ and on the other hand $$d(x,\bar{z}) \le (1-t) d( x, \bar{p}) + t d( x, \bar{q}).$$ Summing the above two inequalities, applying the triangle inequality and using , we obtain $$d(x,z) \le (1-t) d(x,p) + t d(x,q) \le r.$$ It follows that $z \in Q$ and shows that $Q$ is convex.
Since $X$ is hyperconvex, for every $y \in X_2$ with $d(x,y) \leq r + d(y,V)$, the set $B(y,d(y,V)) \cap B(x,r) \cap X_2 = B(y,d(y,V)) \cap B(x,r) \in \mathcal{E}(X_2)$ and is therefore a cuboid. Hence $B(x,r) \cap X_2 \setminus V$ is locally a cuboid.
To see that $Q$ is a convex polytope, we show that $Q$ has only finitely many extreme points. Observe that $Q$ has only finitely many extreme points inside $V$ since $Q \cap V = B^1(x,r) \cap V$ and the right-hand side is a convex polytope contained in $V$. Now, note that since $Q$ is locally a cuboid outside of $V$, $Q$ has only finitely many different tangent cones at points outside of $V$, and this up to translation (of such cones). It is easy to see that $Q$ cannot have both a cone and a nontrivial translate of this cone as tangent cones. It follows that $Q$ can only have finitely many different tangent cones at points outside $V$. In particular, $Q$ has only finitely many extreme points and it is thus a convex polytope. Furthermore, $V$ meets the interior of $Q$ and $V$ has codimension at least one in $X_2$, hence $V$ cannot contain any facet of $Q$. It follows that $Q$ can be written as the intersection of tangent cones to $Q$ at points in $Q \setminus V$. Once again, since $Q$ is locally a cuboid outside of $V$, it follows that $Q$ is a cuboid.
\[Lem:lem3\] Let $X_1=l_\infty^n$ and $X_2=l_\infty^m$. Moreover let $V$ be a linear subspace of both $X_1$ and $X_2$ such that $V \neq X_1,X_2$ and $$X = X_1 \sqcup_V X_2$$ is hyperconvex. Then $V$ must be weakly externally hyperconvex in $X$.
Note that it is enough to show that $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_1$. First we introduce coordinates: $$V= \left \{ x \in l_\infty^m : \text{ for every } l \in \{ k+1, \ldots, n \}, \text{ one has } x_l = \sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} x_i \right \}.$$ As $V$ must be hyperconvex by Lemma \[lem:list properties gluing\], we may assume that $\sum_{i=1}^k |c_{l,i}| \leq 1$ for all $l$ by Theorem \[Thm:HyperconvexSubspaces\]. For $x \in X_1$ and $r > d(x,V)$ and by Lemma \[Lem:lem2\], we can write $$A:=B(x,r) \cap X_2 = \prod_{i=1}^m [a_i^{-1},a_i^{1}].$$ Let $\nu$ be a vertex of $[-1,1]^m$, i.e. $\nu \in \{-1,1\}^m$, and $a^\nu = (a_1^{\nu_1},\dots,a_m^{\nu_m} )$ the corresponding vertex of $A$. By Lemma \[Lem:lem1\], for every $a^\nu$ there must be some $\bar{a}^\nu \in V$ such that $d(a^\nu,\bar{a}^\nu) = r - d(x,\bar{a}^\nu)$. Since $a^\nu$ is a vertex of the cuboid $A$, $\bar{a}^\nu$ must lie on the diagonal $a^\nu + \mathbb{R}\nu$ or more precisely $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corner}
\bar{a}^\nu = a^\nu - t_\nu \nu\end{aligned}$$ for $t_\nu = d(a^\nu, \bar{a}^\nu) \geq 0$. Hence for every $l \in \{k+1, \ldots, m \}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:in V}
\bar{a}_l^\nu = \sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} \bar{a}_i^{\nu_i} = \sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} a_i^{\nu_i} - t_\nu \sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} \nu_i.\end{aligned}$$ Fix now some $l \in \{k+1, \ldots, m \}$. Then for $\nu \in \{-1,1\}^m$ consider $\nu^-, \nu^+ \in \{-1,1\}^m$ with $\nu^+_l =1$, $\nu^-_l = -1$ and $\nu^+_i = \nu^-_i =\nu_i$ for $i \neq l$. Clearly $\nu$ coincides with either $\nu^+$ or $\nu^-$. From we get $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{a}_l^{\nu^+} - \bar{a}_l^{\nu^-}
= (a_l^{\nu^+_l} - t_{\nu^+}\nu^+_l) - (a_l^{\nu^-_l} - t_{\nu^-}\nu^-_l)
= a_l^1 - a_l^{-1} - t_{\nu^+}- t_{\nu^-}.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that for $\nu^+, \nu^-$ on the right-hand side of (\[eq:in V\]) all parameters except $t_{\nu^+}, t_{\nu^-}$ are equal. Hence setting $c=\sum_{i=1}^k c_{l,i} \nu_i \in [-1,1]$ we get $$\bar{a}_l^{\nu^+} - \bar{a}_l^{\nu^-} = c(t_{\nu^+}- t_{\nu^-}) \leq |t_{\nu^+}- t_{\nu^-}|.$$ Let us assume that $t_{\nu^+} \geq t_{\nu^-}$ (the other case is analogous). We then get $$\begin{aligned}
a_l^{+1}-a_l^{-1} - t_{\nu^+} - t_{\nu^-} &\leq t_{\nu^+}-t_{\nu^-}, \end{aligned}$$ or equivalently $2t_{\nu^+} \geq a_l^{+1}-a_l^{-1}$. But this inequality must be an equality since $B^2(\bar{a}^{\nu^+},t_{\nu^+}) \subset A$. Moreover we have $a^{\nu^+}, a^{\nu^-} \in B^2(\bar{a}^{\nu^+},t_{\nu^+})$. We conclude that $\bar{a}^\nu$ can always be chosen such that $$d(a^\nu,\bar{a}^\nu) = t_\nu = \frac{1}{2}\left(a_l^{+1}-a_l^{-1}\right).$$ Especially we have $\bar{a}_l^\nu = \frac{1}{2}\left(a_l^{+1}+a_l^{-1}\right)$. Hence, all vertices of $A$, and by convexity all points $a \in A$ are contained in a ball $B^2(\bar{a},t)$ with $\bar{a} \in B^1(x,r)\cap V$ and maximal radius $$t=r-d(x,\bar{a})=\frac{1}{2}\left(a_l^{+1}-a_l^{-1}\right).$$ Note that for $y \in B^1(x,r)\cap V$ the radius $r-d(x,y)$ is maximal if and only if $d(x,y)=d(x,V)$ and therefore $\bar{a} \in B(x,d(x,V))\cap V$.
We now use Lemma \[lem:characterization WEH\] to conclude that $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_1$. First we have $$B(x,d(x,V)) \cap V = \bigcap_n B(x,d(x,V)+\tfrac{1}{n}) \cap X_2 \in \mathcal{E}(X_2)$$ using Lemma \[Lem:lem2\] and therefore $B(x,d(x,V)) \cap V \in \mathcal{E}(V)$. Furthermore, for $y \in V$ assume that $r=d(x,y) > d(x,V)$. Then by the above there is some $a \in V \cap B(x,d(x,V))$ such that $$r = d(x,y) \leq d(x,a) + d(a,y) \leq d(x,V) + r - d(x,V) = r,$$ i.e. $d(x,y) = d(x,a) + d(a,y)$.
Finally,
If $X$ is hyperconvex, by Lemma \[Lem:lem3\], the subspace $V$ is weakly externally hyperconvex in $X_1$ and in $X_2$, we can thus apply Theorem \[Thm:FiniteDimensionalWEHLinearSubspaces\] and write $$V = l_\infty^{k_1} \times S_0 \times S_1 \times \ldots \times S_p \subset l_\infty^{k_1} \times l_\infty^{\mu_0} \times l_\infty^{\mu_1} \times \ldots \times l_\infty^{\mu_p} = X_1$$ where, for all $i$, the set $S_i \subsetneq l_\infty^{\mu_i}$ is strongly convex and, for $i \neq 0$, $S_i$ is one dimensional (for $i = 0$ we also might have $S_0=\{0\}$) and similarly $$V = l_\infty^{k_2} \times T_0 \times T_1 \times \ldots \times T_q \subset l_\infty^{k_2} \times l_\infty^{\nu_0} \times l_\infty^{\nu_1} \times \ldots \times l_\infty^{\nu_q} = X_2.$$
Let $\{e_1, \ldots, e_n \}$ and $\{ f_1, \ldots, f_m\}$ be the standard basis for $X_1$ and $X_2$ respectively. First observe that if $\mathbb{R}e_i \subset V$ then there is some $f_j$ with $\mathbb{R}e_i=\mathbb{R}f_j \subset V$. Indeed, if $\mathbb{R}e_i \subset V$ for every $r \geq 0$ we have $$[-r,r]e_i = \bigcap_{e \in \{-1,1\}^{i-1}\times \{0\} \times \{-1,1\}^{n-i} \subset X_1} B(r e,r) \in \mathcal{E}(X).$$ Note that as $[-r,r]e_i \in \mathcal{E}(X_2)$ it is a cuboid in $X_2$ and therefore $[-r,r]e_i=[-r,r]f_j$.
Hence we have $k = k_1 = k_2$ and can split off the maximal component $l_\infty^k$ from $X_1$, $X_2$ and $V$, that is we can write $V := l_\infty^k \times V' \subset l_\infty^k \times X_i' = X_i$ with $$\begin{aligned}
V'= S_0 \times S_1 \times \ldots \times S_p \subset l_\infty^{\mu_0} \times l_\infty^{\mu_1} \times \ldots \times l_\infty^{\mu_p} = X_1'\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
V'=T_0 \times T_1 \times \ldots \times T_q \subset l_\infty^{\nu_0} \times l_\infty^{\nu_1} \times \ldots \times l_\infty^{\nu_q} = X_2'.\end{aligned}$$
Assume now by contradiction that there are at least two non-trivial factors in the first decomposition, i.e. $p \geq 1$. Since for every factor $l_\infty^{\mu_i}$ there is some $x_i \in l_\infty^{\mu_i}$ with $d(x_i,S_i)=1$ there is some $x=(x_0,x_1, \ldots, x_{p-1},0) \in X_1'$ with $$B(x,d(x,V')) \cap V' = B(x,1)\cap V' = \{0\}^p \times \left(S_p \cap B^{S_p}(0,1)\right),$$ where $B^{S_p}(0,1)$ denotes the unit ball inside $S_p$. But $\{0\} \times (S_p \cap B^{S_p}(0,1)) \subset X_2'$ is not externally hyperconvex in $X_2'$ since it is not a cuboid. It follows that $B(x,d(x,V')) \cap V' \notin \mathcal{E}(X_2')$ which is a contradiction to Proposition \[prop:externally hyperconvex balls\]. Therefore, $V$ must consist of only one strongly convex factor.
For the other direction note that $X = l_\infty^k \times (X_1'\sqcup_{V'} X_2')$. The second factor is hyperconvex by Theorem \[thm:gluing along WEH\] since $V'$ is strongly convex. Hence also the product is hyperconvex by Lemma \[Lem:Products\].
**Acknowledgments.** We would like to thank Prof. Dr. Urs Lang for useful remarks on this work. We gratefully acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
[99]{}
N. Aronszajn and P. Panitchpakdi, Extension of uniformly continuous transformations and hyperconvex metric spaces. Pacific J. Math. 6 (1956), 405–439.
M. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature. Springer-Verlag, 1999.
R. Esp' inola, On selections of the metric projection and best proximity pairs in hyperconvex spaces. Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. A 59 (2005), 9–17.
R. Esp' inola and M. A. Khamsi, Introduction to hyperconvex spaces. Handbook of metric fixed point theory, 391–435, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2001.
R. Esp' inola, W.A. Kirk and G. L' opez, Nonexpansive Retractions in Hyperconvex Spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 251 (2000), 557–570.
B. Grünbaum, Convex Polytopes, Springer, second edition, 2002.
U. Lang, Injective hulls of certain discrete metric spaces and groups. J. Topol. Anal. 5 (2013), no. 3, 297–331.
U. Lang, M. Pav' on and R. Züst, Metric stability of trees and tight spans. Arch. Math. (Basel) 101 (2013), 91–100.
B. Miesch, Gluing hyperconvex metric spaces. Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 3 (2015), 102–110.
M. Pav' on, Injective Convex Polyhedra. arXiv:1410.7306.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: 'NLO QCD analysis of single-diffractive dijet production at the Tevatron'
---
Introduction
============
In high-energy hadronic collisions, a large fraction of the events is produced diffractively and contains one or more leading (anti-)protons or excited hadronic states $Y$ with relatively low mass $M_Y$, which are separated from the central hard process by rapidity gaps. Hard diffraction has been studied intensely in deep-inelastic $ep$ scattering (DIS) at HERA, where it can be understood due to the presence of the large squared photon virtuality $Q^2$ in terms of the Pomeron structure function $F_2^{D}(x,Q^2,\xi,t)=\sum_if_{i/p}^D\otimes\sigma_{\gamma^*i}
$, factorizing into diffractive parton density functions (DPDFs) $f_{i/p}^D$ and perturbatively calculable partonic cross sections $\sigma_{\gamma^*i}$ [@Collins:1997sr]. Assuming in addition Regge factorization, the DPDFs $f_{i/p}^D=f_{i/\p}(\beta=x/\xi,Q^2)f_{\p/p}(\xi,t)$ can be parameterized in terms of a Pomeron flux factor $f_{\p/p}$, which depends on the longitudinal momentum fraction of the pomeron in the proton $\xi$ and the squared four-momentum transfer at the proton vertex $t$, and PDFs in the Pomeron $f_{i/\p}$, which depend on the momentum fraction of the partons in the pomeron $\beta$ and an unphysical factorization scale $Q^2$, and fitted to diffractive DIS data [@Aktas:2006hy]. Diffractive dijet production data add further constraints, in particular on the gluon distribution [@Aktas:2007bv]. At high $\xi$, a subleading Reggeon contribution must be taken into account.
As $Q^2$ decreases, the applicability of perturbative QCD must be ensured by sufficiently large jet transverse energies $E_{T1,2}$. From the absorption of collinear initial-state singularities at next-to-leading order (NLO) [@Klasen:2005dq], the photon develops a hadronic structure and contributes not only with direct, but also resolved processes [@Klasen:2004ct]. These processes occur also in hadron-hadron scattering, where factorization is broken due to the presence of soft interactions in both the initial and final states [@Collins:1992cv], and factorization breaking is indeed observed in dijet photoproduction at NLO [@Klasen:2004qr]. Similar effects may also arise in dijet production with a leading neutron [@Klasen:2001sg]. Soft rescattering must be understood, if one wishes to exploit processes like diffractive Higgs production, which offers a promising alternative to the difficult inclusive diphoton signal in the low-mass region [@Royon:2003ng]. In this article, we present the first NLO analysis of diffractive dijet production in hadron collisions [@Klasen:2009bi].
Diffractive dijet production at the Tevatron
============================================
Dijet production with a leading antiproton has been measured by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron in the range $|t|<1$ GeV$^2$, used also by the H1 collaboration for the extraction of their PDFs 2006 Fit A,B and 2007 Fit Jets, but at slightly larger $\xi\in[0.035;0.095]$ [@Affolder:2000vb]. From the ratio $\tilde{R}(x_{\bar{p}}=\beta \xi)$ of single-diffractive (SD) to non-diffractive (ND) cross sections as a function of $x_{\bar{p}}=\sum_iE_{Ti}/
\sqrt{s}e^{-\eta_i}$, integrated over $E_{Ti}>7$ GeV and $|\eta_i|< 4.2$, an effective diffractive structure function $\tilde{F}_{JJ}^D(\beta)=\tilde{R}\times
F_{JJ}^{ND}$ was extracted assuming $F_{JJ}^{ND}(x,Q^2)=x[f_{g/p}+4/9
\sum_if_{q_i/p}]$ with GRV 98 LO proton PDFs and compared to older H1 diffractive structure functions at fixed $Q^2=75$ GeV$^2$. These were found to overestimate the measured diffractive structure function by about an order of magnitude, while the correction to be applied to the H1 measurements with $M_Y<1.6$ GeV, when compared to the CDF measurements with leading antiprotons, should only be about 23% [@Aktas:2006hy].
In a subsequent publication, the CDF collaboration analyzed in a similar way data at $\sqrt{s}=630$ GeV, not only 1800 GeV, in order to test factorization, Pomeron flux renormalization, and rapidity-gap survival models [@Kaidalov:2001iz], but found no significant energy dependence [@Affolder:2001zn]. In addition they restricted the $|t|$-range to below 0.2 GeV$^2$ and the average transverse jet energy to $\bar{E}_T>10$ GeV, which has the advantage of removing the infrared sensitivity of two equal cuts on $E_{T1,2}$ [@Klasen:1995xe]. In both publications, the extraction of $\tilde{F}_{JJ}^D$ was performed on the basis of leading order (LO) QCD and assuming that the $t$-channel gluon exchange in the partonic cross sections dominates.
NLO QCD analysis
================
Our NLO QCD analysis is based on previous work on inclusive dijet photoproduction [@Klasen:1996it], where the resolved photon contribution can be directly applied to dijet hadroproduction [@Klasen:1996yk]. It takes into account the convolution of Pomeron flux factors and PDFs, modern CTEQ6.6M proton and H1 2006 and 2007 Pomeron PDFs with $Q^2=E_{T1}^2$ on an event-by-event basis, and the complete set of parton-parton scattering cross sections. Jets are defined by a cone with radius $R=0.7$ as in the CDF experiment and imposing a parton separation of $R_{\rm sep}=1.3R$. The normalized control distributions $1/\sigma\,
\d\sigma/\d\bar{E}_T$ and $1/\sigma\,\d\sigma/\d\bar{\eta}$ (not shown) are in good agreement with the SD and ND measurements, in particular for $E_{T2}>6.6$ GeV removing the infrared sensitivity in the first CDF analysis and for $\sqrt{s}=630$ GeV in the second CDF analysis [@Klasen:2009bi]. However, the ratio $\tilde{R}$ of SD to ND dijet cross sections as a function of $x_{\bar{p}}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:1\] (left)
![\[fig:1\]Left: Ratio $\R$ of SD to ND dijet cross sections as a function of the momentum fraction of the parton in the antiproton, computed at NLO (with three different DPDFs) and at LO and compared to the Tevatron Run I data from the CDF collaboration. Right: Double ratio of experimental over theoretical values of $\R$, equivalent to the factorization-breaking suppression factor required for an accurate theoretical description of the data (color online).](fig01a "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![\[fig:1\]Left: Ratio $\R$ of SD to ND dijet cross sections as a function of the momentum fraction of the parton in the antiproton, computed at NLO (with three different DPDFs) and at LO and compared to the Tevatron Run I data from the CDF collaboration. Right: Double ratio of experimental over theoretical values of $\R$, equivalent to the factorization-breaking suppression factor required for an accurate theoretical description of the data (color online).](fig01b "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"}
for $\sqrt{s}=1800$ TeV and $|t|<1$ GeV$^2$ significantly overestimates the data for all employed diffractive PDFs and even more at NLO than at LO, due to an average ratio of SD to ND $K$-factors of 1.35 (1.6 at $\sqrt{s}=630$ GeV). Remember that all theoretical predictions should be divided by a factor of 1.23 to correct for diffractive dissociation included in the H1 DPDFs.
The double ratios $\tilde{R}^{\rm exp}/\tilde{R}^{\rm (N)LO}$ in Fig. \[fig:1\] (right) and Fig. \[fig:2\] can be interpreted as suppression factors or
![\[fig:2\]Double ratios of experimental over theoretical values of $\R$, equivalent to the factorization-breaking suppression factor required for an accurate theoretical description of the data from the Tevatron at $\sqrt{s}=630$ (left) and 1800 GeV (right) (color online).](fig02a "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![\[fig:2\]Double ratios of experimental over theoretical values of $\R$, equivalent to the factorization-breaking suppression factor required for an accurate theoretical description of the data from the Tevatron at $\sqrt{s}=630$ (left) and 1800 GeV (right) (color online).](fig02b "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
rapidity-gap survival probabilities, which are smaller than one due to soft rescattering. Their qualitative behavior in these three figures is very similar: we observe a dependence on $x_{\bar{p}}$ with a minimum at $\log_{10}(x_{\bar{p}})
\simeq -1.5$ $(x_{\bar{p}}\simeq 0.032)$, a rise towards smaller $x_{\bar{p}}$ by up to a factor of five, a smaller rise towards larger $x_{\bar{p}}$, and an appreciable dependence of the suppression factor on the chosen diffractive PDFs. The corresponding suppression factors for $\tilde{F}_{JJ}^D(\beta)$ (not shown), computed with the same assumptions on $F_{JJ}^{ND}$ as those taken by CDF, are minimal with the value $\sim 0.05$ at $\beta = 0.5$ and rise to $\sim 0.12$ for $\sqrt{s}=1800$ GeV and to $\sim 0.1$ for $\sqrt{s}=630$ GeV at $\beta=0.1$ and with H1 2006 Fit B. Here, the effect of NLO corrections is partially compensated by the simplifications inherent in the calculation of $\tilde{F}_{JJ}^D$. The strong rise of the suppression factors to values of $\sim 0.25$ for $\beta<0.05$ $[\log_{10}(x_{\bar{p}})<-2.5]$ at $\sqrt{s}=1800$ GeV may not be conclusive, since the H1 DPDFs are largely unconstrained in this region. On the other hand, the rise at $\log_{10}(x_{\bar{p}})>-1.5$ can be attributed to the Reggeon contribution, that should be added at large $\xi$. Note also that the variation of the suppression factor is considerably reduced for the H1 2007 Fit Jets, which has been obtained with additional constraints from diffractive DIS dijet production.
The extraction of $\tilde{F}^D_{JJ}(\beta)$ from $\tilde{R}(x_{\bar{p}})$ is based on the assumption that the latter is only weakly $\xi$-dependent and can be evaluated at an average value of $\bar{\xi}=0.0631$. This weak $\xi$-dependence is indeed observed in the newer CDF data and also in our theoretical calculations, which reflect the $\xi$-dependence of the H1 fits to the Pomeron flux factors $f_{\p/\bar{p}}(\xi,t)\propto \xi^{-m}$ with $m\simeq 1.1$ (0.9 in the CDF fit to their data). The (small) difference of the theoretical (1.1) and experimental (0.9) values of $m$ can be explained by a subleading Reggeon contribution, which has not been included in our predictions. To study its importance, we have computed the ratio of the Reggeon over the Pomeron contribution to the LO single-diffractive cross section at $\sqrt{s}=1800$ GeV. The Reggeon flux factor was obtained from H1 2006 Fit B and convolved, as it was done in this fit, with parton densities in the pion [@Owens:1984zj]. Very similar results were obtained for the H1 2007 Fit Jets Reggeon flux. On average, the Reggeon adds a 5% contribution to the single-diffractive cross section, which is smaller at small $x_{\bar{p}}=\xi\beta$ and $\xi$ (2.5%) than at large $x_{\bar{p}}$ and $\xi$ (8%). This corresponds to the graphs shown in Figs. 5 ($\xi=0.01$) and 6 ($\xi=0.03$) of Ref. [@Aktas:2006hy], e.g. at $Q^2=90$ GeV$^2$. While the Reggeon contribution thus increases the diffractive cross section and reduces the suppression factor at large $x_{\bar{p}}$, making the latter more constant, the same is less true at small values of $x_{\bar{p}}$.
Any model calculation of the suppression factor or rapidity-gap survival probability must try to explain two points, first the amount of suppression, which is $\sim 0.1$ at $\beta=0.1$, and second its dependence on the variable $\beta$ (or $x_{\bar{p}}$). Such a calculation has been performed by Kaidalov et al. [@Kaidalov:2001iz]. In this calculation, the hard scattering cross section for the diffractive production of dijets was supplemented by screening or absorptive corrections on the basis of eikonal corrections in impact parameter space. The parameters of the eikonal were obtained from a two-channel description of high-energy inelastic diffraction. The exponentiation of the eikonal stands for the exchange of multi-Pomeron contributions, which violate Regge and QCD factorization and modify the predictions based on single Pomeron and/or Regge exchange. The obtained suppression factor is not universal, but depends on the details of the hard subprocess as well as on the kinematic configurations. The first important observation from this calculation is that in the Tevatron dijet analysis the mass squared of the produced dijet system $M_{JJ}^2=
x_p\beta \xi s$ as well as $\xi$ are almost constant, so that small $\beta$ implies large $x_p$. The second important ingredient in this calculation is the assumption that the absorption cross section of the valence and the sea components, where the latter includes the gluon, of the incoming proton are different, in particular, that the valence and sea components correspond to smaller and larger absorption. For large $x_p$ or small $\beta$, the valence quark contribution dominates, which produces smaller absorptive cross sections as compared to the sea quark and gluon contributions, which dominate at small $x_p$. Hence the survival probability increases as $x_p$ increases and $\beta$ decreases. The convolution of the $\beta$-dependent absorption corrections with older H1 DPDFs [@H1] led to a prediction for $F^D_{JJ}(\beta)$, which was in very good agreement with the corresponding experimental distribution (see Fig. 4 in [@Kaidalov:2001iz]). A similar correction for soft rescattering of our single-diffractive NLO cross sections based on the more recent DPDFs of H1 should lead to a very similar result. An alternative model for the calculation of the suppression factor was developed by Gotsman et al. [@G]. However, these authors did not convolve their suppression mechanism with the hard scattering cross section. Therefore a direct comparison to the CDF data is not possible.
At variance with the above discussion of diffractive dijet production in hadron-hadron scattering, the survival probability in diffractive dijet photoproduction was found to be larger ($\sim0.5$ for global suppression, $\sim0.3$ for resolved photon suppression only) and fairly independent of $\beta$ [@Klasen:2004qr; @Aktas:2007hn]. This can be explained by the fact that the HERA analyses are restricted to large values of $x_\gamma\geq 0.1$ (as opposed to small and intermediate values of $x_p=0.02$ ... $0.2$ at the Tevatron), where direct photons or their fluctuations into perturbative or vector meson-like valence quarks dominate. The larger suppression factor in photoproduction corresponds also to the smaller center-of-mass energy available at HERA.
It is a pleasure to thank G. Kramer for his collaboration and comments on the manuscript, H. Abramowicz, A. Levy, and A. Valkarova for interesting discussions, and the organizers of the DIS 2010 conference for creating a stimulating scientific atmosphere despite adverse [*forces majeures*]{}.
[99]{}
J. C. Collins, Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998) 3051 \[Erratum-ibid. D [**61**]{} (2000) 019902\]. A. Aktas [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{} (2006) 715. A. Aktas [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], JHEP [**0710**]{} (2007) 042; S. Chekanov [*et al.*]{} \[ZEUS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B [**831**]{} (2010) 1. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, J. Phys. G [**31**]{} (2005) 1391. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 232002. J. C. Collins, L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, Phys. Lett. B [**307**]{} (1993) 161. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**38**]{} (2004) 93; M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**23**]{} (2008) 1885 and references therein.
M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B [**508**]{} (2001) 259; M. Klasen, J. Phys. G [**28**]{} (2002) 1091; M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**49**]{} (2007) 957. C. Royon, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**18**]{} (2003) 2169. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 074006. A. A. Affolder [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 5043. A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{} (2001) 521. A. A. Affolder [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{} (2002) 151802. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B [**366**]{} (1996) 385. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Z. Phys. C [**76**]{} (1997) 67; M. Klasen, T. Kleinwort and G. Kramer, Eur. Phys. J. direct C [**1**]{} (1998) 1. M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Lett. B [**386**]{} (1996) 384; M. Klasen and G. Kramer, Phys. Rev. D [**56**]{} (1997) 2702. J. F. Owens, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{} (1984) 943. H1 Collaboration, T. Ahmed et al., Phys. Lett. B [**348**]{} (1995) 681; H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al., Z. Phys. C [**76**]{} (1997) 613.
G. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, Proc. of the Workshop on [*HERA and the LHC*]{}, part A, p. 221 (2005).
A. Aktas [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**51**]{} (2007) 549 \[arXiv:hep-ex/0703022\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe a tracer in a bath of soft Brownian colloids by a particle coupled to the density field of the other bath particles. From the Dean equation, we derive an exact equation for the evolution of the whole system, and show that the density field evolution can be linearized in the limit of a dense bath. This linearized Dean equation with a tracer taken apart is validated by the reproduction of previous results on the mean-field liquid structure and transport properties. Then, the tracer is submitted to an external force and we compute the density profile around it, its mobility and its diffusion coefficient. Our results exhibit effects such as bias enhanced diffusion that are very similar to those observed in the opposite limit of a hard core lattice gas, indicating the robustness of these effects. Our predictions are successfully tested against molecular dynamics simulations.'
address:
- |
$^1$ Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de la Matière Condensée, CNRS/UPMC,\
4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France.
- '$^2$ Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.'
- |
Laboratoire de Physique Théorique de la Matière Condensée, CNRS/UPMC,\
4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France.
- 'Université de Lyon, Laboratoire de Physique, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, CNRS, 46 allée d’Italie, F-69007 Lyon, France'
author:
- 'Vincent D'' emery$^{1,2}$'
- 'Olivier B'' enichou'
- Hugo Jacquin
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'Generalized Langevin equations for a driven tracer in dense soft colloids: construction and applications'
---
Introduction
============
Transport in a crowded environment is an issue particularly relevant to cell biology, where the crowding inside the cytoplasm can strongly affect the molecular diffusion [@Bressloff2013; @Hofling2013; @Tabei2013; @Szymanski2009] and thus hinder reactivity. This effect is also present in the plasma membrane, where the high protein concentration may slow down diffusion [@Ramadurai2009]. The transport properties of these media can be measured globally, using for example fluorescence recovery after photobleaching [@Konopka2006] or fluorescence correlation microscopy [@Szymanski2009], or locally, with single particle tracking [@Tabei2013].
Conversely, the observation of the motion of a probe is used in microrheology to investigate the properties of such complex fluids [@Waigh2005; @Wilson2011b]. In *passive* microrheology, the probe diffuses freely or oscillates in the parabolic well created by optical or magnetic tweezers and the measurement of its diffusion coefficient is used to determine, via the Stokes-Einstein relation, the solvent viscosity [@Wilson2009]. The probe can also be pulled by tweezers and the drag force is measured: this is *active* microrheology. However, when the size of the probe becomes comparable to the size of the complex fluid constituents, its motion is no longer a pure Brownian motion and is thus harder to analyse. This is one of the reasons why there is no straightforward relation between microrheology and macrorheology measurements [@Wilson2009]. Some theoretical studies have addressed the motion of the probe in complex fluids [@Squires2005; @Kruger2009; @Squires2010], but they are limited to an hydrodynamic description of the complex fluid or to dilute colloidal suspensions.
It has been proposed to model dense colloidal assemblies by a gas of hard core particles on a lattice [@Benichou2000; @Benichou2013b; @Benichou2013d; @Benichou2013e]. These studies focused on the motion of a tracer submitted to an external bias and computed its diffusion coefficient and the probability density function of its position. They exhibited unexpected effects such as bias enhanced diffusion coefficient or even super-diffusion in a very dense environment.
![(Colour online) Colloidal solution where a tracer (red particle) is pulled by an external force ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}$. The soft colloids may represent polymer coils, the size of the colloids being the gyration radius $R{_\mathrm{g}}$ of the polymer (top left). []{data-label="fig_schema"}](schema_blend.png){width="0.7\linewidth"}
Here, we consider the opposite limit of soft colloids, where we address the effective mobility and diffusion coefficient of a tracer submitted to an external force (cf. Figure \[fig\_schema\]). Soft colloids can be polymer coils, that interact with an effective potential that is close to a Gaussian [@Louis2000b] or disordered proteins, such as the $\alpha$-synuclein [@Wang2012]. Colloids or macromolecules motion in a solvent is well captured by an overdamped Langevin equation [@Hofling2013]. Transport in such system has been addressed by various tools, such as mode-coupling theory [@Kob2003; @Berthier2010] or direct perturbative analysis [@Dean2004]. In this work, we pursue a perturbative treatment of the intermolecular interaction, that is relevant when the molecules are soft, i.e. when the pair interaction is weak.
The overall density of a system of Langevin particles evolves according to the Dean equation [@Dean1996]. In order to resolve the tracer dynamics, we treat it separately and gather the other particles in a partial density field: two coupled evolution equations rule the whole system. At high density, we show that the density field evolution can be approximated by a much simpler linear equation. The final set of equations allows to reproduce easily former results such as the pair correlation function in liquids under the mean-field approximation [@Likos2001] or the effective diffusion coefficient of the tracer without any external forcing [@Dean2004]. Then we investigate the effect of an external forcing on the tracer and get analytical expressions for the average density around the tracer and the tracer effective mobility and diffusion coefficient. We show that they are qualitatively strikingly close to those computed for a tracer pulled in a hard core lattice gas. Notably, we find a critical force above which the diffusion is enhanced and the same decaying exponent for the density perturbation behind the tracer.
This article is organized as follows. The model is defined with the observables we focus on in section \[sec\_model\]. The linearized Dean equation with the tracer taken apart (LDT) is derived in section \[sec\_lin\_dean\]. The LDT is applied to a tracer in the absence of an external force in section \[sec:tracer\_no\_force\] and previous results are recovered. In section \[sec\_mob\_diff\], we apply the LDT to a tracer submitted to an external force and compute the density profile around it, its effective mobility and its effective diffusion coefficient. These results are compared to molecular dynamics simulations in section \[sec:numerics\]. We conclude in section \[sec\_conclu\].
Model {#sec_model}
=====
We consider $N+1$ Brownian particles interacting via the pair potential $V({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ and located at ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i$ in a $d$-dimensional space; the unit of length is the particle size and the unit of energy is the characteristic energy of the interaction. Moreover, an external force ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ is applied to the tracer, identified by $i=0$. The motion of each particle follows an overdamped Langevin dynamics: $$\label{eq:langevin_npart}
\dot {{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i(t)=\delta_{i,0}{{\boldsymbol{f}}}-\sum_{j\neq i} {{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i} V({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_j(t))+{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_i(t).$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_i(t)$ is a Gaussian white noise with correlation function $$\label{eq:noise_part}
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_i(t){{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_j(t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle=2T\delta_{i,j}\delta(t-t'){{\boldsymbol{1}}}$$ and $T$ stands for the thermal energy in units of the pair potential characteristic energy.
First, we are interested in the density field of all the particles but the tracer, that is defined by $$\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)=\sum_{i=1}^N \delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i(t)).$$ Note that the sum does not include the tracer. More precisely, we look at the average density field in the reference frame of the tracer: $$\label{eq:av_dens_tracer}
\langle \rho^*({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) \rangle=\langle \rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}}+{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t) \rangle.$$ The superscript ${}^*$ represents the reference frame of the tracer and the time dependence has been removed since we focus on the stationary state. We define the origin of the coordinate system so that $${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t=0)={{\boldsymbol{0}}}.$$ Then, we want to compute two observables describing the particle dynamical properties. The first observable we are interested in is the tracer effective mobility $\kappa{_\mathrm{eff}}$, defined by $$\label{eq:def_mobility}
\langle{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)\rangle\underset{t\rightarrow\infty}{\sim} \kappa{_\mathrm{eff}} {{\boldsymbol{f}}}t,$$ and the second is its effective diffusion coefficient $D{_\mathrm{eff}}$, defined by $$\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t) - \langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t) \rangle]^2 \right\rangle\underset{t\rightarrow\infty}{\sim}2dD{_\mathrm{eff}} t.$$ In the absence of interaction with the other particles, the tracer undergoes a biased Brownian motion of bare mobility $\kappa_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}=1$ and bare diffusion coefficient $D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}=T$, independently of the bias.
Linearized Dean equation {#sec_lin_dean}
========================
Derivation
----------
We want to describe the evolution of the $N+1$ particles as the evolution of the tracer ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)$ coupled to the density field $\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ of the other particles. The Dean equation [@Dean1996] gives the evolution of the total density $\rho{_\mathrm{tot}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)=\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t))+\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$, but it appears in its proof that the tracer can be extracted to get the evolution equation of the partial density $\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ (see \[ap\_dean\_1p\] for more details): $$\label{eq:dean}
\partial_t\rho=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\rho + {{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot[\rho {{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(V*\rho{_\mathrm{tot}})]+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot \left(\rho^{1/2} {{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}\right);$$ the star $*$ denotes the convolution and ${{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}$ is a Gaussian white noise with correlation function $$\label{eq:noise_dens}
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t){{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle=2T\delta(t-t')\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}'){{\boldsymbol{1}}}.$$ The Langevin equation (\[eq:langevin\_npart\]) for the tracer can be rewritten with the density field $\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$: $$\label{eq:langevin_partindens}
\dot {{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)={{\boldsymbol{f}}}-{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(V*\rho)({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t)+{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t).$$ The noise is the one appearing in Eq. (\[eq:langevin\_npart\]), ${{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t)={{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_0(t)$. Equations (\[eq:dean\]-\[eq:langevin\_partindens\]) are exact. However, the density evolution (\[eq:dean\]) is non linear and contains a multiplicative noise; we show that it can be linearized if the bath is dense.
We write the density created by the $N$ particles as the sum of a constant uniform term and a fluctuating term: $$\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)=\rho_0+\rho_0^{1/2}\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t).$$ The uniform density is $\rho_0=N/\mathcal{V}$, $\mathcal{V}$ being the volume of the system. Our computations are done in the limit of an infinite system size, with $\rho_0$ kept constant. We also define the rescaled interaction potential as $$v({{\boldsymbol{x}}})=\rho_0 V({{\boldsymbol{x}}}).$$ The evolution of the density fluctuations $\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:evol_phi_comp}
\fl\partial_t\phi=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\phi+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\phi) + \rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot[\phi{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(v*\phi)] + \rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0}) \nonumber\\
+ \rho_0^{-1}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot[\phi{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(v*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0})] +{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot\left[\left(1+\rho_0^{-1/2}\phi\right)^{1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0}$ is the Dirac delta function centered at ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0$.
The quadratic terms in the field $\phi$ and the multiplicative noise are negligible when $\rho_0^{-1/2}\phi\ll 1$. In this case the equation for the density fluctuations reduces to $$\label{eq:evol_phi_lin}
\partial_t\phi=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\phi+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\phi) + \rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0}) +{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}.$$ The density deviations from the average density $\rho_0$ come from the presence of the tracer and from the thermal fluctuations (represented respectively by the third and fourth terms in (\[eq:evol\_phi\_lin\])). From this linear equation, these contributions can be evaluated: the effect of the tracer on the density fluctuations is of order $\phi{_\mathrm{tr}}\sim \rho_0^{1/2}V/(T+\rho_0 V)$ and the thermal fluctuations are of order $\phi{_\mathrm{th}}\sim (1+\rho_0 V/T)^{-1/2}$. Hence, we can deduce that the condition $\rho_0^{-1/2}\phi\ll 1$ is satisfied in the high density limit $$\label{eq:valid_ldt}
\rho_0\gg 1.$$ The tracer equation of motion is given by (\[eq:langevin\_partindens\]): $$\label{eq:langevin_partinphi}
\dot {{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)={{\boldsymbol{f}}}-\rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(v*\phi )({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t)+{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t).$$ The set of equations (\[eq:evol\_phi\_lin\],\[eq:langevin\_partinphi\]), with the noises correlation functions (\[eq:noise\_part\], \[eq:noise\_dens\]), forms the linearized Dean equation with a tracer (LDT) and is a first result of our approach. We repeat these equations below for clarity: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot {{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t) & ={{\boldsymbol{f}}}-\rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(v*\phi )({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t)+{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t), \label{eq:ldt1}\\
\partial_t\phi & =T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\phi+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\phi) + \rho_0^{-1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0}) +{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}},\end{aligned}$$ where the noises have the following correlation functions $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t){{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle & =2T\delta(t-t'){{\boldsymbol{1}}}, \\
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t){{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle & =2T\delta(t-t')\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}'){{\boldsymbol{1}}}.\label{eq:ldt4}\end{aligned}$$
Note that without the tracer taken apart, Eq. (\[eq:evol\_phi\_lin\]) can be written $$\label{eq:dean_lin}
\partial_t\phi=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\phi+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2(v*\phi) +{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}.$$ This evolution is linear and free of multiplicative noise; we show later that it allows to recover mean-field results for the density two-point correlation function.
Link to a more general formalism
--------------------------------
The situation of a tracer interacting with a fluctuating field is ubiquitous and arises also, for example, when a diffusing membrane protein is coupled to the membrane curvature [@Reister2005; @Leitenberger2008; @Naji2009; @Reister_Gottfried2010]. For this reason, a framework has been developed for this kind of systems [@Demery2010; @Demery2011], allowing to derive very general results for the drag force felt by a tracer pulled at constant velocity [@Demery2010; @Demery2010a] or the effective diffusion coefficient of a free tracer [@Demery2011; @Dean2011]. We adopt the following strategy: first, we cast the linearized Dean equation with a tracer in this general formalism. This allows us to apply previous results to the tracer in a colloidal bath without an external force, that is done in the next section. Second, we extend the general formalism [@Demery2011] to cover the case of a tracer biased by an external force. Finally, we apply the general results to a tracer pulled in a bath of soft spheres.
The general equations describing the evolution of a particle interacting with a fluctuating field read [@Demery2010; @Demery2011] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t) & = {{\boldsymbol{f}}}+ h{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}K\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t)+{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t),\label{eq:langevin_part_gen}\\
\partial_t\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t) & = - R\Delta\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)+hRK\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)}+\xi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t), \label{eq:langevin_field_gen}\end{aligned}$$ where $K$, $R$ and $\Delta$ are functional operators and the Gaussian white noises ${{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t)$ and $\xi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ obey $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t){{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle & =2T\delta(t-t'){{\boldsymbol{1}}},\\
\left\langle \xi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)\xi({{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t') \right\rangle & = 2T\delta(t-t') R(x-x').\label{eq:field_noise}\end{aligned}$$ The notations used for functional operators are defined in \[ap:operators\]. The mapping between the general formalism and the LDT (\[eq:ldt1\]-\[eq:ldt4\]) is given in Fourier space by: $$\begin{aligned}
h&=\rho_0^{-1/2},\label{eq:map_coupling}\\
\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) & = T+\tilde v({{\boldsymbol{k}}}),\label{eq:map_delta}\\
\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) & = {{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2,\\
\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) & = -\tilde v({{\boldsymbol{k}}}).\label{eq:map_form}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we perform computations perturbatively in the coupling constant $h$; this is also the case of some former studies [@Demery2011; @Dean2011]. It is clear from (\[eq:langevin\_part\_gen\]-\[eq:langevin\_field\_gen\]) that the coupling strength is set by $hK\sim \rho_0^{1/2} V$ instead of $h$ itself. This coupling should then be compared to the thermal energy, so that the perturbative computation is valid when $$\label{eq:valid_pert}
\frac{\rho_0^{1/2}V}{T}\ll 1.$$ For the perturbative computations to be valid together with the LDT (see Eq. (\[eq:valid\_ldt\])), the pair interaction should be small and bounded, $V/T\ll 1$, meaning that the particles are *soft*: they can overlap completely at a finite energy cost. We restrict ourselves to this case from now on. An example of soft particles is given by polymer coils, whose effective pair potential is almost Gaussian [@Louis2000b].
Note that we consider here that the tracer is equivalent to the other particles, but it can also be different, representing for instance a hard sphere driven through soft polymer coils [@Kruger2009]. This difference is easily integrated in the general formalism: if $U({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ is the interaction potential between the tracer and the bath particles, Eq. (\[eq:map\_form\]) is replaced by $$\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=-\rho_0\tilde U({{\boldsymbol{k}}}).$$
Effective tracer evolution equation
-----------------------------------
We show that an effective, non-Markovian, evolution equation can be written for the tracer. The field evolution equation (\[eq:langevin\_field\_gen\]) is linear and can be integrated: $$\label{eq:solfield_gen}
\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)=\int_{-\infty}^t \left(e^{-|t-t'|R\Delta}[hRK\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t')}+\xi(\cdot,t')]\right)({{\boldsymbol{x}}}){{\mathrm{d}}}t'.$$ The lower integration bound $t_0=-\infty$ signifies that the system has forgotten its initial configuration and can be considered in a stationary state. Inserting this solution into the particle dynamics (\[eq:langevin\_part\_gen\]), we get $$\label{eq:eff_part_dyn}
\dot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t) ={{\boldsymbol{f}}}\\ + \int_{-\infty}^t {{\boldsymbol{F}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t'),t-t'){{\mathrm{d}}}t' + {{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}(t) + {{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t),t),$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ is a Gaussian noise with correlation function $$\label{eq:eff_part_noise}
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t){{\boldsymbol{\Xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle=2T{{\boldsymbol{G}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t-t').$$ We have introduced the functions $$\begin{aligned}
{{\boldsymbol{F}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t) & = h^2{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}Ke^{-tR\Delta}RK({{\boldsymbol{x}}}),\\
{{\boldsymbol{G}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t) & = -h^2{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}{^\mathrm{T}}K^2 e^{-|t|R\Delta}\Delta^{-1}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}),\end{aligned}$$ that read in Fourier space $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\boldsymbol{F}}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t) & = ih^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2 \tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) e^{-\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})t},\\
\tilde{{\boldsymbol{G}}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t) & = h^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{^\mathrm{T}}\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2\tilde\Delta^{-1}({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) e^{-\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|t|}.\end{aligned}$$ For a tracer in a colloidal bath, they are $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{{\boldsymbol{F}}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t) & = i\rho_0{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2 \tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2 e^{-{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2[T+\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})]t}, \label{eq:F_bath}\\
\tilde{{\boldsymbol{G}}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t) & = \rho_0{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{^\mathrm{T}}\frac{\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2}{T+\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})} e^{-{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2[T+\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})]|t|}. \label{eq:G_bath}\end{aligned}$$
The equations (\[eq:eff\_part\_dyn\], \[eq:eff\_part\_noise\], \[eq:F\_bath\], \[eq:G\_bath\]) contain all the information on the tracer dynamics in a colloidal bath: they provide the explicit generalized Langevin equation of a tracer, biased or not, in a dense bath of soft colloidal particles. This constitutes an important result of this article. The second term on the right hand side of (\[eq:eff\_part\_dyn\]) is a memory term; it represents the action of the tracer on its surrounding particles that propagates via the other particles and finally acts back on the tracer. The last term is a colored noise in time and space, coming from the white thermal noise on each particle that propagates through the bath before acting on the tracer.
Application to a colloidal bath at equilibrium {#sec:tracer_no_force}
==============================================
Before considering a tracer submitted to an external force in a colloidal bath, we show that the linearized Dean equation allows one to recover previous results in the physics of colloidal systems.
Pair correlation function
-------------------------
First, we compute the pair correlation function of the bath with the linearized Dean equation without taking the tracer apart (\[eq:dean\_lin\]); it is defined as [@Hansen2006] $$h({{\boldsymbol{x}}})= \frac{\langle \phi(0,t)\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t) \rangle-\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}})}{\rho_0}.$$ To compute the two-point correlation function of the field $\phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$, we write the solution (\[eq:solfield\_gen\]) without the effect of the tracer and in Fourier space: $$\tilde\phi({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t)=\int_{-\infty}^t e^{-\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|t-t'|}\tilde\xi({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t'){{\mathrm{d}}}t'.$$ Using the noise correlation function (\[eq:field\_noise\]) and integrating over $t'$, we can get the equal time two-point correlation function: $$\left\langle \tilde\phi({{\boldsymbol{k}}},t)\tilde\phi({{\boldsymbol{k}}}',t) \right\rangle=\frac{(2\pi)^d T\delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}+{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')}{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}.$$ The operator $\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})$ being given by the mapping (\[eq:map\_delta\]) we obtain the pair correlation function in Fourier space, $$\label{eq:deanlin_h}
\tilde h({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=-\frac{T^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{1+\rho_0 T^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})};$$ This formula is exactly the one obtained for the pair correlation function in the mean-field approximation [@Lang2000; @Likos2001], also called *random phase approximation* [@Louis2000]. That shows that the linearized Dean equation contains the mean-field approximation. We can also compute the average density in the reference frame of the tracer (\[eq:av\_dens\_tracer\]) without the external force ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}$, $\langle \rho^*({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) \rangle=\rho_0+\rho_0^{1/2}\psi({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ with $$\psi({{\boldsymbol{x}}})=\left\langle \phi({{\boldsymbol{x}}}+{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(0), 0)\right\rangle.$$ It is not possible to solve exactly the particle and field dynamics (\[eq:langevin\_part\_gen\], \[eq:langevin\_field\_gen\]), we thus restrict ourselves to a perturbative computation in the coupling constant $h$. To determine the profile $\psi({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ to the order $h$, we do not have to take into account the effect of the field on the particle motion, that is thus a simple Brownian motion. We average the general solution for the field $\phi$ (\[eq:solfield\_gen\]); the average over the field noise gives $0$, so that the profile reads in Fourier space $$\label{eq:psi1_f0}
\tilde\psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=h\int_0^\infty e^{-t\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})} \tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \left\langle e^{-i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(-t)} \right\rangle_0{{\mathrm{d}}}t.$$ The index $0$ on the average means that it is the average for the pure Brownian motion, without coupling between the particle and the field $\phi$. At a given time $t$, the position of the particle ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(-t)$ is a Gaussian random variable of zero mean and variance $2D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}t{{\boldsymbol{1}}}$, giving for the average $$\label{eq:average_exp_pos}
\left\langle e^{-i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(-t)} \right\rangle_0=e^{-D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2 t};$$ an integration over $t$ gives the profile, $$\label{eq:av_prof_f0_gen}
\tilde \psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=\frac{h\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde \Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2}.$$ In the case of a tracer in a bath of soft particles, it is, $$\tilde \psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=-\frac{\rho_0^{1/2}}{2T}\frac{\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T}}.$$ leading to a density correction $\langle\delta\rho^*({{\boldsymbol{x}}})\rangle=\langle \rho^*({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) \rangle-\rho_0$ given by $$\label{eq:dens_around_tracer_noforce}
\frac{\left\langle \widetilde{\delta\rho}^*({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \right\rangle}{\rho_0}=-\frac{(2T)^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{1+\rho_0(2T)^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}.$$ We recover the pair correlation function (\[eq:deanlin\_h\]), the only difference being the factor 2. Due to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Hansen2006], the pair correlation function $h({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ gives the density response at ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ to the inclusion of a fixed particle at the origin. The density in the reference frame of the tracer is different, because the tracer diffuses. If the tracer is kept fixed when the profile is computed, the factor 2 is removed and the pair correlation function (\[eq:deanlin\_h\]) is recovered.
The two results (\[eq:deanlin\_h\]) and (\[eq:dens\_around\_tracer\_noforce\]) ensure the relevance of the LDT (\[eq:ldt1\]-\[eq:ldt4\]) to describe a dense liquid.
Diffusion coefficient of a free tracer
--------------------------------------
The effective diffusion coefficient of a free tracer (i.e. without forcing) was computed in the general case (\[eq:langevin\_part\_gen\]-\[eq:field\_noise\]) in the limit of small coupling $h$ between the field and the tracer [@Demery2011]. A one loop path integral computation gives the effective diffusion coefficient, $$\frac{D{_\mathrm{eff}}}{D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}}=1-\frac{h^2}{d}\int
\frac{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 }{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \left[\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right]}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$ For a tracer in a colloidal bath, it reads $$\frac{D{_\mathrm{eff}}}{D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}}=1\\- \frac{\rho_0}{2dT^2}\int \frac{\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2}{\left[1+\rho_0T^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\right]\left[1+\rho_0(2T)^{-1}\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\right]} \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$ Interestingly, we recover the result of Dean and Lefèvre [@Dean2004] (see Eq. (47)) for the same system but derived in a very different manner. The method used in [@Dean2004] avoids the use of the Dean equation and deals directly with the perturbative computation of the probability density function of the $N+1$ particles, that obeys a Fokker-Planck equation in a $(N+1)\times d$-dimensional space. This technique is valid for soft particles, but does not require a high density, contrarily to ours, suggesting that the LDT may be valid for moderate densities.
The compatibility of the two approaches confirms the pertinence of the LDT to describe the motion of a tracer in a colloidal bath.
Application to a tracer submitted to a constant force {#sec_mob_diff}
=====================================================
We now study the out of equilibrium configuration where a constant force ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}$ is applied to the tracer and compute the stationary density profile around the tracer, the tracer effective mobility and its diffusion coefficient, perturbatively in the coupling $h=\rho_0^{-1/2}$, still assumed to be small.
Stationary field profile
------------------------
It is interesting to see how the tracer affects the surrounding particle density when it moves. We only need to generalize the profile (\[eq:av\_prof\_f0\_gen\]) obtained without applied force. Now, the bare particle motion is a biased Brownian motion and the particle position ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(t)$ is a random Gaussian variable with mean ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}t$ and variance $2D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}t{{\boldsymbol{1}}}$. The analog of (\[eq:average\_exp\_pos\]) is now $$\left\langle e^{-i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0(-t)} \right\rangle_0=e^{-\left(D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2-i{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\right) t},$$ leading to the profile in Fourier space $$\tilde \psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=\frac{h\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde \Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2 -i{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}.$$
In the case of a tracer in a bath of soft particles, it is $$\label{eq:profile_force}
\tilde \psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=-\frac{\rho_0^{1/2}}{2T}\frac{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{\left[1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right]{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2 -i\frac{ {{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{2T}}.$$ The full real space profile cannot be obtained analytically, but the Fourier transform can be performed numerically. Examples for Gaussian spheres ($V({{\boldsymbol{x}}})= \exp \left(-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}^2/2\right)$) in dimension $d=2$ are given in Figure \[fig\_profils2d\].
![(Colour online) Stationary bath density in the reference frame of the tracer for different values of the applied force.[]{data-label="fig_profils2d"}](profils2d.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
In dimension $d\geq 2$ and for non zero bias, the profile is singular in Fourier space at ${{\boldsymbol{k}}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$: the limits $k_\parallel\to 0$ and ${{\boldsymbol{k}}}_\perp\to{{\boldsymbol{0}}}$ do not commute (these directions are defined with respect to the force ${{\boldsymbol{f}}}$). This may lead to an algebraic decay of the profile in real space. The algebraic terms in real space can be computed by keeping only the singular term in Fourier space, that is a function $\tilde\psi{_\mathrm{sing}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}})$ such that $\tilde\psi({{\boldsymbol{k}}})-\tilde\psi{_\mathrm{sing}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}})$ is regular at ${{\boldsymbol{k}}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$. The singular part is not unique, but it is defined up to an additive regular part that decays faster than algebraicaly in real space. This freedom in the singular part allows us to pick a simple one that can be Fourier transformed exactly: $$\tilde\psi{_\mathrm{sing}}({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=-\frac{i\rho_0^{1/2}\tilde V(0)}{2T+\rho_0\tilde V(0)}\frac{fk_\parallel}{[2T+\rho_0\tilde V(0)]{{\boldsymbol{k}}}_\perp^2-ifk_\parallel}.$$ To Fourier transform this expression, the integration over $k_\parallel$ can be performed using the Residue theorem and it remains a second derivative of a Gaussian. We find that if $x_\parallel>0$, i.e. in front of the tracer, $\psi{_\mathrm{sing}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}})=0$. On the other hand, behind the tracer where $x_\parallel<0$, we obtain an algebraic decay as $$\label{eq:profil_asympt}
\frac{ \left\langle\delta\rho^*{_\mathrm{sing}}(x_\parallel,{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_\perp={{\boldsymbol{0}}}) \right\rangle}{\rho_0}\underset{x_\parallel\rightarrow -\infty}{\sim}
-\frac{(d-1)\tilde V(0) f^\frac{d-1}{2}}{2^d\pi^\frac{d-1}{2}\left[2T+\rho_0\tilde V(0) \right]^\frac{d+1}{2}}
\times\frac{1}{|x_\parallel|^\frac{d+1}{2}}.$$ This expression compares nicely to numerical inversion of the Fourier transform of the complete expression (\[eq:profile\_force\]) for $d=2$ as is shown on Figure \[fig\_profils\_x\]. Unexpectedly, the same algebraic decay was observed for a tracer driven through a hard core lattice gas in dimension $d=2$ [@Benichou2000]. We see later that the correspondence between the two systems is even deeper.
![(Colour online) Stationary profile behind the particle in dimension $d=2$ along the direction of the force, for driving forces $f=0.1,\, 1,\, 10$. Solid lines are numerical computations and dashed lines the asymptotic analytical prediction (\[eq:profil\_asympt\]).[]{data-label="fig_profils_x"}](profils_x.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
In dimension $d=1$, the profile (\[eq:profile\_force\]) is not singular in Fourier space: the real space profile decays faster than algebraically. This comes from the fact that we deal here with soft particles, that can cross at a finite energy cost.
Path-integral representation
----------------------------
The path-integral representation introduced in [@Demery2011] may be extended to compute the correction to the bare mobility and diffusion coefficient to the order $h^2$ when an external force is applied to the tracer. The effective dynamics (\[eq:eff\_part\_dyn\]) can be mapped to a field theory [@Demery2011; @Aron2010] with action $$S[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]=S_0[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]+S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}],$$ where $S_0[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]$ is the action of the bare particle, $$S_0[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]=-i\int {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t)\cdot \left[\dot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\right]{{\mathrm{d}}}t+ D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\int|{{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t)|^2 {{\mathrm{d}}}t,$$ and $S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]$ is the action carrying the particle-field interaction, $$\begin{aligned}
\fl S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]=i\int {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t)\cdot{{\boldsymbol{F}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'),t-t')\theta(t-t'){{\mathrm{d}}}t{{\mathrm{d}}}t' \nonumber \\
+ T \int {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t)\cdot{{\boldsymbol{G}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'),t-t'){{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t')\theta(t-t'){{\mathrm{d}}}t{{\mathrm{d}}}t'.\end{aligned}$$ We introduced the response field ${{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t)$, $\theta(t)$ is the Heaviside function and the index 0 for the tracer position is dropped from now on. We use the Itō convention [@Aron2010].
The idea is to treat the interaction action, that is proportional to $h^2$, perturbatively: we write for an observable $O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}]$ $$\left\langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}] \right\rangle =\frac{\left\langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}]\exp \left(-S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right) \right\rangle_0}{\left\langle \exp \left(-S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right) \right\rangle_0}\simeq \frac{\left\langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}]\left(1-S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right) \right\rangle_0}{\left\langle 1-S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0}. \label{eq:moy_obs}$$ The index $0$ in averages indicates that they are computed with the bare action $S_0[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}]$. Since the bare action is quadratic, only the two first moments are needed to compute all the averages with the Wick’s theorem [@Wick1950]. They can be computed using the Schwinger-Dyson equation [@Dyson1949b], as in [@Demery2011], and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) \rangle_0 & ={{\boldsymbol{f}}}t, \label{eq:av_pos}\\
\langle {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t) \rangle_0 & = {{\boldsymbol{0}}},\\
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t){{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle_0 & = {{\boldsymbol{0}}},\\
\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t){{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle_0 & = i \chi_{[0,t)}(t'),\\
\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t][{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t']{^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle_0 & = 2T \mathrm{L}([0,t)\cap[0,t')).\end{aligned}$$ We use $\chi_A(t)$ as the characteristic function of the interval $A$ and $\mathrm{L}(A)$ as its length. If $O_j$ are linear observables in ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{p}}}$, the Wick’s theorem allows to show that $$\fl\left\langle \prod_{j=1}^n O_j e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}} \right\rangle_0=e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot \langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}\rangle-\frac{1}{2}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{^\mathrm{T}}\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}{{\boldsymbol{x}}}{^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle_0{{\boldsymbol{k}}}} \sum_{J\subset N} \left(\prod_{j\in J} (i{{\boldsymbol{k}}})\cdot \left\langle O_j{{\boldsymbol{x}}}\right\rangle_0 \left\langle \prod_{j\notin J} O_j \right\rangle_0\right),$$ where the sum over $J$ is the sum over all subsets of $N=\{1,\dots,n\}$.
We start with $\left\langle S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0$, that contains $$\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t) e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')]} \right\rangle_0={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$$ and $$\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t){{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')]} \right\rangle_0={{\boldsymbol{0}}},$$ so that $$\left\langle S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0=0.$$ Together with (\[eq:moy\_obs\]), this means that the average of an observable $O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}]$ is, to the second order in $h$, $$\label{eq:moy_obs2}
\langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}] \rangle\simeq \langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}] \rangle_0- \langle O[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}]S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \rangle_0.$$
To compute the mobility, we need $\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0$; it invokes, for $t'>t''$, $$\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'')]} \right\rangle_0\\=i\chi_{[0,t)}(t') e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{f}}}(t'-t'')-T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|t'-t''|},$$ and $$\fl\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}{{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'') e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'')]} \right\rangle_0=-i\chi_{[0,t)}(t') {{\boldsymbol{k}}}e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{f}}}(t'-t'')-T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|t'-t''|}.$$ Using the expression of the interaction action and integrating over the interaction times $t'$ and $t''$ gives the long time behavior $$\label{eq:dev_av_pos}
\fl\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0 \underset{t\rightarrow\infty}{\sim}
t{{\boldsymbol{f}}}h^2 \int \frac{k_\parallel^2|\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 \left[\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde \Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})+T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2 \right]}{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\left(\left[\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})+T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right]^2+[{{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}]^2\right)} \frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$
To compute the effective diffusion coefficient, we need $\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t]^2 S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0$ and notably $$\begin{aligned}
\fl\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t]^2 {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'')]} \right\rangle_0 \nonumber \\
= -4T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{^\mathrm{T}}\chi_{[0,t)}(t')(t'-t'')e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{f}}}(t'-t'')-T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|t'-t''|},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\fl\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t]^2 {{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'){^\mathrm{T}}{{\boldsymbol{p}}}(t'') e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot[{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t')-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t'')]} \right\rangle_0 \nonumber\\
= 2\chi_{[0,t)}(t') \left[2T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2(t'-t'')-\chi_{[0,t)}(t'') \right] e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{f}}}(t'-t'')-T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|t'-t''|}.\end{aligned}$$ In the long time limit, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t]^2 S{_\mathrm{int}}[{{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{p}}}] \right\rangle_0=2t h^2T \nonumber\\
\fl \quad\times \int
\frac{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 \left[\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right] \left[\left(\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right)^2-3({{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2 \right]}{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \left[\left(\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right)^2 + ({{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2\right]^2}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.\end{aligned}$$ These averages now allow us to compute the perturbative corrections to the bare mobility and diffusion coefficient.
Mobility
--------
The average position is obtained by inserting the averages (\[eq:av\_pos\]) and (\[eq:dev\_av\_pos\]) in the perturbative expansion (\[eq:moy\_obs2\]); it finally leads the mobility, defined in (\[eq:def\_mobility\]): $$\label{eq:keff}
\kappa{_\mathrm{eff}} = 1 - h^2 \int \frac{k_\parallel^2|\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2[\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})+T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2]}{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \left[\left(\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2\right)^2 + ({{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2\right]}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$ The correction to the bare mobility is negative and its absolute value decreases as the applied force increases. The physical interpretation is that when the force it too large, the tracer moves rapidly and the field does not have any time to respond to the presence of the tracer. Another consequence of this effect is the non-monotonic behavior of the drag force as a function of the imposed velocity [@Demery2010; @Demery2010a; @Kadau2008].
In the case of a tracer in a colloidal bath, the effective mobility reads $$\label{eq:keff_spheres}
\fl\kappa{_\mathrm{eff}}=1-\frac{\rho_0}{2T^2} \int \frac{k_\parallel^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 \left(1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right)}{\left(1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{T} \right)\left[\left(1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right)^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^4+\left( \frac{ {{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{2 T} \right)^2\right]}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$ We note that the correction to the bare mobility $\kappa_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}=1$ is a non monotonic function of the bath density $\rho_0$.
Diffusion coefficient
---------------------
The effective diffusion coefficient is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)- \langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t) \rangle]^2 \right\rangle & =\left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t- \langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t \rangle]^2 \right\rangle \nonumber \\
& = \left\langle [{{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t]^2 \right\rangle - \left\langle {{\boldsymbol{x}}}(t)-{{\boldsymbol{f}}}t \right\rangle^2.\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:dev\_av\_pos\]) the second term on the right hand side is of order $h^4$, and thus does not contribute to the order $h^2$. We thus need only the first term to compute the effective diffusion coefficient to the order $h^2$.
In the general case, the effective diffusion coefficient reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deff_gen}
\fl \frac{D{_\mathrm{eff}}}{D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}} = 1 \nonumber \\
\fl\quad - \frac{h^2}{d}\int
\frac{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2|\tilde K({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 [\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2]\left([\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2]^2-3({{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2\right)}{\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) \left[(\tilde R({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\tilde\Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) + T{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^2)^2 + ({{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}})^2\right]^2}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.\end{aligned}$$ First, we note that without forcing (${{\boldsymbol{f}}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$), the system is at equilibrium and the Einstein relation is satisfied: $$D{_\mathrm{eff}}=T\kappa{_\mathrm{eff}}.$$ Second, when the force is high enough, i.e. when the system is far from equilibrium, the correction to the bare diffusion coefficient $D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ is positive. This is a pure out of equilibrium effect, since it has been shown in [@Dean2011] that the diffusion coefficient is always reduced by its interaction with the surrounding field when the system is at equilibrium. It also recalls the effect seen in [@Demery2011], where the system was driven out of equilibrium by breaking the detailed balance in its dynamics; in this case, it was also possible to observe enhanced diffusion.
The effective diffusion coefficient of a tracer in a colloidal bath is $$\label{eq:deff_spheres}
\fl \frac{D{_\mathrm{eff}}}{D_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}}=1-\frac{\rho_0}{2dT^2}\int
\frac{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^4|\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2 \left[1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right]\left(\left[1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right]^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^4 - 3\left[ \frac{ {{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{2T} \right]^2\right)}{\left[1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{T} \right] \left(\left[1+\frac{\rho_0\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})}{2T} \right]^2{{\boldsymbol{k}}}^4 + \left[\frac{ {{\boldsymbol{f}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{2 T} \right]^2\right)^2}\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d}.$$ The bias enhanced diffusion was also observed for a tracer in a dense hard core lattice gas [@Benichou2013b; @Benichou2013c; @Benichou2013e]. Similarly to the mobility, the density dependence is non trivial: the correction is linear in the density at small density, and decays as $\delta D\sim\rho_0^{-1}$ at high density. Strikingly, the correction can turn from positive to negative when the density increases, an effect seen in a hard core lattice gas [@Benichou2013d].
The correspondence between a hard core lattice gas, where the particles are very hard and their motion is severely constrained, and the soft colloids studied here, was not expected. The fact that the same effects can be observed in the two opposite limits proves their robustness.
Numerical simulations {#sec:numerics}
=====================
To test our predictions, we have performed one dimensional molecular dynamics simulations of Eq. (\[eq:langevin\_npart\]) for harmonic spheres, corresponding to the pair potential $$V({{\boldsymbol{x}}})=(1-|{{\boldsymbol{x}}}|)^2\theta(1-|{{\boldsymbol{x}}}|).$$ Since this potential is bounded, the particles can cross and the dimension $d=1$ is not singular. This is very different from hard core particles, that are singular in one dimension; in this case, the tracer would undergo single-file diffusion, characterized by a sub-diffusive behavior [@Wei2000]. The ratio of the effective dynamical quantities (mobility and diffusion coefficient) over the bare ones depend on three variables: the density $\rho_0$, the temperature $T$ and the force $f$ applied on the tracer. More precisely, the prediction for the effective mobility (\[eq:keff\_spheres\]) takes the form $$\frac{\kappa{_\mathrm{eff}}}{\kappa_{{\boldsymbol{x}}}}=1-T^{-1}g_\kappa \left(\frac{\rho_0}{T},\frac{f}{T} \right).$$ The same relation holds for the diffusion coefficient, with a different scaling function $g_D$. The evolution of the effective mobility with the temperature for $\rho_0/T=5$ and $f/T=1$ is plotted on Figure \[fig:rho\_keff\]. The agreement between the theory and the simulations is excellent up to a correction of $30\,\%$ with respect to the bare value.
![(Colour online) Effective mobility as a function of the inverse temperature for $\rho_0/T=5$ and $f/T=1$. The points are the simulations results and the line is the analytical prediction (\[eq:keff\_spheres\]).[]{data-label="fig:rho_keff"}](rho_keff.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The dependence on the external force is shown on Figure \[fig:f\_keff\_deff\]. The agreement between our perturbative computations and the simulations is very good except for the diffusion coefficient at large forces $f/T\gtrsim 5$, where our computations underestimate the diffusion coefficient. However, the diffusion enhancement at large forces is very satisfactorily captured by our analytical computation.
![(Colour online) Effective mobility and diffusion coefficient as a function of the applied force for $T=0.6$ and $\rho_0=3$. Lines are the analytical predictions (\[eq:keff\_spheres\]) and (\[eq:deff\_spheres\]).[]{data-label="fig:f_keff_deff"}](f_keff_deff.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Last, we address the effect of the density $\rho_0$ at constant temperature and for different values of the force $f/T$, on Figure \[fig:rho\_Tconst\_keff\] for the mobility and on Figure \[fig:rho\_Tconst\_deff\] for the diffusion coefficient. The main effect is captured by our analytical results: at small forces, the diffusion coefficient is always reduced whereas at large forces, the diffusion coefficient increases at low densities. Increasing the density leads to a negative correction to the diffusion coefficient. A significant discrepancy is found at low densities for the diffusion coefficient; this is not surprising since the LDT validity condition (\[eq:valid\_ldt\]) is violated in this parameter regime. The curves for the diffusion coefficient resemble strongly those obtained for a hard core lattice gas [@Benichou2013d] (see Figure 2), confirming the universality of this effect.
![(Colour online) Effective mobility as a function of the density $\rho_0/T$ for $T=1$ and different values of the force $f/T=1,5,10$.[]{data-label="fig:rho_Tconst_keff"}](rho_keff_T1.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![(Colour online) Effective diffusion coefficient as a function of the density $\rho_0/T$ for $T=1$ and different values of the force $f/T=1,5,10$.[]{data-label="fig:rho_Tconst_deff"}](rho_deff_T1.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
We have obtained a good agreement for densities $\rho_0\simeq 4$ and $\rho_0^{1/2}V/T\simeq 2$. Comparing these values to the validity conditions of the LDT (\[eq:valid\_ldt\]) and the perturbative computation (\[eq:valid\_pert\]) leads us to the conclusion that these conditions are not too strict and that the results derived here are valid for a broad range of parameters.
Conclusion {#sec_conclu}
==========
We addressed the effective dynamical properties of a tracer in a bath of soft spheres. First, starting from the exact evolution equation of the overall density, namely the Dean equation, we took the tracer apart to obtain an equation describing the tracer motion in interaction with the overall density of the other particles. If the bath is dense ($\rho_0\gg 1$), the evolution of the density fluctuations can be linearized. This leads to a set of equations that we called the linearized Dean equation with a tracer (LDT) (\[eq:ldt1\]-\[eq:ldt4\]), that can be cast in a very general formalism describing the motion of a tracer interacting with a fluctuating field. To prove the relevance of the LDT to describe dense liquids, we reproduced the pair correlation function of a fluid obtained by the mean-field treatment [@Likos2001]. Moreover, using general results for the diffusion coefficient of a tracer interacting with a fluctuating field [@Demery2011], we recovered the tracer diffusion coefficient obtained by a completely different procedure [@Dean2004]. In themselves, the LDT and the effective equation of motion for the tracer (\[eq:eff\_part\_dyn\], \[eq:eff\_part\_noise\], \[eq:F\_bath\], \[eq:G\_bath\]) are very promising tools to study the single particle dynamics in a dense colloidal bath. Their simplicity makes them easy to adapt to various bath properties; it would for example be interesting to use them to model diffusion in the cytoplasm [@Tabei2013].
In a second part, we studied the effect of a constant force applied to the tracer, that drives the system out of equilibrium. We computed the average density profile around the tracer, and, using a path-integral formalism, the effective mobility and diffusion coefficient of the tracer. Our computations are perturbative in the particles pair interaction, and are thus valid for soft particles that can easily overlap (the validity condition is given by (\[eq:valid\_pert\])). Our main predictions are: (i) The tracer diffusion is enhanced by the application of large external forces, (ii) The corrections to the mobility and the diffusion coefficient have a non-monotonic behavior and can even change sign as a function of the bath density. These predictions have been successfully tested against molecular dynamics simulations. Surprisingly, they share many features with those derived in the opposite limit of hard core particles on a lattice: the tail of the density profile has the same exponent [@Benichou2000] and the dependence of the mobility and the diffusion coefficient on the applied force and the bath density are very close [@Benichou2013d]. This qualitative agreement between results obtained for soft and hard particles suggests that the model proposed here can apply qualitatively to a wide range of parameters and proves the robustness of the observed effects.
Applying a constant force on the tracer is a way to drive the system out of equilibrium; another is to break the dynamics detailed balance, for example by reducing the effect of the tracer on its environment [@Naji2009; @Demery2011]. In both cases, the tracer diffusion coefficient may be enhanced by its environment. On the other hand, it has been shown that at equilibrium the tracer diffusion coefficient is always reduced by its interaction with the environment [@Dean2011]. The augmentation of the diffusion coefficient under an external force is thus a pure and generic out of equilibrium effect.
The density dependence of the corrections to the dynamical quantities is noteworthy. As can be seen on Figure \[fig:rho\_Tconst\_keff\], the correction to the bare mobility reaches a maximum for some value $(\rho_0/T)^*$ of the density-temperature ratio. This effect is likely to be the dynamical counterpart of the peak observed in the spatial structure when the density is varied that has been observed in the context of the jamming of soft spheres at low temperature [@Jacquin2010; @Jacquin2011a]. Finally, we give a simple way to extend our model to be able to deal with an asymmetric configuration where the tracer is different from the other particles; that would for example be relevant to microrheology [@Wilson2011b]. As noted above, it is enough to replace the operator $K({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ in (\[eq:langevin\_part\_gen\]-\[eq:langevin\_field\_gen\]) by $K({{\boldsymbol{x}}})=-\rho_0 U({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$, where $U({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ is the interaction potential between the tracer and the bath particles. The effect on the results turns out to be particularly simple: one just has to replace $|\tilde V({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2$ by $|\tilde U({{\boldsymbol{k}}})|^2$ in the integrand numerator of (\[eq:keff\_spheres\]) and (\[eq:deff\_spheres\]).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank David Dean and Vincent Krakoviack for illuminating discussions. V. D. and O. B. acknowledge support from ERC Starting Grant No. FPTOpt-277998, and H. J. acknowledges funding from the ERC Grant OUTEFLUCOP.
Extraction of one particle from the Dean equation {#ap_dean_1p}
=================================================
We show how to extract the tracer $i=0$ from the Dean equation and to write the evolution equation of the remaining particles density $\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)=\sum_{j\geq 1}\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_j(t))$. We start with Eq. (9) of [@Dean1996] for the density associated to the particle $i$, defined by $\rho_i({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t))=\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_i(t))$, $$\label{eq:dean_1pdens}
\partial_t\rho_i=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\rho_i+{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot \left[\rho_i{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\left(\sum_j V*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_j} \right) \right]-{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot (\rho_i{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_i).$$ The star $*$ denotes the convolution and the sum over $j$ runs over all the particles of the system; this sum can be written $$\sum_j V*\delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_j}=V*\rho{_\mathrm{tot}},$$ where $\rho{_\mathrm{tot}}=\rho + \delta_{{{\boldsymbol{x}}}_0}$ is the total density. Now, summing (\[eq:dean\_1pdens\]) over all the particles but the tracer, we get $$\partial_t\rho=T{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}^2\rho + {{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot \left[\rho{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}(V*\rho{_\mathrm{tot}}) \right] - \sum_{j\geq 1}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot(\rho_j{{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_j).$$ It is then shown in [@Dean1996] that the noise term can be rewritten $$- \sum_{j\geq 1}{{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot\left[\rho_j({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t){{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}_j(t)\right]={{\boldsymbol{\nabla}}}\cdot \left[\rho({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)^{1/2}{{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t) \right]$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\eta}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t)$ is a Gaussian noise with correlation function $$\left\langle {{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}},t){{\boldsymbol{\xi}}}({{\boldsymbol{x}}}',t') {^\mathrm{T}}\right\rangle=2T\delta({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')\delta(t-t'){{\boldsymbol{1}}}.$$ This leads to (\[eq:dean\]).
Functional operators in real and Fourier space {#ap:operators}
==============================================
In this appendix, we define our notations and recall some basic properties of functional operators. We start in real space, and then see how it transposes to Fourier space. All the operators considered here are real.
For two functions $f({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ and $g({{\boldsymbol{x}}})$ and two operators $A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')$ and $B({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')$, the scalar product of $f$ and $g$, the action of $A$ on $f$ and the product of $A$ and $B$ are respectively defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f\cdot g & = \int f({{\boldsymbol{x}}})g({{\boldsymbol{x}}}){{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{x}}},\label{eq:prod_scal}\\
(Af)({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) & = \int A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')f({{\boldsymbol{x}}}'){{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{x}}}',\\
(AB)({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}') & = \int A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}'')B({{\boldsymbol{x}}}'',{{\boldsymbol{x}}}'){{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{x}}}''.\label{eq:prod_op}\end{aligned}$$
An operator $A$ is invariant by translation if there exists a function $a$ such that $$A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')=a({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}').$$ Such an operator is isotropic if it only depends on the distance between ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{x}}}'$, $A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')=a\left(|{{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}'|\right)$.
We now switch to the Fourier space, with the Fourier transform defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f({{\boldsymbol{x}}}) & = \int e^{i{{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}} \tilde f({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d},\\
A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}') & = \int e^{i({{\boldsymbol{k}}}\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}+{{\boldsymbol{k}}}'\cdot{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')} \tilde A({{\boldsymbol{k}}},{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}'}{(2\pi)^{2d}},\end{aligned}$$ for a function and an operator, respectively. This definition allows us to translate (\[eq:prod\_scal\]-\[eq:prod\_op\]) into Fourier space: $$\begin{aligned}
f\cdot g & = \int \tilde f(-{{\boldsymbol{k}}})g({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{(2\pi)^d},\\
\widetilde{Af}({{\boldsymbol{k}}}) & = \int \tilde A({{\boldsymbol{k}}},-{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')\tilde f({{\boldsymbol{k}}}')\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}'}{(2\pi)^d},\\
\widetilde{AB}({{\boldsymbol{k}}},{{\boldsymbol{k}}}') & = \int \tilde A({{\boldsymbol{k}}},-{{\boldsymbol{k}}}'')B({{\boldsymbol{k}}}'',{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')\frac{{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\boldsymbol{k}}}''}{(2\pi)^d}.\end{aligned}$$ The Fourier transform of the translation-invariant operator $A({{\boldsymbol{x}}},{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')=a({{\boldsymbol{x}}}-{{\boldsymbol{x}}}')$ reads $$\tilde A({{\boldsymbol{k}}},{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')=(2\pi)^d\tilde a({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}+{{\boldsymbol{k}}}').$$ Moreover, if $A$ is isotropic, its Fourier transform only depends on the norm $|{{\boldsymbol{k}}}|$: $\tilde a({{\boldsymbol{k}}})=\tilde a(|{{\boldsymbol{k}}}|)$.
In this article, we do not use a different notation for the one-variable function associated to a translation-invariant operator: the number of variables indicates if we refer to the operator or to its associated function. For instance, we will use $\tilde \Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}},{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')=(2\pi)^d\tilde \Delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}})\delta({{\boldsymbol{k}}}+{{\boldsymbol{k}}}')$.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Ricardo Gallego Torromé[^1], Paolo Piccione[^2], Henrique Vitório[^3]
Finsler spacetimes appear in a natural way when modeling several physical phenomena. For instance, they are useful for the investigation of the propagation of light in locally anisotropic media (see for instance [@Perlick2000; @Perlick06]), the investigation of multi-refringence [@SkakalaVisser; @SkakalaVisser2] or as geometric models for classical point electrodynamics Randers spaces [@GallegoTorrome; @Randers]. Recently, several results of [*phenomenology of quantum gravity*]{} have been related with Finsler spacetimes. It turns out that quantum gravity models generally predict modified dispersion relations at low energy. The investigation of such dispersion relations has shown that they can be associated with (in general not regular) [*Finsler geometries*]{} [@GirelliLiberatiSindoni]. Another example where Finsler spacetimes appear is in relation with the theory of [*very special relativity*]{} of Cohen and Glashow [@CohenGlashow]. It was shown by Gibbons et al. [@GibbonsGomisPope] that such spacetime geometries correspond to Finsler spacetimes of Bogoslosvky’s type [@Bogoslosvky]. Applications to cosmology has been found in [@KouretsisStathakopoulosStraviros]. It is also of relevance the relation with Lorentz violations models (see for instance [@Kosteleky]).
The theory of Finsler geometry of positive definite metrics admits a complete set of tools to be investigated in a similar way as for Riemannian geometry [@BCS]. In a less developed stage is the geometry of [*Finsler spacetimes*]{}. One of the objectives of the present work is to show how some relevant methods can be [*transported*]{} from Lorentzian geometry to Finsler spacetime geometry in a natural way. In particular, we will concentrate on the extension of Fermat’s principle to Finsler spacetimes and the associated variational theory.
In the framework of static solutions of the Einstein equations, Fermat’s principle appears in the work of H. Weyl [@Weyl]. For light-like geodesics in a general spacetime, Fermat’s principle was formulated mathematically by V. Perlick [@Perlick], as an attempt to formalize the theory of I. Kovner [@Kovner]. A complementary version of Fermat’s principle for timelike curves in a time-oriented spacetime was investigated by [@GiannoniMasielloPiccione], among others generalizations appearing in the literature. For lightlike curves, there is already a version of Fermat’s principle for Finsler spacetimes in the sense of J. Beem’s [@Perlick06]. In this paper we present a Fermat’s principle for both lightlike and timelike Finsler in time oriented Finsler spacetimes. We also discuss the character of the critical points of the time arrival functional and we describe how to obtain by using standard methods borrow from Lorentzian geometry a Morse index theorem for the time arrival functional for timelike curves.
Currently, there are several frameworks for Finsler spacetimes in the literature where notions of lightlike, timelike and spacelike curves and causal structure are available. The definition of Finsler spacetime that we took was introduced by J. Beem [@Beem1]. With such definition one can extend the results of Perlick [@Perlick] for causal curves (both timelike and lightlike) and obtain a formula for the second variation of the [*time arrival functional*]{}.
Beem’s framework does not contemplate all the Finsler spacetime models appearing in physical applications. For instance, a convenient way to describe the motion of a point charged particle in a external field is by a Randers metric [@Randers]. However, it is still an open problem if Randers spaces of Lorentzian signature are naturally described in Beem’s formalism. Also, some of the Finsler spacetime geometries associated with phenomenology of quantum gravity contain [*singular sectors*]{} in the tangent bundle of the base manifold, where the fundamental tensor is not enough regular. In order to deal with such models, one needs to consider weaker hypothesis in Beem’s definition, restricting the domain of definition of the Lagrangian $L$ to regions where the geometric objects (metrics, connections, etc) have enough regularity. We demonstrate that this natural modification of Beem’s theory constitutes a convenient framework to investigate mathematical properties of Finsler spacetimes and in particular, to investigate Fermat’s principle and related results.
Following J. Beem [@Beem1], we introduce the basic notation and fundamental notions of Finsler spacetimes. Let $M$ be a differentiable manifold and $TM$ the tangent bundle of $M$. Local coordinates $(U,x)$ on $M$ induce local natural coordinates $(TU, x, y)$ on $TM$. The slit tangent bundle is $N=TM\setminus\{0\}$, where $0$ is the zero section of $TM$.
A Finsler spacetime is a pair $(M,L)$ where
1. $M$ is an $n$-dimensional real, second countable, Hausdorff $C^{\infty}$-manifold.
2. $L:N\longrightarrow R$ is a real smooth function such that
1. $L(x,\cdot)$ is positive homogeneous of degree two in the variable $y$, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,ky)=\,k^2\,L(x,y),\quad \forall\, k\in ]0,\infty[,
\label{homogeneouscondition}\end{aligned}$$
2. The [*vertical Hessian*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ij}(x,y)=\,\frac{\partial^2\,L(x,y)}{\partial y^i\,\partial y^j}
\label{nondegeracy-signature}\end{aligned}$$ is non-degenerate and with signature $(-,+,...,+)$ for all $(x,y)\in\, N$.
\[Finslerspacetime\]
Direct consequences of this definition and Euler’s theorem for positive homogeneous functions are the following relations, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L(x,y)}{\partial y^k}\,y^k=\,2\,L(x,y),\quad \frac{\partial L(x,y)}{\partial y^i}=\,g_{ij}(x,y)y^j,
\quad L(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\,g_{ij}(x,y)y^iy^j.\end{aligned}$$ Note that because homogeneity property on $y$, it is equivalent to provide the Lagrangian $L(x,y)$ or the corresponding fundamental tensor $g_{ij}(x,y)$.
There are other definitions of Finsler spacetime in the literature with its own merits. One of them goes back to Asanov [@Asa]. His notion of Finsler spacetime is useful when dealing with timelike trajectories, and it can be applied to investigate for instance timelike curves in [*Randers type*]{} Finsler spacetimes [@Randers]. However, it does not allow a covariant notion of lightlike vectors and curves. A related theory of Finsler spacetimes is the notion [*conic Finsler spaces*]{}, developed by Javaloyes and Sanchez [@JavaloyesSanchez]. In such formulation, the timelike vectors at each point of the spacetime are defined on an open cone on each tangent space $T_xM$. It does not consider lightlike vectors and curves. Other useful theory of Finsler spacetimes was introduced by Pfeifer and Wohlfarth [@PfeiferWohlfarth]. Their theory allows to consider some relevant Finsler spacetimes that are outside Beem’s framework (for instance, bi-metric spaces). Still, Pfeifer-Wohlfarth theory does not contemplate lightlike curves in Randers types of Finsler spacetimes.
The following is the notion of reversibility that we will consider,
A Finsler spacetime $(M,L)$ is [*reversible*]{} iff $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y)=\,L(x,-y)
\label{reversibilityofL}\end{aligned}$$ for any $(x,y)\in \,N$. Otherwise, $(M,L)$ is a [*non-reversible*]{} Finsler spacetime. \[definitionreversivilityofL\]
This notion of reversibility is different from the one considered by Beem [@Beem1] and also different than the one considered in [@PfeiferWohlfarth]. Our definition of reversible metric is stronger than the corresponding notions of Beem and that the one considered in the theory of Pfeifer-Wohlfart.
The fundamental causal notions of a Finsler spacetime $(M,L)$ is a natural generalization of the Lorentzian causal framework [@BEE]. A vector field $X\in\,\Gamma TM$ is said to be timelike if $L(x, X(x))<0$ at all points $x\in\,M$ and a curve $\lambda:I\longrightarrow M$ is timelike if the tangent vector field is timelike $L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))<0$. A vector field $X\in \,
\Gamma$ is lightlike if $L(x,X(x))=0,\,\forall x\in\,M$; a curve is lightlike if its tangent vector field is lightlike. Similar notions hold for spacelike vector and curves. A curve is causal if it is either timelike and has constant speed $g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\dot{\lambda},\dot{\lambda}):=L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})=g_{ij}(\dot{\lambda},T)\dot{\lambda}^i\dot{\lambda}^j$ or if it is lightlike.
The following facts can be proved from the definition of Finsler spacetime,
1. The function $L(x,y)$ defines a positive definite, homogeneous function $F(x,y)=\,\sqrt{-L(x,y)}$ of degree one on the sub-bundle of timelike vectors $$\begin{aligned}
T^+M:=\,\{(x,y)\,\in TM,y\,\,\in T_x M\,s.t.\,\,L(x,y)<0\}.\end{aligned}$$
2. Each connected component of $T^+_xM$ is an open convex cone [@Perlick06].
The [*Finsler function*]{} $F(x,y)=\,\sqrt{-L(x,y)}$ defined on $T^+_xM$ determines a Finsler spacetime in the sense of Asanov. The function $F$ can be extended in a non-smooth way to the whole bundle $TM$; for a spacelike vector it is defined by $F(x,y)=\,\sqrt{L(x,y)}$ for spacelike vectors $y$ such that $L(x,y)$ and $zero$ for vectors $y$ in the null cone, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}:=\,\{(x,y)\,\in TM,\,y\,\in T_x M\,s.t.\,\,L(x,y)=0\}.\end{aligned}$$
A time orientation is a smooth timelike vector field $ T\in\Gamma TM$, $$\begin{aligned}
g_T(T,T)<0.\end{aligned}$$
A timelike tangent vector $v\in T_xM$ is future pointed respect to $T$ if $g_v(v,T)<0$. It is easy to see that the set of future pointed vectors respect to $T$ form an open sub-set of the space of timelike vectors. A timelike curve $\lambda:I\longrightarrow M$ is [*future pointed*]{} respect to $T$ if its tangent vector field is future pointed, $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\dot{\lambda},T)=\,g_{ij}(\lambda(t),\dot{\lambda}(t))\,T^i\,\dot{\lambda}^j<\,0.\end{aligned}$$ \[definicionoftimelikeorientatio\]
Similar notions hold for lightlike vectors and curves and for past pointed vectors. Note that for general Finsler spacetime $(M,L)$, given a tangent vector $v$ in the connected cone component where $T$ is contained, one does not expect that is future pointed respect to $T$. However, for close enough curves $\tilde{\gamma}:I\to M$ to $\gamma:I\to M$, tangent vectors $\tilde{v}$ to $v$, it holds by continuity of the function $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\cdot}(T,\cdot):\,T^+_xM \to R,\quad \tilde{v}\mapsto g_{\tilde{v}}(\tilde{v}, T)
\end{aligned}$$ that if $g_v(v,T)<0$, then $g_{\tilde{v}}(\tilde{v}, T)<0$. This fact is needed when doing variation calculations.
An [*observer*]{} is described by a future pointed timelike curve $\gamma:[a,b]\to M$;if there is a time orientation $T$, an observer is future pointed iff $g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T)<0$. where $\gamma'$ is the tangent vector associated with the observer $\gamma$.
In general, an observer is not necessarily described by integral curves of the time orientation $T$. Also, given a future pointed vector $w\in \, T^+_x M$ it can happen that for two observers $\gamma$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$, one has that $g_{w}(w,\gamma')<0$ but for the second observer one can have that $g_{w}(w,\tilde{\gamma})> 0$. This fact implies that one cannot decide the future pointed character of the vector $w$ from observations (that is, from measurements made by a given observer). Since the character of the sign of $g_w(w,T)$ is not controlled by the sign of the observable $g_w(w,\gamma')$, one needs to assume the sign of $g_w(w,T)$. Also, note the following fact: in general, one has that $$\begin{aligned}
g_w(w,-Z)=\,-g_w(w,Z).
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, given a time orientation $T$, one has that $g_w(w,-T)=\,-g_w(w,T)$ and $g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T)=-\,g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T)$.
In contrast, one has in general that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-w}(-w,Z)\neq \,- g_{w}(w,Z)
\label{generalparityasymmetry}
\end{aligned}$$ for any $Z\in \Gamma N$. In particular, one has the property that for a time orientation $T$ and an observer $\gamma$, one has in general that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-\gamma'}(-\gamma',T)\neq \,- g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T).
\end{aligned}$$ Also surprising, when $L$ is not reversible, if $v$ is a causal vector, then $-v$ is not necessarily causal. An example of non-reversible Finsler spacetime is provided by Ruth solution of a Finsler generalization of Einstein equations discussed bellow (see the space defined by equation ).
One way to avoid these puzzling consequences is to consider reversible metrics:
If the Finsler spacetime $(M,L)$ is reversible, then $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-w}(-w,Z)=\,- g_{w}(w,Z).
\label{symmetrycondition}
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for any time orientation $T$ and observer $\gamma$, one has that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-\gamma'}(-\gamma',T)= \,- g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T).
\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof**]{}. That $(M,L)$ is reversible means that $L(x,y)=\,L(x,-y)$. Therefore, for any vector fields $w$ and $Z$, one has that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{-w}(-w,Z)=\,g_{w}(-w,Z)=\,-g_w(w,Z).
\end{aligned}$$ The second equality follows directly from .$\Box$
Note that the symmetry condition hold for Lorentzian spacetimes, which makes the condition for $(M,L)$ being reversible a natural condition for some physical models. However, we observe that reversibility of $L$ is indeed not required for the proofs of the main results of this paper. Therefore, we will consider Finsler spacetimes that could also be non-reversible. Let us note that Randers spacetimes were introduced as a model where irreversibility in evolution was contained in the geometry of the spacetime [@Randers]. Although this is not necessarily our position, we should be alert that any un-necessary restriction could private us of a framework to explore general physical models.
Despite these subtleties that surround the notion of time orientation and non-reversibility in Finsler spacetimes, the notion of future pointed vector is a geometric notion in the sense that does not depend on the observer $\gamma$. It depends on the vector field $T$ and the vector $w$ only. In order to make sense of this notion, the vector field $T$ needs to be fixed and should be measurable for any physical observer $\gamma$. In particular, any future pointed observer should agree on the criteria $g_{\gamma'}(\gamma',T)<0$. By the discussion above, for each $x\in T_xM$, for each $x\in M$, this select the curves from the open convex component of the timelike vectors at $x$ containing $T(x)$.
Once $T$ is fixed, the future pointed observers are well defined, as well as the past pointed observers. However, for a generic Finsler spacetime $(M,L)$, the relation between time orientation, future pointed observer, time inversion operation and past pointed observers is not the usual one.
We collect several examples of Finsler spacetimes investigated in the literature. The examples below do not exhaust the intense use of Finsler geometries in physical applications. On the other hand, such a bunch of examples partially motivates the mathematical investigation of Finsler spacetimes.
The first example to consider are Lorentzian spacetimes $(M,h)$, where $h$ is a Lorentzian metric. In this case, the Lagrangian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y)=\,h_x(y,y),\quad y\in T_xM.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional manifold and let us consider the following Lagrangian function, $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\Big(\ell(x,y)^2\,-U_i(x)U_j(x)\,y^i\,y^j\Big)\end{aligned}$$ \[ejemplofinsler1\] where $U(s)$ defines a $1$-form on M and $\ell(x,v)$ are such that following conditions:
1. $ \ell(x,ky)=\,k\,\ell(x,y)$ for positive $k$,
2. $\frac{\partial ^2\ell^2 (x,y)}{\partial y^i\partial y^j}
\,w^i\,w^j\,>0$ if $U(x)(w)>0$ and
3. There is a unique vector field $V(x)$ defined by $U(V)=-1$ and $\frac{\partial^2 \ell^2 (x,y)}{\partial y^i\partial y^j}V^i(x)=0$, $\omega\neq 0$.
These conditions guarantee that the matrix of fundamental tensor components $$\begin{aligned}
g_{ij}(x,y)=\,\frac{1}{2}\,\frac{\partial^2\ell^2(x,y)}{\partial y^i\partial y^j}-\,U^iU^j\end{aligned}$$ is non-degenerate and with signature $(-1,1,...,1)$. The relevance of this example to physics resides in that it describes light propagation in a linear, dielectric and permeable medium [@Perlick2000].
A family of Finsler spacetimes that have been considered in the physics literature are based on Berwald-Moor Finsler metrics [@LämmerzahlLorekDittus]. Let $(M,\eta)$ be the Minkowski spacetime and $W$ a timelike vector field on $M$. An Euclidean metric induced by $W$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\eta}_x(y,y)=\eta_x(y,y)-\,2\frac{\eta^2_x(y,W)}{\eta_x(W,W)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\hat{y}$ be the orthogonal component of $y$ to $W$ using $\hat{\eta}$ and $\phi$ a $2p$-tensor. Then the fundamental tensor $g$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
g_x(y,y)=\,\eta_x(y,y)+\hat{\eta}_x(y,y)\,\Big(\frac{1}{p}\frac{\phi(\hat{y},....,\hat{y})}{\hat{\eta}_x(y,y)^p}\Big).
\label{ejemplolammerzahl}\end{aligned}$$ This tensor determines a Finsler spacetime iff $\phi$ is small enough compared with $\hat{\eta}$. Experimentally, Finsler spacetimes of Berwald-Moor type are constrained to be Lorentzian with a very high accuracy [@LämmerzahlLorekDittus]. \[ejemploLLD\]
Not directly related with physical models is the following example [@Beem1]. The spacetime manifold is $M=R^3$ and the Lagrangian is the highly non-reversible function $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
L(y)=\,\frac{(y^1)^3\,-y^1(y^2)^2}{\big((y^1)^2+\,(y^2)^2\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $L(-y)=\,-L(y)$ and the indicatrix has six connected components. \[ejemplobeem\]
The following examples share the common fact that they are not regular in the whole slit tangent space of a spacetime manifold. In order to consider such examples one needs to relax the conditions of the Finsler spacetime (some notions of [*weak Finsler structures*]{} can be found in [@Randers; @PfeiferWohlfarth]).
Rutz has investigated a non-Riemannian solutions of a Einstein-Finsler theory in vacuum [@Rutz]. Let coordinates $(t,r,\theta, \varphi)$ be local spherical coordinate system. In spherical coordinates, a tangent vector $y\in\,TM$ is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
y=\,y_t\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\,y_r\frac{\partial}{\partial r}+\,y_{\theta}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+
\, y_{\varphi}\frac{\partial}{\partial\, \varphi},
\end{aligned}$$ Ruth’s Finsler spacetime is a static, spherical symmetric, Finsler space-time, with spacetime manifold $M=\,R\times R^+\times S^2$ and Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y):=\Big(-\Big(1-\frac{2m}{r}\Big)
\Big(1-\,\delta\,\frac{d\Omega}{dt}\Big)\,dt^2+
\frac{1}{\Big(1-\frac{2m}{r}\Big)\,}dr^2\,+r^2d\Omega^2\Big)\cdot(y,y),
\label{rutzexample}\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\frac{d\Omega}{dt}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\Omega}{dt}:=\,\frac{\sqrt{y^2_{\theta}+\,\sin^2\theta\,y^2_{\varphi}}}{y_t},\,\,y_t\neq 0\end{aligned}$$ and the parameter $\delta$ is small compared with $1$.
The Schwarzschild’s solution of Einstein’s equations [@BEE], $$\begin{aligned}
L_S(x,y):=\,ds^2_{S}\cdot(y,y)=\,\Big(-\Big(1-\frac{2m}{r}\Big)\,dt^2+
\frac{1}{\Big(1-\frac{2m}{r}\Big)\,}dr^2\,+r^2d\Omega^2\Big)\cdot(y,y),
\label{Schwarzschild}\end{aligned}$$ $(M,L_R)$ is a [*singular*]{} Finsler spacetime, since it is not regular in the full $N$. Indeed, it is smooth on $N\setminus A$, where $A$ contains the set where $\frac{d\Omega}{dt}=0$, the sub-manifolds $\{y\in T_xM\,|\,y_t=0\}\hookrightarrow T_xM$ and at the Schwarzschild radius $r_S\,=2m$. The corresponding fundamental tensor $$\begin{aligned}
(g_R)_{ij}=\, \frac{\partial^2 L_R(x,y)}{\partial y^i \partial y^j}
\end{aligned}$$ is non-degenerate on $N\setminus A$ and has Lorentzian signature for $\delta$ small enough[^4]. Also, note that is not a reversible metric.
The [*rainbow metric*]{} is a phenomenological description of the modification of the dispersion relations produced by possible quantum gravity corrections [@GirelliLiberatiSindoni]. Let $(M,\eta)$ be a stationary Lorentzian spacetime such that $\mathcal{L}_W \eta=0$. There is a foliation on $M$ given by integral curves of $W$. The orthogonal spacelike hypersurfaces $\Sigma_t$ furnish an induced Riemannian metric $\bar{\eta}$ by isometric embedding. The rainbow metric is determined by the following lagrangian function $L$ (compare with [@GirelliLiberatiSindoni]), $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y)=\,\Big(\sqrt{\eta(x,y)}-\,C_1(m)\frac{\bar{\eta}(\bar{y},\bar{y})^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\eta^{\frac{1}{2}}(x,y)}\Big)^2.
\label{rainbowmetric}\end{aligned}$$ This metric is not regular in the light cone $\eta(x,y)=0$. This singularity is related with the mass of the particle $m$. Therefore, each specie of elementary particle has its [*particular metric*]{} (this is why the name rainbow metric). The rainbow metric is non-reversible.
Related with very special relativity of Cohen and Glashow, there are related Finsler metrics of Bogoslovsky type. In particular, very special relativity group leaves invariant the line element of norm $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y)=\,\eta(y,y)^{(1-b)}\,n (y)^{2b},
\label{bogosmetric}\end{aligned}$$ with $\eta$ the Minkowski metric in $4$ dimensions, $n$ a $1$-form corresponding to the null direction $\nu^{\mu}=\delta^\mu_+$ and $b\neq 1$ is the deformation parameter [@GibbonsGomisPope]. Bogoslovsky metric contains singularities on the cone $\eta(y,y)=0$.
Bi-metric theories have been considered in the literature associated with birefringent crystal optics [@SkakalaVisser]. They are constructed from two Lorentzian spacetimes $(M,L_+)$ and $(M,L_-)$ by the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L(x,y):=\,\sqrt{L_+(x,y)\,L_-(x,y)}.\end{aligned}$$ These metrics are singular on each of the null cones $L_+(x,y)=0$ and $L_-(x,y)=0$, since the corresponding fundamental tensor $g_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\,\partial_{y^i}\partial_{y^j}\,L(x,y)$ is not smooth [@SkakalaVisser2].
An affine parameterized geodesic of a Lagrangian $L$ is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}-\frac{\partial
L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \lambda^i}=0,\quad i=1,...,n,
\label{affineparameterizedgeodesic}$$ with $\dot{\lambda}^i(s)=\,\frac{d\lambda^i(s)}{ds}$. In this case $s$ is an affine parameter.
An arbitrarily parameterized geodesic is a solution of the differential equation $$\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}-\frac{\partial
L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \lambda^i}=\,f(s)\dot{\lambda}^i,\quad i=1,...,n
\label{affineparameterizedgeodesic2}$$ for a given function $f:I\longrightarrow M$ and with $\dot{\lambda}^i(s)=\,\frac{d\lambda^i(s)}{ds}$.
Given an arbitrarily parameterized geodesic of an affine connection on $M$, it is possible to find a positive re-parameterization such that with the new parameter the curve is an affine geodesic.
Using the equation (\[affineparameterizedgeodesic\]) and the homogeneity condition (\[homogeneouscondition\]), one can show that $L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})$ is preserved along affine parameterized geodesics, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s)) & =\,\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \lambda^i}\,
\dot{\lambda^i}\,+\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\ddot{\lambda^i}\\
& =\,\frac{d}{ds}\Big(\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\Big)\dot{\lambda}^i\,
+\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\ddot{\lambda}^i\\
& =\,\frac{d}{ds}\Big(\frac{\partial L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\dot{\lambda}^i\Big)\\
& =\,2\frac{d}{ds}\Big(L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))\Big),\end{aligned}$$ from which follows that $L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})$ is constant along $\lambda$ (and therefore, also along any equivalent arbitrarily re-parameterized geodesic). Therefore, a causal geodesic is a geodesic with $g_{\dot{\lambda}(s)}(\dot{\lambda},\dot{\lambda})\leq 0$; for a timelike geodesic $g_{\dot{\lambda}(s)}(\dot{\lambda},\dot{\lambda})\leq 0$ and for a lightlike geodesic $g_{\dot{\lambda}(s)}(\dot{\lambda},\dot{\lambda})=0$. Note that the causal character of a geodesic is preserved by re-parameterization and that time orientation is preserved by monotone increasing re-parameterizations.
Let us consider a point $q\in M$, a constant $c\leq 0$ and a future pointed, timelike curve $\gamma:I\longrightarrow M$. Then the [*space of admissible curves*]{} is the space $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}:=\Big\{\,& \lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M, \quad \textrm{smooth such that}\\
& 1. \,\lambda(0)=q,\\
& 2. \,\exists \,\tau(\lambda)\in I\,\,s.t.\,\,\lambda(1)=\,\gamma(\tau(\lambda)),\\
& 3. \,L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))=-c^2, \,\forall s\in [0,1],\\
& 4. \, g_{ij}(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))\,\dot{\lambda}^i(s)\,T^j(\lambda(s))<0\,\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $\lambda\in \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$, $\lambda$ will not be parameterized necessarily by the [*proper time*]{}, defined by the integral $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\tilde{\lambda}}(\tilde{\lambda}(r))=\int^{r_2}_{r_1}\,\sqrt{-g_{ij}(\tilde{\lambda}(r),
\dot{\tilde{\lambda}}(r))\,\dot{\tilde{\lambda}}^i(r)\,\dot{\tilde{\lambda}}^j(r)}\,dr.
\label{propertime}\end{aligned}$$
An allowed variation of $\lambda\in\,\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ is a smooth map $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda :(-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0)& \times\, [0,1] \longrightarrow M,\,\,\,\epsilon_0 >0\end{aligned}$$ such that
1. Each of the curves $\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot)$ is allowed, $$\begin{aligned}
(\epsilon, s)\mapsto \Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot)\in \,\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\quad \forall \epsilon \in [-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0],\end{aligned}$$
2. The central curve is $\Lambda(0,s)=\lambda(s)$.
\[alowedvariation\]
We introduce two functionals relevant for our purposes,
Let $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}([0,1],M)$ be the space of smooth parameterized curves of $M$ parameterized in the interval $[0,1]$. The energy functional is $$\begin{aligned}
E: \mathcal{C}^{\infty}([0,1],M)\longrightarrow R,\quad \lambda \mapsto E(\lambda):=\int^1_0\,L(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))\,ds,
\label{energyfunctional}\end{aligned}$$
Note that for any allowed variation, the energy $E$ of each curve is $-c^2$. Therefore, we are considering causal curves with prescribed energy. As a consequence of the prescription of the energy one has that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\Big(\int^1_0\,L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon, s))\,ds\Big)=0.
\label{criticalconditioforE}\end{aligned}$$ All the curves in the class $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma, c}$ have constant energy equal to $E=-c^2$.
Let $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ be the space of admissible curves. The time arrival functional is $$\begin{aligned}
\tau:\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\longrightarrow R,\quad
& \lambda \mapsto \tau(\lambda).
\label{timearrivalfunctional}\end{aligned}$$
In standard treatments of Fermat’s principle for lightlike geodesics it is assumed that the time arrival functional acting on any allowed variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ is of class $\mathcal{C}^1$ in the variable $\epsilon$ [@Perlick; @Perlick06]. Such regularity holds when $L$ is a Lorenztian metric and the allowed curves $\lambda$ are timelike [@GiannoniMasielloPiccione]. Indeed one has the following result,
Let $(M,L)$ be a Finsler spacetime, $\Lambda: (-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times \, [0,1]\longrightarrow M$ a variation of a causal geodesic $\lambda$ and $\gamma:I \longrightarrow M$ a timelike, positive temporary oriented curve. Then the function $\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot))$ is smooth on $\epsilon$. \[proposicionon regularity of tau\]
[**Proof**]{}. Let us consider the time arrival functional acting on the variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$, i.e., the function $$\begin{aligned}
t:(-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0 )\longrightarrow R,\quad\epsilon\mapsto \gamma^{-1}(\Lambda(\epsilon,1))=\gamma^{-1}\circ \Lambda(\epsilon,1),\end{aligned}$$ The function $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(\cdot,1):(-\epsilon_0,\epsilon_0 )\longrightarrow M,\quad\epsilon\mapsto \Lambda(\epsilon,1)\end{aligned}$$ is smooth. Since $\gamma(\sigma)$ is smooth, $(\gamma^{\mu}) '(\sigma)=\frac{d\gamma^{\mu} (\sigma)}{d\sigma}\neq 0$ for any $\sigma\in\,I$ and $\gamma(\sigma)$ does not have self-intersections, $\gamma^{-1}:\gamma(I)\longrightarrow R$ is smooth. Therefore, since $t(\epsilon)=\,\gamma^{-1}(\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot))=\,\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot))$ is smooth on $\epsilon$ the result follows. $\Box$
The smoothness on $\epsilon$ of the time arrival functional is fundamental in the formulation of Fermat’s principle as well as for related results.
Let us fix the time positive oriented timelike curve $\gamma:I\longrightarrow M $. Fermat’s principle for causal curves can be stated as follows
Let $(M,L)$ be a time orientable Finsler spacetime. Then the causal curve $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ is a geodesic (pre-geodesic in the lightlike case) of $L$ iff it is a critical point of the time arrival functional (\[timearrivalfunctional\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon=0}\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))=0,\end{aligned}$$ for any allowed variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ of $\lambda(s)$. \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\]
This is a generalization of the Finslerian version of Fermat’s principle for lightlike curves obtained in [@Perlick] and of the Lorentzian Fermat’s principle for timelike curves [@GiannoniMasielloPiccione]. Note that the allowed curves are different from the above mentioned principles. For instance, one does not require time orientation for the light-like curves [@Perlick]; for Fermat’s principle contained in [@GiannoniMasielloPiccione] the notion of time-orientation is slightly different than the principle considered in this work. Also, because a technicality in the prove of the theorem, we will require future pointed oriented curves. This is in contrast with [@Perlick], where only a positivity orientation is required when observed by $\gamma$.
For a timelike geodesic, the parameter of $\lambda(s)$ is an affine parameter. This is not the case if $ \lambda$ is a lightlike curve.
Before we prove [*proposition*]{} \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\], let us write some intermediate formulas. First note that a smooth curve $\lambda$ is a critical point of the functional energy $E$ iff equation holds for any allowed variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$. Also note that since $\Lambda(\epsilon,1)=\,
\gamma(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon, 1)))$ one has that in local coordinates $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\Lambda^i(\epsilon,1)=\,({\gamma^i})'(\tau(\lambda))\,
\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\big(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))\big),\quad i=1,...,n,
\label{relationLambdatau}\end{aligned}$$ for any allowed variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$.
[**Proof of proposition \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\]**]{}. The “only if” is proven following a similar argument as in [@Perlick06]. The condition that all the curves in the allowed variation $\Lambda$ are of fixed energy and that the allowed variation $\Lambda$ is indeed a smooth function on $\epsilon$ and $s$ implies the following relation, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & =\,\int^1_0\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\big(L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon, s))\big)\,ds\\
& =\,\int^1_0\,\Big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}(\Lambda^i(\epsilon,s))\,
+\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\dot{\Lambda}^i(\epsilon,s)\Big)\,ds\\
& =\,\int^1_0\,\Big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}(\Lambda^i(\epsilon,s))\,
+\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\frac{d}{ds}\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}{\Lambda}^i(\epsilon,s)\Big)\,ds\\
& = \,\int^1_0\,\Big(\Big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\Big)
\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\Lambda^i(\epsilon,s))\Big)\,ds\,+\,
\Big(\frac{\partial L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\Lambda^i\Big)\Big|^1_0.\end{aligned}$$ Then using the relation (\[relationLambdatau\]) one obtains $$\begin{gathered}
\int^1_0\,\Big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\Big)
\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}(\Lambda^i(\epsilon,s))\,ds+ \frac{\partial L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\,({\gamma^i})'(\tau(\lambda))\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\,
\big(\tau(\epsilon,s)\big)=0\end{gathered}$$ and by the homogeneity property of $L$, $$\begin{gathered}
\int^1_0\,\Big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\Big)
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}(\Lambda^i)\,ds+\big(g_{jl}(\lambda(1),{\lambda}'(1))\dot{\lambda}^l(1)({\gamma}^j)'(\tau(\lambda))\big)\,\frac{d}{d\epsilon}
\big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\big(\tau(\epsilon,s))
=0.
\label{relationeulerlagrangetau}\end{gathered}$$ Given a curve $\lambda \in \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$, one has the condition $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\dot{\lambda}(s)}(\dot{\lambda}(1),\gamma'(\tau(\lambda)))=\,g_{jl}(\lambda(1),\dot{\lambda}(1))\dot{\lambda}^l(1)({\gamma}^j)'(\tau(\lambda))\neq 0.
\label{causalitycondition}\end{aligned}$$ Let us parameterize the geodesic by an affine parameter $s\in[0,1]$, which means that equation (\[affineparameterizedgeodesic\]) holds. Then it is clear from (\[relationeulerlagrangetau\]) that for curves of fixed energy $E=-c^2\,\leq\,0$, the solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations are critical points of the time arrival functional, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})}{\partial \lambda^i}\,-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L(\lambda,
\dot{\lambda})}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}=0,\quad E=-c^2\,\Rightarrow\frac{d}{d \epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))=0.\end{aligned}$$ This implication is independent of the signature of the metric. It strongly depends on the requirement that the energy $E$ has a fixed valued for all the allowed curves.
The “if" implication in proposition \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\] can be proved as follows. Let us consider a variation of $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\ni\,\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{\alpha}(\epsilon,s)=\lambda^{\alpha}(s)\,+\epsilon A^{\alpha}(s),\quad \alpha=1,...,n-1,
\label{definitionA}\end{aligned}$$ with $A^{\alpha}$ arbitrary smooth functions. In order to be an allowed variation along the curve $\lambda(s)\in\,\mathcal{C}_{q\gamma,c}$, $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ must satisfy the condition $$\begin{aligned}
L(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})=-c^2
\label{equationforLambdaN}\end{aligned}$$ with initial condition $\Lambda(\epsilon,0)=-c^2$. If we cover the image of $\Lambda$ by local coordinate charts, this condition can be expressed explicitly in a convenient local coordinate system such that the last coordinate $x^n$ corresponds to the integral curves of the time orientation vector field $T(x)$. In such coordinate system $\sum^n_{i=1}\,g_{ni}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^i\,\neq 0$ holds and one has the constrain $$\begin{aligned}
c^2+\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha,\beta =1}\,g_{\alpha\beta}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^{\alpha}\dot{\Lambda}^{\beta}+
\,\sum^n_{i=1}\,g_{ni}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^i\,\dot{\Lambda}^n\,=0.
\label{rewritingequationforLambdaN}\end{aligned}$$ The fact that $\sum^n_{i=1}\,g_{ni}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^i\,\neq 0$ can be used to solve $\dot{\Lambda}^n$ in , $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{
\,\sum^n_{i=1}\,g_{ni}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^i}\,c^2+\,\frac{\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha,\beta =1}
\,g_{\alpha\beta}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^{\alpha}\dot{\Lambda}^{\beta}}{
\,\sum^n_{i=1}\,g_{ni}(\Lambda,\dot{\Lambda})\dot{\Lambda}^i}+\,\dot{\Lambda}^n\,=0.
\label{rewritingequationforLambdaN2}\end{aligned}$$ Let us fix the value of $\epsilon$. Since does not contain any derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}$, the variable $\epsilon$ can be considered as a continuous parameter of the differential equation (\[rewritingequationforLambdaN2\]) that s considered as an ODE. Then one uses standard ODE theory to establish local existence, uniqueness and smoothness of $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ on the parameter $\epsilon$ for $s\in [0,s_0]$ for some $s_0$ (see for instance [@Chicone Chapter 1]). Such solution can be extended further. Indeed, the solution can be extended to an interval $]s_0-\delta,s_0+\delta[$, with the convenient initial data at the point $s_0-\delta\in \,[0,s_0[$ and with a smooth dependence on $0<\epsilon <\epsilon_1\leq \epsilon_0$. Repeating this procedure one can extend the solution to a finite collection of open sets of $R$ which is maximal and contained in $\lambda([0,1])$. Let $s_{max}\leq \,1$ be the maximal value of $s$ such that the dependence on $\epsilon \in\, \Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ is smooth. There are two possibilities,
1. $\lambda\in \, \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$. In this case, $s_{max}=1$, since otherwise one can extend $s_{max}$ leading to a contradiction with ODE theory.
2. $\lambda$ does not intersect $\gamma$. This is in contradiction with the hypothesis $\lambda(1)=\gamma(\tau(\lambda))$.
Let us consider the minimum $\epsilon_{min}$ of the above $\epsilon_k$, that by compactness of $[0,1]$ must be finite. Using again a compactness argument, one can show that there is a finite open cover of $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ such that the differential equation (\[rewritingequationforLambdaN2\]) contains an unique solution on each local chart. Because paracompact property of $M$, there is an adapted partition of the unity. Using bump functions [@Warner], one can patch in a smooth way a solution in an open subset of $[0,1]$, obtaining a global solution $\lambda$ for (\[rewritingequationforLambdaN2\]) in $[0,1]$. This proves the existence of allowed variations of $\lambda$ satisfying the ODE (\[rewritingequationforLambdaN2\]).
Using the local existence and uniqueness of ODE’s theory locally one can write the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\Lambda}^n(\epsilon,s)(\epsilon,s)=\,\tilde{f}_0(s,A(s))+\epsilon \,\int^s_0\,\big(\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,A^{\alpha}(s)\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)
+\,\epsilon^2\,\tilde{f}_2(s,A(s),\bar{\epsilon})\big) \,ds
\label{relationdotLambdaepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ for some unique, smooth functions $\{\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)\}$. Integrating respect to $s$ both sides (\[relationdotLambdaepsilon\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
{\Lambda}^n(\epsilon,s)(\epsilon,s)=\,{f}_0(s,A(s))+\epsilon \,\big(\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,A^{\alpha}(s)\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)\big)
+\,\epsilon^2\,{f}_2(s,A(s),\bar{\epsilon}),\end{aligned}$$ Then the variation of the relation (\[relationeulerlagrangetau\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\int^1_0\,\Big(\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda^{\alpha}}-&\,
\frac{d}{ds}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^{\alpha}}\big)\,{A}^{\alpha}(s) +\,
\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial {\Lambda}^n}-\,\frac{d}{ds}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^n}\big)\,
\big(\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,A^{\alpha}(s)\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)\big)\Big)\,ds\\
& = -\int^1_0\,\frac{d}{ds}\Big(\,({\gamma}^i)'(\tau(\lambda))\,\frac{\partial L(\lambda,\dot{\lambda}(s))}{\partial
\dot{\lambda}^i}\,
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}|_{\epsilon=0}\big(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))\Big)\,ds.
\end{aligned}$$ For critical points of the arrival time functional it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot)))=0.
\end{aligned}$$ This implies $$\begin{gathered}
\int^1_0\,\Big(\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda^{\alpha}}-\frac{d}{ds}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^{\alpha}}\big)\,{A}^{\alpha}(s) +\,\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial {\Lambda}^n}-\,
\frac{d}{ds}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^n}\big)\,\big(\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,A^{\alpha}(s)\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)\big)\Big)\,ds=0.
\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, one can write the relations $$\begin{aligned}
0=\,\int^1_0\,\Big(\sum^{n-1}_{i=1}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \lambda^i}\,-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i}\Big)
\,B^i(s)\Big)\,ds
\label{newrelationeulerlagrangetau}\end{aligned}$$ for the arbitrary, small enough functions $(B^1(s),...,B^{n-1}(s))$. Also note that since for each $s$ for some $(A^1(s),...,A^{n-1}(s))$ the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\big(\,\sum^{n-1}_{\alpha=1}\,A^{\alpha}(s)\tilde{h}_{\alpha}(s)\big)\Big),
\end{aligned}$$ is arbitrarily large, one finds the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial {\lambda}^n}-\,
\frac{d}{ds}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^n}=0.
\label{lagrangeequationforn}
\end{aligned}$$ The functions $\{B^1(s),...,B^{n-1}(s)\}$ determine a $(n-1)$-dimensional vector space at each point $\lambda(s)$. Each of such $(n-1)$-vector subspaces are orthogonal to the tangent vector $\dot{\lambda}(s)$. Let us consider a basis $\{B_1(s),...,B_{n-1}(s)\}$ for the subspace of $T_{\lambda(s)}M$ orthogonal to $\dot{\lambda}$. Using the fact that $g$ is non-degenerate, the expression (\[newrelationeulerlagrangetau\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
0=\,\int^1_0\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\omega(s),B_{\alpha}(s))\, ds
\label{omega}\end{aligned}$$ for some vector field $\omega:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ defined by the relation $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\omega(s),B(s))=\big(\frac{\partial L}{\partial \Lambda^{i}}-\frac{d}{ds}
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^{i}}\big)\,{B}^{i}(s)\end{aligned}$$ for each space-like vector $(B_1(s),...,B_{n-1}(s))$. Since the functions $B^i(s)$ are arbitrary, we can extract from the integral the local condition $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\omega(s),B_{\alpha}(s))=0.
\label{relationbetweenomegaB}\end{aligned}$$ This implies that for a fixed $s$ the vector $\omega(s)$ is parallel to $\dot{\lambda}(s)$. This can be proven as follows. If $\omega(s)$ is not parallel to $\dot{\lambda}(s)$, there is vector $C(s)$ such that $g_{\dot{\lambda}}(C(s),B(s))=0$ for all $B(s)\in\, span\{B_1,...,B_{n-1}\}$. As we say, the dimension of the variational fields $B(s)$ orthogonal to $\dot{\lambda}(s)$ is $n-1$ for all $s$. The dimension of $span\{\dot{\lambda}(s),B_i(s),C(s)\}$ must be maximum $n$. Therefore, $C(s)=0$ and it follows $\omega(s)$ is parallel to $\dot{\lambda}(s)$. Since equation holds for the arbitrary $n-1$ $B(s)$ functions, it must hold that $\omega^i(s)=0,\,i=1,...,n-1$. $\Box$
It is remarkable the use of time orientation in the above proof to isolate $\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,s)$ and be able to use ODE theory. Also note, that as in the positive case, if $\gamma:I\to M$ with $I=[a,b]$ compact is a geodesic, then $\hat{\lambda}:-I\to M, \,\hat{\gamma}:=\gamma(-s)$ is not necessarily a geodesic. Therefore, if $\gamma$ is a critical point of the time arrival functional $\tau$, then the reversed curve $\hat{\gamma}$ is not a geodesic.
The above calculation provides the formula of the first variation of the time arrival functional. Writing $$\begin{aligned}
g_{jl}(\Lambda(1,\epsilon),\dot{\Lambda}(1,\epsilon)\dot{\Lambda}^l(1,\epsilon)({\gamma}^j)'(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s)))
=g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda},{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda))),\end{aligned}$$ the first variation of the functional $\tau(\Lambda)$ is given by the expression: $$\begin{gathered}
g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda},{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda)))\,\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\big(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))\big)
\\=-\int^1_0\,\Big(\frac{\partial L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,s))}{\partial \Lambda^i}\,
-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,s))}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^i}\Big)\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,
\Lambda^i(\epsilon,s)\,ds.
\label{firstvatiationtimearrivalfunctional}\end{gathered}$$ Note that in this formula $\epsilon$ has not been fixed to have the value $\epsilon=0$.
Our way to introduce [*Chern’s connection*]{} for Finsler spacetimes is as follows. The Cartan tensor components are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ijk}:=\,\frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial y^{k}}, \quad i,j,k=1,...,n,
\label{Cartantensor coefficients}\end{aligned}$$ differently to the way it is introduced in [@BCS] by a factor $\frac{1}{F}$. Therefore, because of the homogeneity of the tensor $g$, Euler’s theorem implies $$\begin{aligned}
C_{(x,y)}(y,\cdot,\cdot)=\,\,\frac{1}{2} y^k\,\frac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial y^{k}}=0.
\label{homogeneityofcartan tensor}\end{aligned}$$ The formal second kind Christoffel symbols ${\gamma}^{i}\,_{jk}(x,y)$ are defined by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
{\gamma}^{i}\,_{jk}=\frac{1}{2}g^{is}(\frac{\partial g_{sj}}{\partial
x^{k}}-\frac{\partial g_{jk}}{\partial x^{s}}+\frac{\partial
g_{sk}}{\partial x^{j}}),\quad i,j,k,s=1,...,n.\end{aligned}$$ The [*non-linear connection coefficients*]{} are defined on ${ N}:=TM\setminus\{0\}$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
{N^{i}\,_{j}}={\gamma}^{i}\,_{jk}{y^{k}}-C^{i}\,_{jk}
{\gamma}^{k}\,_{rs}\,{y^{r}}{y^{s}},\quad
i,j,k,r,s=1,...,n,\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{i}\,_{jk}=g^{il}\,C_{ljk}$.
The connection coefficients define a connection on $N$ in the sense of Ehresmann, defining a decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
TN=\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{V},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{V}=\,ker(d\pi)$. An adapted frame to the above decomposition is determined by the smooth tangent basis for ${ T}_u { N},\, u\in { N}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\{ \frac{{\delta}}{{\delta} x^{1}}|_u ,...,\frac{{\delta}}{{\delta} x^{n}} |_u, \frac{\partial}{\partial y^{1}} |_u,...,\frac{\partial}{\partial
y^{n}} |_u\right\},\,
&&\frac{{\delta}}{{\delta} x^{j}}|_u =\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{j}}|_u -N^{i}\,_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{i}}|_u ,\quad
i,j=1,...,n.
\label{adaptedframe}\end{aligned}$$ Given a tangent vector $X\in\,T_x M$ and $u\in \pi^{-1}(x)$, there is a unique horizontal tangent vector $h(X)\in \,T_u N$ with $d\pi(h(X))=X$ (horizontal lift of $X$).
The pull-back bundle $\pi^* {TM}$ is the maximal subsect of the cartesian product ${ N}\times{ TM}$ such that the diagram $$\begin{aligned}
\xymatrix{\pi^*{TM} \ar[d]_{\pi_1} \ar[r]^{\pi_2} &
{ TM} \ar[d]^{\pi_0}\\
{ N} \ar[r]^{\pi} & { M}}\end{aligned}$$ is commutative. The projections on the first and second factors are $$\begin{aligned}
& \pi _1:\pi ^* { TM}\longrightarrow { N},\,
(u,\xi)\mapsto u,\quad \pi _2 :\pi ^* { TM}\longrightarrow { TM},\,
(u,\xi)\mapsto \xi.\end{aligned}$$ A [*Chern type connection*]{} is defined through the following
Let $({ M},F)$ be a Finsler structure. The pull-back vector bundle $\pi_1:{\pi}^{*}{TM}\rightarrow { N}$ admits a unique linear connection determined by the connection $1$-forms $\{{\omega}_j\,^i,\,\, i,j=1,...,n \} $ such that the following structure equations hold:
1. [*Torsion free condition*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
d(dx^{i})-dx^{j}\wedge w_{j}\,^i=0,\quad i,j=1,...,n.
\label{torsionfree}\end{aligned}$$
2. [*Almost $g$-compatibility condition*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
dg_{ij}-g_{kj}w_{i}\,^k-g_{ik}w_{j}\,^k=2\,C_{ijk}{{\delta}y^{k}},\quad
i,j,k=1,...,n.
\label{almostgcompatibility}\end{aligned}$$
\[chernconnection\]
This result is proved along the same lines as in [@BCS] for the existence of the Chern connection. This is because the hypothesis that one uses and the [*Christoffel trick*]{} is the same as in the positive case.
Let $h(X)$ and $v(X)$ be the horizontal and vertical lifts of $X\in\,\Gamma TM$ to $TN$, and $\pi^*g$ the pull back-metric. For the Chern connection the following properties hold:
1. The almost $g$-compatibility metric condition is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla}_{v({{X}})}\pi^*g=2C({X},\cdot,\cdot),\quad
{\nabla}_{h({X})} \pi^*g=0,\quad {X}\in\,\Gamma TN.
\label{covariantalmostmetriccondition}\end{aligned}$$
2. The torsion-free condition of the Chern connection is equivalent to the following:
1. Null vertical covariant derivative of sections of ${\pi}^*{TM}$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla}_{{v({X})}} {\pi}^* Y=0,
\label{covariantensorfreecondition1}\end{aligned}$$ for any vertical component $v(X)$ of $X$.
2. Let us consider $X,Y\in {TM}$ and their horizontal lifts $h(X)$ and $h(Y)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{h(X)} {\pi}^* Y-{\nabla}_{h(Y)}{\pi}^*X-{\pi}^* ([X,Y])=0.
\label{covariantensorfreecondition2}\end{aligned}$$
The proof of this corollary is similar to the positive case that one can be find in [@RF].
Given a Finsler structure, the curvature endomorphism of the Chern connection have two pieces different from zero [@BCS]. One of the pieces correspond to the $hh$-curvature and its components are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& R^{i}\,_{jkl} =\frac{\delta \Gamma^i\,_{jk}}{\delta x^l}-\frac{\delta \Gamma^i\,_{jl}}{\delta x^k}-\
\Gamma^i\,_{hl}\Gamma^h\,_{jk}+\Gamma^i\,_{hk}\Gamma^h\,_{jl},\quad h,i,j,k,l=1,...,n.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ be a geodesic of $L$. Then along $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ the following relations are true for the Chern connection,
1. The connection preserves $g$ along $\lambda$ in the sense that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d r}\big(g_{\dot{\lambda}}(Y,W)\big)=\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\,\nabla_{h(X)}(\dot{\lambda})\,\pi^*Y,\pi^*W)+
\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\pi^*Y,
\,\nabla_{h(X)}(\dot{\lambda})\pi^*W),\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $X,Y,W\in \Gamma TM.$
2. The connection $\nabla$ is torsion free: if $[X,Y]=0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{h(X)}(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})\,\pi^*Y=\,\nabla_{h(Y)}(\lambda,\dot{\lambda})\,\pi^*X,\quad X\in \Gamma TM.\end{aligned}$$
\[sobreprimeravaraicion\]
[**Proof.**]{} The first property is the evaluation of the almost metric compatibility condition of the Chern connection along $u(s)=(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda})$, and with $\frac{d}{dr}$ the derivative along the vector field $X\in \Gamma \pi^*TM$. When the condition (\[almostgcompatibility\]) is evaluated at $u$, the left hand side is $$\begin{aligned}
(dg_{ij}-g_{kj}w_{i}\,^k-g_{ik}w_{j}\,^k)(X) & =dg_{ij}|_u(X)\,-g_{kj}|_u\,w_{i}\,^k(X)\,-g_{ik}|_u\,w_{j}\,^k(X)\\
& =\frac{d}{dr}(g_{ij}|_u\,(X))\,-g_{kj}|_u\,w_{i}\,^k(X)\,-g_{ik}|_u\,w_{j}\,^k(X).\end{aligned}$$ This expression is proportional to the Cartan tensor evaluated along $\lambda$ and contracted with $\dot{\lambda}$. along the causal geodesic $\lambda$ evaluated in the first entry at $\dot{\lambda}(s)$. However, the Cartan tensor along a critical point of $L=-F^2$ is zero, $$\begin{aligned}
2\,y^k\,C_{ijk}(x,y)=0\end{aligned}$$ by homogeneity of degree zero of $g$ and by Euler’s theorem. The second statement is a consequence of the torsion free condition of the Chern connection.$\Box$
Let $\nabla$ be the Chern connection on $\pi^*TM\longrightarrow N$. The first variation of the functional $E$ is given by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
0 =\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda}(1,\epsilon),{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda)))\,\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\big(\tau\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)\,
-\int^1_0\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\dot{\Lambda},\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)\,ds,
\label{primeravariacionformula}\end{aligned}$$ where $h(\dot{\Lambda})\in\,TN$ is the horizontal lift of $\dot{\Lambda}\in T_{\lambda}M$. \[primeravariacion\]
[**Proof**]{}. If a connection is torsion-free and preserves the metric along a geodesic (as it is the case because of (\[covariantalmostmetriccondition\]) and [*lemma*]{} \[sobreprimeravaraicion\], one obtains the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\int^1_0\,ds\Big(\frac{\partial L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,s))}{\partial \Lambda^i}
\,&-\frac{d}{ds}\,\frac{\partial L(\Lambda(\epsilon,s),\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,s))}{\partial \dot{\Lambda}^i}\Big)\,\Lambda^i(s)=\,\int^1_0\,ds\frac{1}{2}
\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\dot{\Lambda},\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\Lambda(\epsilon,s)),\end{aligned}$$ from which follows the result.$\Box$
Let $\lambda\in \,\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma, c}$ and $\Lambda_1$, $\Lambda_2$ be two allowed variations of $\lambda$ such the corresponding vector fields along $\lambda$ are $A(s)=\,\frac{d\,\Lambda_1(s,\epsilon)}{d \epsilon}|_{\epsilon =0}$ and $B(s)=\,\frac{d\,\Lambda_2(s,\epsilon)}{d\,\epsilon}|_{\epsilon =0}$. We define the index form acting on $A(s)$ and $B(s)$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\lambda}(A,B):=\,\int^1_0\,\Big(g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(B(s),R_{\dot{\lambda}}(A(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))
(\dot{\lambda}(s))\big)-\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\nabla_{\dot{\lambda}}{A}(s),\nabla_{\dot{\lambda}}{B}(s))\Big)\,ds,
\label{formadelindice}\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ is the $hh$-curvature of the covariant derivative $^+\nabla$ along $\lambda$ induced from the Chern connection.
Since the Cartan tensor along a geodesic is zero, the $hh$-curvature tensor along $\lambda$ is equal to the Riemann curvature tensor along $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{i}\,_{jkl} =\frac{\partial \gamma^i\,_{jk}}{\partial x^l}-\frac{\partial \gamma^i\,_{jl}}{\partial x^k}-\,
\gamma^i\,_{hl}\gamma^h\,_{jk}+\gamma^i\,_{hk}\gamma^h\,_{jl},\quad h,i,j,k,l=1,...,n.
\label{Riemanncurvaturetensoralonggeodesic}\end{aligned}$$
One can relate the space $T_{\lambda}\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ with the space of tangent vector fields along the geodesic $\lambda$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_{\lambda}:=\Big\{\,& A:[0,1]\longrightarrow T M, \quad C^{\infty} \,\textrm{functions}\, s.t.\\
& 1. \pi(A)=\lambda,\\
& 2. \,A(0)=0,\\
& 3. \,A(1)=0,\\
& 4. \,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\,(\dot{\lambda}(s),A(s))=0\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
Given a causal geodesic $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow \,M$, the vector spaces $\mathcal{T}_{\lambda}$ and $T_{\lambda}\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ are isomorphic. \[lemaquerelacionalosindices\]
[**Proof**]{}. We prove that the vector spaces coincide. For both spaces $A(0)=0$. From property $2$ in the definition of $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ one has that for any $A\in\, T_{\lambda}\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ and homogeneity of $L$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}L\Big(\Lambda(s,\epsilon),\dot{\Lambda}(s,\epsilon)\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon=0} =\,&\frac{\partial \,L}{\partial \lambda^i(s)}\,A^i(s)\,
+\frac{\partial \,L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i(s)}\,\dot{A}^i(s)\,+g_{ij}(\lambda,\dot{\lambda}(s))\dot{\lambda}^j(s)\,\dot{A}^i(s)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Using the condition that $\lambda$ is a geodesic this reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}L\Big(\Lambda(s,\epsilon),\dot{\Lambda}(s,\epsilon)\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon=0}
=\,&\frac{d}{ds}\Big(\frac{\partial \,L}{\partial \dot{\lambda}^i(s)}\Big)\dot{A}^i
+\,g_{ij}(\lambda,\dot{\lambda}(s))\dot{\lambda}^j(s)\,\dot{A}^i(s)\\
& =\, \frac{d}{ds}\Big(g_{ij}(\lambda,\dot{\lambda}(s))\dot{\lambda}^j(s)\,{A}^i(s)\Big)=0.\end{aligned}$$ This [*conservation law*]{} proves that $A(s)$ satisfies point $3$. To check point $3$, let us note that $A(1)= a\gamma'(\tau(\lambda))$. By point $3$, $$\begin{aligned}
0=\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(A(1),\dot{\lambda}(1))=\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(a\frac{d}{dt}\gamma(\tau(\lambda)), \dot{\lambda}(1))
=\,a \,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\gamma'(\tau(\lambda)), \dot{\lambda}(1)).\end{aligned}$$ In the last expression the factor $\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\gamma'(\tau(\lambda)), \dot{\lambda}(1))$ cannot be zero, since $T$ and $\dot{\gamma}$ are both not mutually non-orthogonal timelike vectors and the hypothesis that $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\dot{\lambda},T(\lambda(1)))<0.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $a=0$ and the result is proved.$\Box$
[*Lemma*]{} \[lemaquerelacionalosindices\] is used in the proof of the second variation formula and in the index formula in the next [*section*]{}.
Note that for each allowed variation $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ the time arrival functional is a smooth function on the variable $\epsilon$. Therefore, the hessian is defined along a critical point.
Let $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$ be in $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma, c}$ a causal geodesic. Let $\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$ an allowed variation with $A=\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\Lambda(\epsilon,s)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d^2}{d\epsilon^2}\,\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,\cdot))\Big|_{\epsilon=0}\,=\,\frac{J_{\lambda}(A,A)}
{g_{\dot{\lambda}}({\gamma}'(\tau(\lambda)),\dot{\lambda}(1))}.
\label{segundavariacionformula}\end{aligned}$$ \[segundavariacion\]
[**Proof.**]{} From the first variation formula (\[primeravariacionformula\]) we take the second derivative respect to $\epsilon$, $$\begin{gathered}
0 =\,\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\,\Big(g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,1),{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda)))\,
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\big(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))\big) -\int^1_0\,2\,\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}
(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\Lambda,\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon}\,
\dot{\Lambda}(s,\epsilon)\big)\,ds\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon =0}\\
=\,\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\,\Big(g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,1),{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda)))\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon =0}
\,\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon =0}\,\big(\tau\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)
+\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\dot{\Lambda}(\epsilon,1),{\gamma}'(\tau(\Lambda)))\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\Big|_{\epsilon =0}\,
\Big(\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\big(\tau\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)\Big)
\\- \,\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\,\Big(\int^1_0\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\dot{\Lambda},
\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon}\,\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)\,ds\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon =0}.\end{gathered}$$ Evaluated on a geodesic, the first term is zero, since by Proposition \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\] $$\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\big|_{\epsilon=0}\,\big(\tau(\Lambda(\epsilon,s))\big)=0.$$ Using the metric compatibility and the torsion free conditions along $\lambda$, the condition $[\dot{\Lambda},\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon }{\Lambda}]=0$ and the geodesic equation in terms of the connection $\nabla_{\dot{\lambda}}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda}=0$, one obtains the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\,\Big(\,&\int^1_0\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\dot{\Lambda},
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,
\Lambda(\epsilon,s)\big)ds\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon =0}\\&=\,\int^1_0\,\frac{d}{d\,\epsilon}\,\Big(\,g_{\dot{\Lambda}}
(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\Lambda})}(\dot{\Lambda})\,\dot{\Lambda},
\frac{d}{d\epsilon}\,\Lambda(s)\big)ds\Big)\Big|_{\epsilon =0}\\
& =\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h({A})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda},A\big)ds
+\,\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda},\,\nabla_{h({A})}(\dot{\lambda})\,A\big)ds\\
& =\,\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{(A)}(\dot{\lambda})\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda},A\big)ds\\
& =\,\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\nabla_{h(\dot{A})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda}+
\,R(A,\dot{\lambda})\dot{\lambda},A\big).\end{aligned}$$ In the last line, the first term can be computed more explicitly: $$\begin{aligned}
\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\nabla_{h({A})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda},A\big)ds
&\,=\,-\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h({A})}(\dot{\lambda})\,\dot{\lambda},\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,A\big)ds\\
& +\,\int^1_0\,\frac{d}{ds}\Big(g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,A,A\big)\Big)ds\\
& \,=\,-\int^1_0\,\,g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,A,\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}(\dot{\lambda})\,A\big)ds,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we have used Lemma \[lemaquerelacionalosindices\]. Combining this last relation with the definition of the index $J_{\lambda}$ one obtains the result.$\Box$
The proof of [*proposition*]{} \[segundavariacion\] suggests to compile the following properties in a [*lemma*]{},
Let $\lambda\in\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma, c}$ be a causal geodesic. Then along any geodesic $\lambda$ the following properties hold:
1. The connection is [*torsion-free*]{} along $\lambda$.
2. The Cartan tensor is zero along a geodesic. Therefore, it is metric compatible along $\lambda$.
3. The $hh$-curvature reduces to the Riemann curvature (\[Riemanncurvaturetensoralonggeodesic\]) along a geodesic.
\[Lorentzianproperties\]
[**Proof**]{}. For Finslerian quantities, the base point vector is fixed along a geodesic. Then
1. For the Chern’s connection, the connection is torsion-free on whole $N$.
2. The Cartan tensor along a geodesic is zero [@BCS].
As consequence that the Cartan tensor is zero, the $hh$-curvature reduces to a formal Riemann curvature \[Riemanncurvaturetensoralonggeodesic\].$\Box$
As a consequence of [*lemma*]{} \[Lorentzianproperties\], most of the proofs from [@BEE Chapter 10], [@Perlick] can be adapted to Finsler spacetimes with minimal changes. Using this fact, we provide two applications. First, sice the relation between the second variation of time functional and the index form along a causal geodesic is the same than in [@Perlick], one can study the character of the critical points of the time arrival functional as in the Lorentzian case. These results serve to illustrate that indeed one can [*transplant*]{} the methods of the Lorentzian case to the Finsler spacetime category. Also note that the result is valid for causal geodesics, not only timelike geodesics. Second, one can translate the techniques from [@BEE] to obtain a Morse index theorem for timelike geodesics of time orientable Finsler spacetimes. This is related with the index of the Hessian of the time arrival functional.
Let us consider the vector spaces $$\begin{aligned}
& V^{\bot}(\lambda):=\,\{\textrm{
all piecewise smooth vector fields $A$ along $\lambda$
\,s.t.\, $g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\dot{\lambda},A(s))=0$}\}\\
& V^{\bot}_0(\lambda):=\{A\in\,V^{\bot},\,s.t. \, A(0)=A(1)=0\}.\end{aligned}$$ A direct application of [*lemma*]{} \[Lorentzianproperties\] is that for arbitrary smooth vector fields along $\lambda$, the index form (\[formadelindice\]) is $$\begin{gathered}
J_{\lambda}(A,B)=\\-g_{\dot{\lambda}}(\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}{A},B)|^1_0\,+,\int^1_0\,\Big(g_{\dot{\lambda}}\big(B(s),
\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}A(s)+R_{\dot{\lambda}}(A(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))
(\dot{\lambda}(s))\big)\Big)\,ds.
\label{formadelindice2}\end{gathered}$$ If $B\in \, V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$ and $A$ are smooth vector fields along $\lambda$, the index form is $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\lambda}(A,B)=\int^1_0\,\Big(g_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\big(B(s),
\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}A(s)+R_{\dot{\lambda}}(A(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))
(\dot{\lambda}(s))\big)\Big)\,ds,
\label{formadelindice3}\end{aligned}$$
Let $(M,L)$ be a Finsler spacetime and $\, \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\ni\,\lambda:[a,b]\longrightarrow M$ a causal geodesic.
1. A Jacobi field is a vector field $Y$ along $\lambda$ such that is a solution of the Jacobi equation $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\,\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\, Y+\,R_{\dot{\lambda}}(Y,\dot{\lambda})\dot{\lambda}=\,0,
\label{jabociequation}\end{aligned}$$
2. Let $ \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\ni\,\lambda:[a,b]\longrightarrow M$ be a causal geodesic. Then $\lambda(t_1)$ and $\lambda(t_2)$ are conjugate points along $\lambda$ iff there is a non-zero Jacobi field such that $Y(t_1)=\,Y(t_2)=0$. \[jacobifieldconjugatepoints\]
Let $\lambda\in\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma, c}$ be a causal geodesic without conjugate points. Then $J_{\lambda}(A,A)<0$ for any $A\in\,V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$. \[lemasobreelindice\]
[**Proof**]{}. We learnt from the proof of [*proposition*]{} \[segundavariacion\] and [*lemma*]{} \[Lorentzianproperties\] that Lorentzian properties along geodesics carry over from the Lorentzian case to Finsler spacetime case. This makes the proof of the [*lemma*]{} completely analogous to the Lorentzian case (see [@BEE] for the timelike case and [@BEE; @Perlick] for the light-like case). $\Box$
The following proposition is a restatement of known results in Lorentzian geometry [@BEE],
Let $(M,L)$ be a Finsler spacetime and $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M\in\, \mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}$ a causal geodesic and $Y$ a Jacobi field along $\lambda$. Then
1. The function along $\lambda$ given by $g_{\dot{\lambda}}(Y,\dot{\lambda})$ is an affine function.
2. Let $Y$ such that $Y(t_0)=Y(t_1)=0$ for different $t_1,t_2\in\,[0,1]$. Then
1. If $\lambda$ is a timelike geodesic, then $Y\in\,V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$.
2. If $\lambda$ is a lightlike geodesic, then $Y$ is either orthogonal or parallel to $\dot{\lambda}$ (therefore, it is lightlike).
3. Let $Y$ such that $Y(0)=Y(1)=0$ for different $t_1,t_2\in\,[0,1]$. Then
1. If $\lambda$ is a timelike geodesic, then $\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\,Y\in\,V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$.
2. If $\lambda$ is a lightlike geodesic, then $\nabla_{h(\dot{\lambda})}\,Y$ is orthogonal to $\dot{\lambda}$ (therefore, it is lightlike).
\[morelorentzianproperties\]
[**Proof**]{}. The proof follows closely the proof for [*lemma 10.9*]{}, [*corollary 10.10*]{} and [*10.11*]{} in [@BEE], through the use of [*lemma*]{} \[Lorentzianproperties\].$\Box$
The following theorem is proved in a similar way as in [@Perlick],
Let $\mathcal{C}_{q,\gamma,c}\ni\,\lambda:[a,b]\longrightarrow M$ be a causal geodesic and $\tau$ the time arrival functional. Then
1. If $\lambda$ does not have conjugate points, then it is a local minimum of $\tau$.
2. If $\lambda$ has intermediate conjugate points, then it is a local saddle point of $\tau$.
\[characteroftheconjugatepoint\]
[**Proof**]{}. The proof of the first statement follows the same steps than the Lorentzian case (see [@Perlick]): from the formula for the second variation of the arrival time functional (\[segundavariacionformula\]), it follows that if $J_{\lambda}<0(A;A)$ (by [*lemma*]{} \[lemasobreelindice\]), then the time arrival is a local minimal .
The proof of the second statement is identical to the proof in [@BEE] for the case of timelike geodesics and to [@Perlick] for lightlike geodesics and will not be rewrite here. Note that it is essential in the proof both [*lemma*]{} \[Lorentzianproperties\] and [*proposition*]{} \[morelorentzianproperties\], which provide exactly the same tools as in the Lorentzian case.$\Box$
The common feature of the results and techniques in the Finsler and Lorentzian case suggests that there is also a Finsler spacetime version of the Morse index theorem. Indeed, there is such result as we indicate below. The index of $\lambda$ is equal to the number on conjugate points along $c$ counted with multiplicity, that is, counting the dimension of the vector space of Jacobi fields $J_i\in\,V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$ vanishing at each conjugate point $\lambda(s_i)$, $$\begin{aligned}
I(\lambda):=\sum_{s\in\,(0,1)} dim (J_i).\end{aligned}$$ The index of the bilinear form $\tau$ along $\lambda$ denoted by $I(\tau,\lambda)$ is the supreme of the dimensions of all subspaces of $V^{\bot}_0(\lambda)$ on which the Hessian $Hess(\tau)$ is negative. Then one has the following result,
Given a timelike geodesic $\lambda:[0,1]\longrightarrow M$, the number of conjugate points $I(\lambda)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
I(\lambda)=\,I(\tau,\lambda)=\sum_{s\in\,(0,1)} dim (J_i).
\label{index}\end{aligned}$$ \[teoremadelindice\]
[**Proof**]{}. The methods and results described before suggest the existence of a version of the Morse index theorem for the functional energy for general Finsler spacetime . That this is the case will be seen in [@GallegoTorromePiccioneVictorio]. By [*lemma*]{} \[lemaquerelacionalosindices\], one relates such index with $I(\tau,\lambda)$ by formula (\[segundavariacionformula\]).$\Box$
It is worth to mention that one can establish [*theorem* ]{} \[characteroftheconjugatepoint\] as a direct consequence of the index theorem \[teoremadelindice\].
Discussion
==========
In this paper we have investigated a generalization of Fermat’s principle for causal curves in time oriented Finsler spacetimes and some related results. The second variation formula and Morse index theorem associated with the time arrival functional have also been investigated. One notes easily that there is not formal difference with the corresponding Lorentzian results [@Perlick]. However, this formal analogy is only apparent, since the geometric objects in Finsler spacetime lives on $N$ and not on $M$ directly. Still, we have shown that Beem’s theory of Finsler spacetimes offers an adequate framework to generalize the standard theory of Lorentzian geometry to Finsler spacetimes.
There are several questions considered in this paper that deserve further discussion. For instance, the framework discussed here is a restriction of a more general formulation of Finsler spacetimes. In particular, the question of the choice of the base point where the geometric quantities are evaluated is non-trivial (for a discussion of this issue see [@Rund] and [@Ishikawa]). When we define the notion of causal curves $\lambda:I\to M$, the base-point $(x,y)\in\,TM\setminus\{0\}$ where the function $L(x,y)$ is evaluated is $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda(s),y(s))=(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s)),\,\dot{\lambda}\in\,T_{\lambda}M.\end{aligned}$$ This choice is not necessary, as it was pointed out by Ishikawa [@Ishikawa]. On the other hand, it is a natural choice, since the expressions appearing in the formulation of Fermat’s principle, the second variation formula and the Morse index theorem must be evaluated along the curves $\lambda:I\to M$ at $(\lambda(s),\dot{\lambda}(s))$.
It is also convenient to use weaker regularity conditions for the Lagrangian $L$ than the required in Beem’s definition. This is for instance the situation in the examples 2.10 to 2.12, where although motivated from physical models, they are not regular on all the slit tangent bundle $N=TM\setminus\{0\}$. Example 2.12 is indeed quite pathological, since in this case the Lagrangian $L$ is singular in the full null cone. A convenient theory to deal with some of such singular examples is the theory of conic metrics [@JavaloyesSanchez]. However, even such general framework is not enough to deal with all the interesting problems appearing from physical applications.
Of particular importance has been the fact that the Finsler spacetime is time orientable. At present, this hypothesis is necessary in the proof of Fermat’s principle \[fermatprinciplefortimelikegeodesics\]. One wonders if there is a proof of Fermat’s principle without the requirement of time orientability. Indeed, such proof exists for lightlike Finsler geodesics [@Perlick06]. This question for the timelike case remains open.
Similarly, one can investigate the Morse index theorem for timelike geodesics of a Finsler spacetime in complete analogy to the Lorentzian case. The extension to lightlike geodesics must be done more carefully, because in the case of Finsler spacetimes, additional singularities could appear in the light cones.
As we said before, there is a hierarchy of [*reversible conditions*]{}. Our definition of reversible Lagrangian \[definitionreversivilityofL\] is stronger than the reversibility condition in Beem’s theory, which is still stronger than the definition of reversibility in Pfeifer-Wohlfart’s theory [@PfeiferWohlfarth]. The merit of our definition is based on the Lagrangian $L$, that is the function that appears in the formulation of Fermat’s principle and that we emphasize as the fundamental object (together with $M$) in the definition of a Finsler spacetime and that is applicable to any causal curve or vector (in contrast with Beem’s definition, that relies on the Finsler function $F(x,y)$, which is non-singular on the lightcone). The hierarchy described before also justifies why one does need to restrict to reversible spacetimes, since it could be a strong assumption, eliminating interesting spaces by being non-reversible.
We did not restrict our considerations to reversible Finsler spacetimes in the sense of definition \[definitionreversivilityofL\]. However, we have in mind that non-reversibility of the Lagrangian could produce additional difficulties for a consistent causal structure of $L$. In particular, one should impose conditions preventing possible almost-everywhere smooth, continuous causal loops.
Let us mention that the Fermat’s principle for Finsler spacetimes, the second variation formula and the Morse index theorem, apply not only in Finsler spacetimes describing gravity, but also to geometric models that describe the motion of particles under the action of gravity in combination with other interactions. This type of models include the motion in locally anisotropic media.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We would like to acknowledge to M. A. Javaloyes and V. Perlick for their useful comments and interest on this work.
[^1]: [Instituto de Matemática e Estatística - USP, São Paulo, Brazil.]{} email: [email protected]. Financially supported by FAPESP, process 2010/11934-6
[^2]: [Instituto de Matemática e Estatística - USP, São Paulo, Brazil]{}. Partially Sponsored by CNPq and Fapesp, Brazil
[^3]: [Instituto de Matemática e Estatística - USP, São Paulo, Brazil. Financially supported by CNPq, process 150124/2011-2]{}
[^4]: Note that since the fundamental tensor associated with $L_R$ is different than the [*generalized metric*]{} $g_R$ associated with the line element $ds^2_R$. That is, the form defines a Finsler spacetime in the sense of Beem’s and a generalized metric in the sense of Miron and Anastasiei [@MironAnastasiei]. The distance function coincide, but the [*fundamental tensors*]{} are different.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An entropy-based image segmentation approach is introduced and applied to color images obtained from *Google Earth*. Segmentation refers to the process of partitioning a digital image in order to locate different objects and regions of interest. The application to satellite images paves the way to automated monitoring of ecological catastrophes, urban growth, agricultural activity, maritime pollution, climate changing and general surveillance. Regions representing aquatic, rural and urban areas are identified and the accuracy of the proposed segmentation methodology is evaluated. The comparison with gray level images revealed that the color information is fundamental to obtain an accurate segmentation.'
author:
- 'A. L. Barbieri$^1$, G. Arruda$^1$, F. A. Rodrigues$^1$, O. M. Bruno$^1$, and L. da F. Costa$^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: 'An entropy-based approach to automatic image segmentation of satellite images'
---
Introduction
============
Medical, biological and astronomical experiments, as well as satellite prospection, have generated terabytes of image data, making automatic analysis a fundamental resource for knowledge discovery. Image analysis is based on the extraction of meaningful information and can involve many steps, such as pre-processing (e.g. noise removing), segmentation and characterization of the identified objects [@da2001shape]. Particularly, the identification of the types of objects — a task called *segmentation* — constitutes an essential issue in pattern recognition [@da2001shape] due to its practical importance, such as in the treatment of images obtained from satellite prospection. In fact, image segmentation can be understood as the process of assigning a label to every pixel in an image, such that pixels with the same label represent the same object, or its parts
In the current work, we propose an entropy-based segmentation of images. The methodology is evaluated with respect to satellite images obtained from *Google Earth*, in order to identify aquatic, urban and rural regions. The importance of using *Google Earth* images can be observed in a growing number of investigations, such as the analysis of magnetic alignment of cattle and deer during grazing and resting [@begall105mag] or mapping of disaster zones for identifying priorities, planning logistics and definition of access routes for relief operations [@nourbakhsh2006mdz]. In fact, satellite images are critically important for the monitoring of ecological catastrophes, urban growth, agricultural activity, maritime pollution, climate changing as well as general surveillance. Moreover, the segmentation of *Google Earth* images is particularly important for automatic mapping of urban and rural areas while monitoring dynamical human activities, such as city growth that can affect regions of environmental preservation. Another application involves monitoring of rural activities, which can also lead to different textures, such as those observed in cultivation of sugarcane or wheat. The identification of aquatic areas allows the monitoring of pollution, which can be potentially inferred from changes in the water texture, as well as the formation of deserts or marshes, i.e. it provides an indication about possible climate changes. In addition, analysis of satellite images can help in monitoring of deforestation and in finding focuses of fires in forests.
Images are composed by a set of pixels whose values encode different colors or gray levels. Image segmentation methods have been used to find regions of interest (e.g. objects) in images. The importance of image segmentation can be illustrated in diverse practical applications, such as in medical imaging (e.g. diagnosis [@noble2006uis]), satellite images [@masson1993sem], face recognition [@zhao2003face], traffic control system [@cucchiara2000image] and machine vision [@haralick1992computer]. Different algorithms have been proposed for image segmentation such as those founded on image thresholding (e.g. by means of histograms of gray levels [@navon2005cis]); clustering methods (e.g neural networks [@kuntimad1999pis]); region growing methods (e.g. [@haralick1985ist]); graph partitioning methods (e.g. [@shi2000nca]); multi-scale segmentation (e.g. [@kuijper2003ssh]), and semi-automated segmentation (e.g. [@mortensen1998isi]). Methods related to physics concepts have also been more and more applied for image segmentation, such as those based on Markov random fields [@celeux2003pum] and entropy [@portesdealbuquerque2004itu]. The segmentation approach proposed in the current work is based on the concept of entropy.
In next sections, the concepts of information entropy, dimensionality reduction and supervised classification are presented. Afterwards, the proposed image segmentation methodology is applied to images of the *Google Earth* and the classification results are evaluated. The influence of the parameters involved in the segmentation is discussed. Venues for future research and conclusions are identified.
Methodology
===========
In information theory, the concept of entropy is used to quantify the amount of information necessary to describe the macrostate state of a system [@cover1991eit]. Therefore, the entropy is related to the concept of complexity [@bar2003dynamics]. Then, if a system presents a high value of entropy, it means that much information is neccessary to describe its states. Depending of the specific application, the entropy can be defined in different ways. For instance, while in quantum mechanics, the entropy is related to the von Neumann entropy [@vonneumann1932mgq]; in complexity theory, it is associated to the Kolmogorov entropy [@li1997ikc]. Here we take the concept of entropy in the sense of information theory (Shannon entropy), where entropy is used to quantify the minimum descriptive complexity of a random variable [@cover1991eit]. The Shannon entropy of a discrete random distribution $p(x)$ is defined as $$H(p) = -\sum_{x}p(x) \log p(x),$$ where the logarithm is taken on the base 2.
In image analysis, $p(x)$ can refer to the distribution of gray levels or to the intensity of different color components of an image. The histograms $p(x)$ of a color image are obtained by counting the number of pixels with a given color intensity (red (R), green (G) or blue (B)), which can vary from 0 to 255. In this way, this procedure generates a set of three different histograms $\{h_c(x)\}$, where $c =
\{R,G,B\}$. Due to its particular nature, as discussed above, the entropy can provide a good level of information to describe a given image. In this case, if all pixels in an image have the same gray level or the same intensity of color components, this image will present the minimal entropy value. On the other hand, when each pixel of an image presents a specific gray level or a color intensity, it this image will exhibit maximum entropy. Thus, since the pixel intensities are related to texture, because different textures tend to result in different distribution of gray level or color intensity, the Shannon entropy can be used for texture characterization [@da2001shape]. Our texture approach is based on this assumption about texture analysis. The application to satellite images is justified because these images are formed by objects presenting different textures. In fact, different regions in these images, such as aquatic and urban areas, tend to present specific textures which are possibly characterized by different entropy values. For instance, while urban areas tend to exhibit high color variations (higher entropy), aquatic regions tend to be more homogeneous (lower entropy).
Our proposed methodology for segmentation of satellite images is performed as follows. Images are divided into square windows with a fixed size $L$, the entropy is calculated for each window, and then a classification methodology is applied for the identification of the category of the respective windows (e.g. aquatic, rural, urban, etc.). The classification approach can be supervised or non-supervised. Supervised classification needs a training set composed by windows whose classes are previously known (prototypes), such as rural and urban areas. Here, we focus on a segmentation methodology based on supervised classification. Initially, the training is done by selecting samples (windows) of the three types of regions (i.e. aquatic, rural and urban areas). Observe that each of these sample windows should be selected in order to present pixels of only one class. Next, the entropy is calculated for each color component (R,G and B) of these windows. Therefore, these windows are represented in a three-dimensional space defined by the entropy of the colors components, i.e. each window is represented by a vector with three elements. Then, due to the high correlation between the entropy of color components, these windows are projected into a one dimensional space by considering principal component analysis [@jolliffe2002principal]. Note that the projection into one dimension by principal component analysis allows to optimally remove the redundancy present in the data. Finally, the classification of the training set is performed.
The classification is done by maximum likelihood decision theory, which considers the density functions estimated for each class [@duda2001pattern]. This estimation is obtained by the Parzen windows approach [@duda2001pattern], which adds a normalized Gaussian function at each observation point, so that the interpolated densities correspond to the sum of these functions, performed separately for each class (see Figure \[Fig:parzen\]). These densities are used in the maximum likelihood approach. If the probability density is known, it can be showed that this classification approach is optimal in the sense of minimizing misclassification [@duda2001pattern]. The second step in the supervised classification is performed by classifying unknown windows. In this way, it is possible to evaluate the accuracy of the classifier by comparing the resulting classification and the original regions. In fact, the evaluation of the precision of the classification approach is given by the confusion matrix $C$, whose elements $c_{ij}$ provide the number of windows of class $j$ which were classified as being of class $i$ [@da2001shape]. The percentage of correct classification is obtained by the sum of the confusion matrix diagonal divided by the total sum of the matrix.
Results and discussion
======================
\[Fig:windows\]
In order to segment images of the *Google Earth*, we took into account square windows of dimensions $16\times16$, $30\times30$ and $46\times46$ pixels. We obtained $100$ windows of each class and calculated the entropy distribution for each color component from the respective histograms. Figure \[Fig:windows\] presents the windows in the space defined by the entropy of the three color components. Note that the urban and rural regions present a small intersecting region, because urban areas can exhibit trees and parks, which present textures similar to those present in rural areas. Since these windows are approximately organized as a straight line in the three-dimensional scatterplot, which indicates a strong correlation between the entropies of color components, we projected the entropies into a one-dimensional space by applying principal component analysis [@jolliffe2002principal]. The variances of this type of projection corroborate the one-dimensional organization of the points, i.e. the first eigenvalue divided by all eigenvalues is equal to $\lambda_1/\sum_{i=1}^3 \lambda_i = 0.99$ for all windows sizes. In other words, the projected data accounts for $99\%$ of the variance of the original observations. To obtain the density function, we considered the Parzen windows approach, as described before.
Figure \[Fig:parzen\] illustrates the obtained probability densities. After estimation, we performed the classification by maximum likelihood decision theory, which uses the Bayes rule, associating each image window to the class that results in the largest probability [@duda2001pattern]. Figure \[Fig:parzen\] shows that the larger the windows sizes, the larger are the intersections between the curves. In addition, urban and rural areas present the largest intersecting region, because some urban areas are composed by trees, woods and parks.
In order to evaluate the precision of our methodology, we segmented $10$ images manually and compared these original segmentations with those obtained from our classification methodology. The regions were extracted from cities from different worldwide zones, such as Berlin, Hong Kong, New York, Buenos Aires, Washington, Warsaw, Madrid, and Baghdad. The images were obtained at the same altitude ($2,000$ meters), in order to incorporate the same level of details in each sample. Tables \[Tab:16\], \[Tab:30\] and \[Tab:46\] present the confusion matrices. Notice that these matrices were calculated by taking into account each pixel on the image, and not each window, because some windows are composed by more than one class of pixels. The adoption of small windows, i.e. $16\times16$ and $30\times30$, accounted to a more accurate classification than the larger one ($46\times 46$). This happens because small windows tend to include regions with more homogeneous classes, while more heterogeneous regions tend to be included within larger windows. Nevertheless, the precision obtained with smaller windows is achieved at the expense of higher computational cost, due to the larger number of required windows to be processed. Comparing the percentage of correct classification given in each confusion matrix, we conclude that the highest errors occurs for the aquatic and rural regions with respect to windows of size $46 \times 46$, where $24\%$ of aquatic regions were classified as rural regions, and $24\%$ of rural regions were classified as urban. In the former case, the error has been verified to be a consequence of texture similarities between some rivers that present a high level of green algae and some types of plantations, which are predominantly based on green vegetables. In the latter case, urban and rural regions tend to share similar green areas. The highest score ($90\%$) was obtained by aquatic regions taking into account windows of size $16\times16$. The accuracy of our classification methodology can be summarized in terms of the sum of the confusion matrix diagonal divided by the total sum of the matrix. We indicate this ratio by $\alpha_L$, where $L$ is the window size. The obtained values are equal to $\alpha_{46} = 0.79\pm0.07$ for windows of size $46 \times 46$, $\alpha_{30} = 0.85\pm0.03$ for windows of size $30\times 30$ and $\alpha_{16} = 0.85\pm0.04$ for windows of size $16\times 16$. Therefore, the smallest windows provide the most precise segmentation.
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.83$\pm0.07$ 0.17$\pm0.07$ 0.00$\pm0.00$
rural 0.17$\pm0.09$ 0.82$\pm0.09$ 0.01$\pm0.03$
aquatic 0.00$\pm0.00$ 0.10$\pm0.06$ 0.90$\pm0.06$
: Confusion matrix for $10$ segmented images taking into account windows of size $16\times 16$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{16}=0.85\pm0.04$.
\[Tab:16\]
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.87$\pm0.05$ 0.13$\pm0.05$ 0.00$\pm0.00$
rural 0.13$\pm0.07$ 0.86$\pm0.06$ 0.01$\pm0.02$
aquatic 0.01$\pm0.01$ 0.17$\pm0.10$ 0.82$\pm0.11$
: Confusion matrix for $10$ segmented images taking into account windows of size $30\times 30$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{30}=0.85\pm0.03$.
\[Tab:30\]
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.88$\pm0.06$ 0.11$\pm0.06$ 0.01$\pm0.01$
rural 0.24$\pm0.12$ 0.75$\pm0.11$ 0.01$\pm0.02$
aquatic 0.02$\pm0.02$ 0.24$\pm0.16$ 0.74$\pm0.17$
: Confusion matrix for 10 segmented images taking into account windows of size $46\times 46$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{46}=0.79\pm0.07$
\[Tab:46\]
An additional analysis of our classification methodology was performed with respect to the segmentations of a region of London (obtained at $2,000$ meters of altitude), as presented in Figures \[Fig:london\] for windows of dimensions $16\times 16$, $30\times 30$ and $46\times
46$. The smallest windows ($16\times16$) provide the most accurate segmentation, mainly with respect to the boundaries of the rural, aquatic and urban regions. Nevertheless, at the same time, due to the small size of the windows, some parts of urban areas are classified as rural as a consequence of the presence of trees, woods and parks. In fact, due to the level of details of the image, some windows corresponding to urban areas can be completely formed by trees – windows composed by green areas typically correspond to rural regions. As we increase the size of the windows, the observed misclassification is reduced, but the boundaries of each region tend to become less defined. This effect can be observed along the boundary of the aquatic area. Indeed, the effect of the green regions in urban area segmentation can be verified by the comparison of the confusion matrices obtained for windows of size $16\times16$ and $30\times30$, Tables \[Tab:16\] and \[Tab:30\]. These tables show that the former case results in a larger error in classification of urban regions, mainly due to the classification of urban trees as rural areas. These misclassifications implied in similar scores for windows of dimensions $16\times16$ and $30\times30$. Indeed, the more accurate segmentation of the boundary of the regions are compensated by the wrong classification of urban green areas. Despite the wrong segmentation of these areas, we can observe that more accurate classifications can be obtained for smaller windows. Larger windows tend to provide worse classification because many of these windows in the segmented image can be compose by more than one class of regions. In fact, most of the misclassifications occur with respect to these windows.
\
\
\
In order to compare our obtained results with a more traditional approach, we took into account gray level versions of the considered images. We adopted the same methodology used for color images to obtain the segmentation, but each image was now represented by a vector with only one element (the entropy of gray level histograms). Note that for color images, three color components were used and the images were represented by a vector composed by three elements. Tables \[Tab:16\_gray\], \[Tab:30\_gray\] and \[Tab:46\_gray\] show the obtained confusion matrices for windows of dimensions $16\times 16$, $30\times 30$ and $46\times 46$, respectively. In these cases, the sum of the confusion matrix diagonal divided by the total sum of the matrix are equal to $\alpha_{16} =
0.74\pm0.10$, $\alpha_{30} = 0.75\pm10$ and $\alpha_{46} =
0.73\pm0.10$. It is nteresting to observe that the different windows sizes resulted in similar classification performances. Comparing with the results obtained for color images, the gray level resulted in worse classification. Therefore, the spectral color information is critically important for achieving accurate segmentation.
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.74$\pm0.20$ 0.26$\pm0.20$ 0.00$\pm0.00$
rural 0.11$\pm0.09$ 0.89$\pm0.09$ 0.00$\pm0.01$
aquatic 0.02$\pm0.05$ 0.38$\pm0.28$ 0.60$\pm0.27$
: Confusion matrix for $10$ segmented gray images taking into account windows of size $16\times 16$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{16}=0.74\pm0.10$
\[Tab:16\_gray\]
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.74$\pm0.22$ 0.26$\pm0.22$ 0.00$\pm0.00$
rural 0.09$\pm0.09$ 0.91$\pm0.08$ 0.01$\pm0.01$
aquatic 0.01$\pm0.02$ 0.39$\pm0.26$ 0.59$\pm0.26$
: Confusion matrix for $10$ segmented gray images taking into account windows of size $30\times 30$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{30}=0.75\pm0.10$
\[Tab:30\_gray\]
Confusion urban rural aquatic
----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
urban 0.75$\pm0.22$ 0.24$\pm0.22$ 0.01$\pm0.01$
rural 0.10$\pm0.10$ 0.89$\pm0.10$ 0.01$\pm0.01$
aquatic 0.02$\pm0.04$ 0.39$\pm0.26$ 0.59$\pm0.25$
: Confusion matrix for 10 segmented gray images taking into account windows of size $46\times 46$. The overall accuracy in this case is equal to $\alpha_{46}=0.73\pm0.10$
\[Tab:46\_gray\]
Conclusion
==========
Despite its simplicity, the described methodology revealed to be particularly accurate and effective for the classification of geographical regions. Indeed, we have shown that the entropy of the color distribution in images of geographical regions conveys enough information about the respective type of terrain so as to ensure a particularly high number of correct classifications, making of the proposed methodology an operational approach to be used in several related problems. Although the best classification rate obtained was equal to $0.90$, more accurate classification could be obtained by taking into account windows of smaller sizes than those we used here. Other statistical measurements, such as statistical moments, can also be used to complement the characterization of the texture of geographical regions. The extension of the current methodology to other types of regions, such as different types of forest or agricultural activities, is straightforward. In addition, the classification methodology can be improved by considering smaller windows combined with image pre-processing techniques, such as color equalization or noise removal. Other types of classifiers, such as support vector machine or neural networks [@bishop2006pattern] can also be used.
Acknowledgments
===============
Luciano da F. Costa is grateful to FAPESP (proc. 05/00587-5), CNPq (proc. 301303/06-1) for financial support. Francisco A. Rodrigues acknowledges FAPESP sponsorship (proc. 07/50633-9). Odemir M. Bruno acknowledges sup port from CNPq (306628/2007-4 and 484474/2007-3).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Niurka R. Quintero'
- Angel Sánchez
date: 'Received: / Revised version: '
title: 'ac driven sine-Gordon solitons: dynamics and stability'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
In the past two decades, solitons have become a very generic and useful paradigm of intrinsically nonlinear phenomena in many different fields of physics [@general; @yo]. Generally speaking, solitons can be classified [@km; @sv] in three main groups: dynamical, envelope, and topological solitons, according to their most relevant characteristics such as stability, defining parameters, response to perturbations and so on. A canonical example of the most important of those groups [@nota], topological and envelope solitons, in physical systems is the sine-Gordon (sG) equation, widely used both because it is integrable (meaning that the corresponding initial value problem can always be solved analytically in closed form) and because it accurately models a variety of problems and applications. With respect to the integrability of the sG equation, this property gives us the possibility to know exactly its multisoliton solutions, that can be classified as kinks (topological) and breathers (envelope). On the side of the applicability, the sG equation describes propagation of ultra-short optical pulses in resonant laser media [@lamb], a unitary theory of elementary particles [@skyrme1; @skyrme2; @enz; @raj], propagation of magnetic flux in Josephson junctions [@Barone], transmission of ferromagnetic waves [@feld], epitaxial growth of thin films [@CW; @us], motion of dislocations in crystals [@frenkel; @Nabarro], flux-line unlocking in type II superconductors [@nuevo], DNA dynamics [@eng; @DNA; @yaku], and many others.
When using the sG equation as a model for an actual physical situation, it is often necessary to account for factors that cause deviation from the perfect system, arising, for example, from forces acting on it, thermal effects, fluctuations, dissipation, or spatial modulations (deterministic or random). To account for some or all of those, appropriately chosen perturbing terms have to be included in the sG equation [@km; @sv]; to quote a few instances of such perturbations, (see also the next paragraph) let us mention the studies of forces acting over a DNA molecule, or long DNA fragments containing regions of finite size and specific structure [@yaku2], additive and multiplicative noise sources [@pv], spatially periodic parametric potential [@asa] or damping with spatiotemporal periodic driving [@dca]. The work reported on here belongs to this class of problems; specifically, it focuses on the action of ac (sinusoidal in time, homogeneous in space) forces on the solitonic solutions, kinks and breathers, of the sG equation. In mathematical terms, this means we have to deal with the equation $$\phi_{tt} - \phi_{xx} + \sin(\phi) =
-\beta \phi_{t} + f(t),
\label{ecua1}$$ where subindices indicate derivatives with respect to the corresponding variables, $\beta\phi_t$ is the usual damping term and $f(t)=\epsilon
\sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})$ is an external periodic force describing, for example, a long Josephson junction under the application of a uniform microwave field [@Barone]. From now on, the amplitude of the force, $\epsilon$, will be our perturbation parameter, i.e., it is assumed that the force is not too large. We will see, however, that we can deal with reasonable and useful values of $\epsilon$, so our calculations and results are not purely academic or mathematical but rather they have physical relevance.
The studies of forced sG systems date back to the late seventies, to the seminal works of Fogel [*et al.*]{} [@fogel] and of McLaughlin and Scott [@McL] where the ideas of collective coordinate techniques (see [@yo] for a review on those) were first introduced to deal with force terms added to the sG equation. Their results, confirmed by numerical simulations of the full partial differential equation, showed that dc (constant both in space and time) forces act on the sG solitons as if they were point-like particles, accelerating them up to the maximum velocity allowed by the equation in the absence of damping or to a terminal velocity in the presence of damping. The problem of dc forces was given further consideration in subsequent works, such as [@lomol; @ariyasu], where aspects such as breather instabilities and pattern formation were the main subjects; as our principal goal is the study of ac forces, we will not go into more detail on those here. Dissipation effects on breathers were first studied in [@mc], where McLaughlin and Overman showed that free (i.e, not driven) damped breathers where anihilated, their energy being dissipated into radiation. Subsequently, Lomdahl and Samuelsen [@lomsam1; @lomsam2] showed that the introduction of ac forces in the damped sG equation compensated those losses and stabilized breathers, whose frequency became modulated by the driving. This is the main result about ac breather dynamics, and if fact we are not aware of later relevant work on ac driven breather dynamics. On the other hand, the kink case has a longer and more problematic story, that begins with the research by Olsen and Samuelsen in [@olsam], where the authors studied the effect of dc and ac forces over sG kinks. In their analytical calculation, they considered two special cases for an ac force given by $\epsilon \sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})$, namely $\delta_{0}=0,\pi/2$ with $\delta \ne 1$ and sufficiently small kink velocities. Their results were obtained in the approach that the solution of the perturbed sG equation can be divided into a kink part and a vacuum part. Although most of the paper deals with dc forces, the authors conclude that for the two cases studied for ac forces, one leads to kink dc motion ($\delta_{0}=0$) whereas for the other ($\delta_{0}=\pi/2$) only oscillatory motion is found. For both choices, the work is further restricted to null initial velocity only, $u(0)=0$, with the subsequent loss of generality of their findings. Numerical simulations confirmed the predictions and the accuracy of the analytical calculations. However, no other initial phase differences were studied, and therefore a general analysis (including also initial velocity) was lacking. In addition, they did not present any results for ac driving plus damping, saying simply that similar results could be obtained in that case. A few years after that work, Bonilla and Malomed [@boni] revisited the same problem and concluded that dc motion of ac driving kinks was only possible in discrete sG equations (i.e., the spatial variable is discretized), and only in the presence of damping. Such a result, in contradiction with that in [@olsam], was later shown to originate in an incorrect analytical approximation to the problem in [@cai]; the perturbative theory worked out in that paper suggested that kink dc motion induced by ac forces in the presence of damping was not possible, and the authors stated their belief hat such phenomenon was unlikely in general, i.e., in the undamped case (at that time, they were not aware of the results of Olsen and Samuelsen [@olsam]). Finally, the last contribution to this topic prior to our work appeared in [@zaragoza], where dc motion of undamped ac driven kinks was found in simulations of the Frenkel-Kontorova (discrete sine-Gordon) model. In this case, the phenomenon was explained in terms of a resonance between the external force and internal oscillatory modes of the discrete kink (absent in the continuum models).
The brief summary in the above paragraph is enough to understand that the knowledge on the ac driven dynamics was not complete and systematic and, what is worse, it severely suffered from the contradictory results obtained about the possibility of dc propagation of kinks. In view of this, we first addressed this issue in [@anniu], a preliminary work on small (non-relativistic, $|u(t)| \ll 1$) velocity, ac driven kinks. Using the techniques developed in [@McL], we considered the general ac force $\epsilon \sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})$ with and without dissipation. By this means, we were able to show analytically that there indeed exists dc motion of kinks provided dissipation is absent. Moreover, we showed that the velocity of such dc motion depends on the relation between initial velocity and ac force parameters (amplitude, frequency and phase), thus generalizing the results of Olsen and Samuelsen [@olsam] for the non dissipative case. In the presence of damping, we also showed within the non-relativistic approximation that kink dc motion is never possible. This conclusion is different from that of Olsen and Samuelsen [@olsam], who said “similar \[to the undamped case\] results are obtained”, not a very explicit statement; it is also contrary to the claims of Bonilla and Malomed [@boni], and finally it confirms the results of Cai [*et al.*]{} [@cai]. Numerical simulations fully reproduced the predictions of the approximate calculations establishing their validity to a high degree of accuracy. In the present paper we considerably extend the study reported in [@anniu] in a systematic way, by analyzing i) the relativistic case for kinks, and ii) the effects of pure ac driving on breathers, that had not been studied so far. Our main conclusion will be that the application of external ac driving forces can cause the dc motion of sG kinks (for the whole range of initial velocities) depending on their phase; for breathers, we show that in the absence of damping they can be self-sustained up to a certain threshold of the force intensity, at which they break up into kink-antikink pairs. We also prove that combining the damping effect with the ac force the dc motion of sG kinks becomes asymptotically an oscillatory one. In Sec. \[sec-cc\], we use a collective coordinate approach to obtain the equations of motion for the collective variables finding that the mean velocity of the kink (antikink) and the frequency of the breather are functions of the parameters of the ac force. We compare our analytical results by means of numerical simulations in Sec. \[sec-nr\] and verify that they are in an excellent agreement. Finally, Sec. \[sec-c\] summarizes our findings and conclusions, and presents a brief discussion about some other systems in which the phenomenon described in this paper can also appear. The paper closes with two appendices, one devoted to the proof of a mathematical intermediate result needed in Sec. \[sec-cc\], and the other analyzing the effect of another dissipative term (with constant driving), $u_{xxt}$, of particular significance for Josephson junction dynamics, to show the power of our technique (see Sec. \[sec-cc\]) to solve the relativistic problem.
Collective coordinate approach {#sec-cc}
==============================
Kink dynamics {#sub-k}
-------------
We begin our study by addressing the problem of kink dynamics, considering Eq. (\[ecua1\]) when there is a single kink present in the system with initial velocity $u(0)$, $t=0$ being taken as the time at which the ac force is switched on. In order to study the subsequent kink evolution governed by Eq. (\[ecua1\]), we apply the collective coordinate perturbation theory in the version introduced by McLaughlin and Scott [@McL]. If $\beta$ and $\epsilon$ are small parameters we may assume that the solution of Eq. (\[ecua1\]) has the same form as the unperturbed sG equation \[Eq. (\[ecua1\]) with $\beta=\epsilon=0$\], except that now we allow $x_o(t)$,$X_{0}(t)$ and $u(t)$ to be functions of time, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua2a}
\phi(x,t) & = & 4 \>{\rm arctan}\left( \exp\left[\pm \frac{x-x_{0}(t)-
X_{0}(t)}{\sqrt{1 -u^{2}(t)}}\right]\right), \\
X_{0}(t) & = & \int_{0}^{t} {u(t')} dt',
\label{ecua2}\end{aligned}$$ where the positive (negative) sign corresponds to a kink (anti-kink) solution. We note that $X(t) \equiv x_o(t)+X_{0}(t)$ \[$u(t)$\] has the meaning of the position (velocity) of the center of the soliton, and that the main assumption underlying this approximation is that radiation effects induced by the perturbation are neglected. This will be verified [*a posteriori*]{} by comparing with the numerical simulations.
With this [*Ansatz*]{}, we proceed much in the same way as McLaughlin and Scott [@McL]: we first compute the variation of the energy and momentum of the unperturbed sine-Gordon system due to the perturbation, and applying them to Eqs. (\[ecua2a\]) and (\[ecua2\]) obtain those variations in terms of our unknown functions. Imposing that it is consistent with the result of computing the variation of energy and momentum from the kink expression with constant parameters and making them functions after the calculation (see [@McL] for details; see also [@yo] for other versions of the collective coordinate technique), we arrive at the following equations for the position and velocity of the perturbed kinks (the $\pm$ sign corresponds to a kink or an anti-kink, respectively): \[allecua3\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua3a}
\frac{du}{dt}&=&-\frac{1}{4} (1-u^{2}) [\pm \pi \sqrt{1-u^{2}} \epsilon f(t)
+ 4 \beta u ], \\
u(t=0)&=&u(0); \nonumber\\
\label{ecua3b}
\frac{dX}{dt}&=&u(t), \\
X(t=0)&=&X(0). \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ (equivalently, Eq. (\[ecua3b\]) could written as $x_o(t) = const$). For the dissipation-free case \[$\beta=0$ in Eqs. (\[ecua1\]) and (\[ecua3a\])\], Eq. (\[ecua3a\]) can be exactly solved, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua44}
u(t) & = & F[u(0),\delta_0]/\left(1+F[u(0),\delta_0]^2\right)^{1/2}, \\
F[u(0),\delta_0]& \equiv & \frac{u(0)}{\sqrt{1-u^{2}(0)}}\pm\nonumber \\
& & \pm {\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta}}
[\cos(\delta t +\delta_{0})-\cos(\delta_{0})].
\label{ecua4}\end{aligned}$$ Once we have obtained the velocity, we need to solve Eq. (\[ecua3b\]) to find the kink trajectory. Unfortunately, it is not possible to find an analytical solution, so in order to get some insight about it we restrict ourselves to the non-relativistic limit, i. e., $|u(0)| \ll 1$, and imposing $|\pi\epsilon/4\delta| \ll 1$, (which is no loss of generality as we have already assumed $\epsilon \ll 1$) we can find an approximate solution for the position of the center of the kink, $X(t)$, that reads $$\begin{aligned}
X(t) & \simeq & X(0) + [u(0) \mp \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta} \,
\cos(\delta_{0})]\>t\pm \nonumber \\
& &\pm \frac{\pi \epsilon [\sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})-
\sin(\delta_{0})]}{4 \delta^{2}}.
\label{ecua5}\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[ecua5\]) tells us what the kink trajectory is, at least while its velocity is not large. Keeping in mind this caveat, it is evident from the above expression that only for the “resonant” velocity $$u(0) = \pm [\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta} \cos(\delta_{0})],
\label{ecua6}$$ the linear term will vanish and the motion of the kink (or antikink) will be oscillatory; for any other velocity values (fixed $\delta$, $\delta_{0}$ and $\epsilon$) the ac driving force induces a dc motion of sG kinks, even for the kinks initially at rest. This result contains those found by Olsen and Samuelsen [@olsam] (also obtained in the non-relativistic approximation, by the way) as particular cases for two choices of $\delta_0$.
So far, we have developed a collective coordinate theory in the non-relativistic limit. This have already provided information on the kink dynamics, but, in addition, we can benefit from that to find the unrestricted relativistic result, by virtue of the following fact: It can be proven (see Appendix I) from equations (\[ecua3a\]) and (\[ecua4\]) that the relation $$\int_{0}^{T}{F[u(0),\delta_0]} dt=0,
\label{ecua7}$$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for the motion to be oscillatory with period $\displaystyle T=2 \pi/\delta$. Hence, integrating (\[ecua7\]) we find that kinks will oscillate if and only if $$\frac{u(0)}{\sqrt{1-u^{2}(0)}} =
\pm [\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta} \cos(\delta_{0})].
\label{ecua8}$$
Let us now discuss this condition. To begin with, the condition (\[ecua8\]) involves four parameters, so we can fix, say, $\delta$, $\epsilon$ and $u(0)$ and then use (\[ecua8\]) to find the value of $\delta_{0}$ such that the motion becomes oscillatory. Second, the only change with respect to the approximate condition (\[ecua6\]) is the appearance of the Lorentz factor $\gamma={\sqrt{1-u(0)^{2}}}$ in Eq. (\[ecua8\]), which vanishes in the small velocity limit, i. e., the result (\[ecua6\]) is recovered. Equation (\[ecua8\]) is very important, because it implies that (within the collective coordinate approach), any ac force applied on a kink will induce its dc motion with a velocity directly related to their relative phase \[vanishing only for a very special choice of that parameter, $\delta_0$\]. Our perturbative calculation coincides with that of Olsen and Samuelsen in the limit and special cases studied by them, thus generalizing their results in a comprehensive manner. We postpone the numerical validation of our findings to Sec. \[sec-nr\].
After dealing with the undamped case and arriving to an expression valid for all kink velocities, let us now turn to the damped problem, including a damping term ($\beta \ne 0$) in the ac driven sG equation. We will now demonstrate that dc motion of sG kinks is not possible in this case. Indeed, in our previous work [@anniu] we analized the effects of damping ($\beta \ne 0$) and ac force non-relativistic kinks and found that kinks exhibit dc motion except for a transient, after which they reach a final oscillatory state around a point whose location depends on the initial conditions. However, nothing was said there about the general case, with no limits on the initial velocity, so we need to see what is the behavior of relativistic kinks by looking back again at Eq. (\[ecua3a\]). The result found above for the undamped case suggests to use $y(t)=u(t)/\sqrt{1-u(t)^{2}}$ as a new variable; by doing so, Eq. (\[ecua3a\]) can be linearized and the analytical solution for the velocity computed. We thus arrive at
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua99}
u(t) & = & \frac{r(t)}{\sqrt{1+r(t)^2}},\\
r(t) & \equiv & \bar{c} \, \exp(-\beta t) \mp
\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 (\beta^{2} + \delta^{2
})} \times \nonumber \\
\label{ecua999}
& & \times [\beta \sin(\delta t + \delta_{0}) - \delta \cos(\delta t +
\delta_{0})],\\
\bar{c}&=&\frac{u(0)}{\sqrt{1-u(0)^{2}}} \pm \frac{\epsilon \pi}
{4 (\beta^{2} + \delta^{2})}\times\nonumber\\
& &\times [\beta \sin(\delta_{0})- \delta \cos(\delta_{0})].
\label{ecua9}\end{aligned}$$
From Eqs. (\[ecua99\],\[ecua999\],\[ecua9\]) it can be easily seen that the asymptotic behavior of $u(t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{u}(t) & = & \frac{\bar{r}(t)}{\sqrt{1+\bar{r}(t)^2}},\\
\bar{r}(t) & = &
\pm \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 (\beta^{2} + \delta^{2
})} \times \nonumber \\ & \times &
[\delta \cos(\delta t + \delta_{0}) - \beta \sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})].
\label{ecua10}\end{aligned}$$ Even if we cannot explicitly solve Eq. (\[ecua3b\]) when $u(t)$ is given by Eqs. (\[ecua99\],\[ecua999\],\[ecua9\]) for the trajectory $X(t)$, the above findings are all we need to prove (always within the collective coordinate formalism) our previous claim that kink dc motion is asymptotically forbidden. To this end, it is enough to show that for $t_{0}$ and $t$ large enough, $X(t) \sim \bar{X}(t)=\bar{X}(t_{0})+
\int_{t_{0}}^{t} {\bar{u}(t')} dt'$, is a periodic function. This is equivalent to proving that $$\int_{t}^{t+T}{\bar{u}(t^{\prime})} dt^{\prime}=0;
\label{ecua11}$$ A straightforward calculation shows that the condition (\[ecua11\]) is always true, giving grounds to our conclusion that kinks can not exhibit dc motion in the damped, ac driven sG equation. This is yet another proof that the arguments of Bonilla and Malomed [@boni] supporting the opposite conjecture were not correct.
Breather dynamics {#sub-b}
-----------------
Following our study for kinks, we have carried out an analysis of the effect of ac driving over the breather solutions, based again on the collective coordinate approach (see details in [@McL; @bismc]). We concern ourselves mostly with the undamped case, as the damped problem has been already carefully discussed in [@lomsam1; @lomsam2]. The collective coordinate [*Ansatz*]{} we will use for breathers is $$\phi(x,t) = 4 \arctan\left( \frac{g(t)}
{\cosh[x \hspace{0.1cm}\omega(t)]}\right),
\label{ecua12}$$ where the breather frequency is $\Omega(t)=\sqrt{1-\omega^{2}(t)}$. This [*Ansatz*]{} is assumed to be valid when $\beta$ and $\epsilon$ are small. In this case the collective variables are the two functions $\omega(t)$ and $g(t)$, which can be found solving a system of differential equations equivalent to that in Eqs. (\[ecua3a\], \[ecua3b\]) for the kinks. The procedure to find the equations is the same and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua13a}
\frac{d\omega}{dt} & = & \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4} \frac{f(t)}
{\sqrt{1 + g^{2}(t)}} \times \nonumber\\
& & \times \cos\left\{\arcsin[\frac{\sqrt{1-\omega^{2}(t)}}{\omega(t)}
g(t)]\right\}, \\
\omega(t=0)& = &\omega_{0} \nonumber\\
\frac{dg}{dt} & = & \left\{\omega(t) + \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \omega(t)}
f(t) \mbox{arcsinh}[g(t)]\right\} \times \nonumber \\
\label{ecua13}
& & \times \cos(\arcsin[\frac{\sqrt{1-\omega^{2}(t)}}{\omega(t)} g(t)]), \\
g(t=0)& = &0. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We have not been able to solve the above equations. Nevertheless, they are still useful in order to predict the breather stability conditions, as we now show. If $\omega(t) \ne 0$, the system of Eqs. (\[ecua13a\],\[ecua13\]) leads us to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\omega} \frac{d\omega}{dt} & = &
\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \omega^{2}} \frac{f(t)} {\sqrt{1 + g^{2}(t)}}
\times \nonumber \\
& & \times \frac{1}{(1 + \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \omega^{2}}
f(t) \mbox{arcsinh}[g(t)])}\frac{dg}{dt}.
\label{ecua14}\end{aligned}$$ Straightforward algebraic manipulations of this equation yield $$\frac{d}{dt}\ln[\omega(t)] =
\frac{d}{dt} \ln[1 + \frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \omega^{2}(t)}
f(t) \mbox{arcsinh}(g[t])].
\label{ecua15}$$ where terms of order $\epsilon^{2}$ and $\epsilon \delta$ have been neglected. The advantage of this expression is that we can now integrate it; integration and subsequent expansion of $\omega(t)$ around $\omega_{0}$ in powers of $\epsilon$ allow us to write (up to orders $\epsilon^2$ again) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua16}
\omega(t) & = & \omega_{0} [1 + \sigma(t)], \\
\label{sigma}
\sigma(t) & \equiv & \frac{\pi
\epsilon}{4 \omega^{2}_{0}}
f(t)
\mbox{arcsinh}\left[\frac{\omega_{0}\sin(\sqrt{1 -
\omega^{2}_{0}} t)}{\sqrt{1 - \omega^{2}_{0}}}
\right]. \end{aligned}$$
In order to proceed, we have to recall the following property: breather solutions can only exist provided that $0 < \omega(t) < 1$ (which implies that the breather energy is bounded above and below, $ 0 < H_{bre}(t) < 16$, kinks having energy equal to or larger than 8 in our dimensionless units). Having this in mind, we can find a condition for the transformation of a breather into a $k\bar{k}$ pair, that turns out to be
$$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{thr} & = & \min\left(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2}\right),
\hspace*{0.5cm} \mbox{ if } M>0 \mbox{ and } m<0, \nonumber\\
\label{ecua17}
\displaystyle \epsilon_{thr} & = & \epsilon_{2}, \hspace*{0.5cm}
\mbox{ if } M \le 0, \\
\epsilon_{thr} & = & \epsilon_{1} \hspace*{0.5cm}
\mbox{ if } m \ge 0, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ecua17a}
\epsilon_{1} &=& \frac{4 \omega_{0} (1 - \omega_{0})}{\pi M},\\
\label{ecua17b}
\epsilon_{2} &=& - \frac{4 \omega_{0}^{2}}{\pi m},\end{aligned}$$ $m$ and $M$ being the minimum and maximum respectively of the function $\sigma(t)$ \[see Eq. (\[sigma\]) above\].
The physical meaning of the somewhat cumbersome result is the following: when sG breathers are perturbed by an ac force there always exists a value of $\epsilon$, $\epsilon_{th}$, such that perturbations smaller than the threshold allow breathers to exist with modulated frequency $\Omega(t)=\sqrt{1-\omega^{2}(t)}$, where $\omega(t)$ is the function (\[ecua16\]); on the other hand, when $\epsilon>\epsilon_{thr}$ the breather transforms into a kink-antikink pair or decomposes into a radiation, depending of the parameters of ac force and its frequency. Therefore, we arrive at our major conclusion regarding (undamped) breather dynamics, very different from the kink analysis in the previous subsection: Breathers are only stable for a limited range of force intensities, and in that range the effect of the driving is to modulate their frequency as discussed above. As before, we will have to compare this prediction to numerical simulations to verify its validity.
. \[velocity\]
Numerical results {#sec-nr}
=================
Although the collective coordinate approach has been already tested very many times [@yo] and is by now a standard technique to deal with soliton-bearing equations, the analytical expressions and the conclusions we have drawn from them should not be taken as valid before comparison with detailed and accurate numerical simulation of the full partial differential equation (\[ecua1\]). To this end, we have numerically integrated it by means of a standard fourth order Runge-Kutta algorithm [@nrecipies] with initial conditions given by an unperturbed sine-Gordon kink or breather with unrestricted initial velocity $u(0)$, and boundary conditions $\phi_x(L=\pm 50,t) = 0$. We have carefully checked that our results did not depend on the choice of spatial and temporal steps, or the simulated system size (which can affect the simulations through the generation of spureous radiation).
We first address the validation of the results for kinks, beginning with the undamped case. In Fig. \[graf1c\] we show the time evolution of a sG kink with initial velocity $u(0)=0.5$ (which is certainly far from being small) for different phases of the ac force $\delta_{0}$ and $\epsilon=0.1$, $\delta=0.1$. From Eq. (\[ecua8\]) we know that the kink (with initial velocity $u(0)=0.5$) will oscillate only if $\delta_{0}=0.745$. Numerically, we searched for the critical phase of driving force and found $\delta_{0}=0.6$ (see Fig. \[graf1c\]c), i.e., the accuracy between these results it is of order of $0.1$. This is a very good prediction if we consider the value of the velocity and the value of $\epsilon$ (indeed, the accuracy is of the order of $\epsilon$ as should be expected). Note that there is practically no radiation visible in the simulations, which is in agreement with the correctness of the use of collective coordinate techniques. In connection with this, another interesting remark is that background motion, i.e., motion of the wings of the soliton induced by the ac force, is not visible in the simulations; this makes our approach very suitable for this problem, and as accurate as that of Olsen and Samuelsen [@olsam] who introduced a term accounting for this negligible effect. We note that smaller initial velocities compare even better with our theoretical results. To appreciate to a larger extent the accuracy of our approach, Fig. \[velocity\] compares the analytical prediction for the velocity values \[Eqs. (\[ecua44\],\[ecua4\])\] with the velocity of the kink center of mass, obtained by integrating numerically Eq. (\[ecua1\]). In these figures the parameters of the perturbed sG equation were chosen as in Fig. \[graf1c\]. We see from Fig. \[velocity\] that the agreement is excellent, in spite of the fact that the prediction of the critical velocity is not correct by a factor $\epsilon$. This is due, on one hand, to the fact that slight deviations from simmetry around $u(t)=0$ have dramatic consequences in the kink motion (note, e. g., Fig. \[velocity\]c, the plot for the critical velocity, where the small discrepancy between the theory and the simulation is always in the same direction, towards negative $u$, corresponding to the theoretically predicted dc motion to the left), and, on the other hand, to the difficulties involved in numerically determining the critical velocity by checking that the kink just oscillates; this, among other things, depends on the integration time and on the time step. Hence, we believe that the correctness of our computations is much better appreciated by looking at the function $u(t)$ than simply verifying the critical velocity value.
We cannot close our study about sG kinks without providing numerical evidence that, as predicted by our analytical calculations above, it is not possible to induce dc motion on sG kinks by means of an ac force in the presence of damping. Figure \[graf2\] shows an example: a kink, initially moving with velocity $u(0)=0.5$, perturbed by ac force $0.01 \sin(0.1 t + 0.1)$ and a damping term $\beta=0.05$, is stopped and ends up describing small amplitude oscillations around a finite region in space. This is but one example, although we must say that we have verified that our prediction is correct in very many other cases, with different choices of parameters, finding always an excellent agreement between analytics and numerics. As in the undamped case, Fig. \[velocitydis\], depicts the predicted and simulated motions of the kink center, exhibiting a perfect agreement between both. It is of course reasonable that the collective coordinate approach works better for the damped case, because if any radiation arises in the system, the damping wipes it away, leaving the kink as the only excitation present in the system, as the approximation requires.
Finally, for the breather case we present in Fig. \[graf3\] a comparison between the analytical and numerical threshold values of $\epsilon$ as a function of the initial frequency of the breather $\Omega_0$. We consider only the undamped case, $\beta=0$. We have observed in our simulations the phenomenon predicted by our analytical calculations: If the amplitude of the ac force exceeds the threshold value of $\epsilon$, the initial breather decomposes into a $k\bar{k}$ pair. As depicted in Fig. \[graf3\], the collective coordinate result predicts very well the threshold amplitude in all the range of breather frequencies, even for rather large values of such amplitude, where the perturbative approach might not work in principle. We note that, for driving frequencies close to 1 (the lower edge of the phonon band of the sG system), the breather can as well decay into radiation, but we have not pursued this process in detail in view of the difficulties involved in distinguishing breathers from linear radiation in this limit. Therefore, we concern ourselves with the decay into $k\bar{k}$ pairs, this being the reason we have not gone over $\Omega_0=0.9$ [@not] in our numerical tests. Figure \[graf4\] shows an instance of our numerical determination of the threshold, for a breather with $\Omega_{0}=0.2$. We can see that if $\epsilon=0.0148$ (Fig. \[graf4\]a) the frequency of the breather is modulated, but it remains a breather, as the oscillations of the field value at $x=0$ clearly show (of course, we have looked at the simulation over the whole spatial interval to confirm this). On the contrary, if we increase $\epsilon$ (for example, $\epsilon=0.0149$) then the breather breaks up into a $k\bar{k}$ pair (Fig. \[graf4\]b), a phenomenon which reveals itself in the suppression of the oscillations at $x=0$ indicating that the breather stops its periodic motion. We have thus verified the validity of the collective coordinate results for the breather case as well.
Conclusions {#sec-c}
===========
In this paper, we have shown both by analytical (collective coordinate theory) and numerical means the following three facts: i) Kink dc motion is possible in the sG system when forced by a pure ac force, except for a very special choice of the initial velocity related to the driving phase by equation (\[ecua8\]); in this case, the kink center oscillates around its initial position; ii) kink dc motion induced by pure ac driving is never possible in the presence of damping, and iii) the undamped sG system forced by an ac driving allows the existence of breathers, whose frequency becomes modulated by the external one, up to a certain critical value of the amplitude that depends on the driving frequency and on the breather parameters. Above that amplitude, the breather decays to a kink-antikink pair.
As already stated, this findings arise from a perturbative calculation of the collective coordinate type, whose accuracy for very many soliton problems is well established [@yo]. In this respect, we want to emphasize our main achievement in this study: We have proposed a change of variables which allows to linearize and fully solve the differential equation for the kink velocity without any restriction. We note that in previous works [@olsam; @anniu] only the non-relativistic limit could be dealt with in an approximate manner. It is clear that this analytical procedure can be useful in similar equations, an example of this being our treatment of the long Josephson junction equation, with a more realistic dissipative term and a constant driving, in Appendix II. Therefore, having in mind the accuracy of the collective coordinate approach, the fact that there were no further approximations involved in our calculations, and the numerical confirmation of our predictions, we believe that our study settles down once and for all the question of kink motion in ac driven soliton bearing systems, particularly so for the sG equation.
From these results, which clarify the phenomenology of the ac driven sG equation, we can try to draw some more general conclusions on soliton-bearing problems perturbed by an ac force. The findings on discrete sG systems [@zaragoza] suggest that for our conclusions to apply in other, different systems, it is necessary that the soliton or solitary wave under consideration does not have one or several internal oscillation modes which can be excited by the driving force. To check for the possible new phenomena or modifications of our conclusions coming from the existence of those modes, we have carried out some preliminary research on the ac driven $\phi^{4}$ model. Generally speaking, the same conclusions hold, i. e., in the absence of dissipation ($\beta=0$) the kink (antikink) will exhibit oscillatory motion if $$\frac{u(0)}{\sqrt{1-u^{2}(0)}} =
\pm [\frac{3 \epsilon}{\sqrt{2} \delta} \cos\,
(\delta_{0})], \nonumber$$ whereas when dissipation is present we again find that kink dc motion is not possible. However, we have found numerical evidence that for values of the driving frequency close to the internal mode one, the kink behavior is much more complicated, even chaotic. We are currently working on understanding this effect analytically, and tentatively we relate it to the resonance of the driving and the internal mode [@physd]. Similar resonance phenomena were observed for the sG kink in a harmonic potential well, when the driving had a frequency close to the natural one of the kink in the well [@fernandez], which reinforces our interpretation and expectations. This leads us to the conjecture that the results we have obtained for the sG problem can be true in general, provided as already said that there are no resonances with other modes intrinsic to the excitation. Of course, there also remains the question of drivings with frequencies above the phonon lower edge. We believe that our conclusions will still hold in that situation, in so far the presence of the external force does not cause an interaction between solitonic and radiation modes; it is to be expected that our calculations will be very accurate in the presence of dissipation, which will damp away any excited radiation. Finally, as shown in Appendix II below, we want to stress that the predictions and mathematical results we have obtained in this work have direct application in many physical systems, and among them in Josephson devices \[more realistically described by Eq. (\[aecua1\]) below\]. It would be most interesting to verify the possibility of dc motion of solitons induced by pure ac driving in real systems like that, more so in view of the potential applications such a rectification effect might have. Another implication of our results has to do with soliton generation in systems described by sG equations: Indeed, by driving the system with an ac force strong enough, we could break up thermally created breathers into kink-antikink pairs, which under the influence of the driving would separate moving towards opposite directions. This would be a very simple and clean way of creating solitons in, e.g., Josephson devices. It thus becomes clear that experimental work pursuing this and related questions, which is certainly amenable with the present capabilities, would be most useful in assessing the importance of our work.
We thank Renato Álvarez-Nodarse, Jose Cuesta, Esteban Moro and Franz Mertens for conversations on this work. Work at GISC (Leganés) has been supported by CICyT (Spain) grant MAT95-0325 and DGES (Spain) grant PB96-0119.
Appendix I {#sec-aI .unnumbered}
==========
In this appendix we prove the necessary and sufficient condition for the sG soliton motion to be purely oscillatory in the presence of undamped ac driving. In the body of the paper we stated that this is so if and only if the condition (\[ecua7\]), or equivalently, (\[ecua8\]), takes place.
On the one hand, Substituting (\[ecua8\]) in (\[ecua4\]) and afterwards in (\[ecua44\]) we obtain for the velocity function $u(t)$ the following expression: $$u(t) = \frac{\pm {\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta}}
\cos(\delta t +\delta_{0})}{\sqrt{1+
\left[{\frac{\pi \epsilon}{4 \delta}}
\cos(\delta t +\delta_{0})\right]^{2}}},
\label{ecua19}$$ which can be integrated, yielding the position of the kink center of mass $X(t)$: $$X(t) = X(0) \pm \frac{1}{\delta}
\arcsin\left(\frac{\pi \epsilon \sin(\delta t + \delta_{0})}
{\sqrt{16 \delta^{2} + \pi^{2} \epsilon^{2}}}\right).
\label{ecua19a}$$ Hence, it is evident from the above equation that $X(t)$ is a periodic function with period $T={2 \pi/\delta}$.
On the contrary, suppose that the kink center of mass $$X(t) = \int_{0}^{t} {u(t')} dt'$$ oscillates with period $T={2 \pi/\delta}$, i. e., $X(t)=X(t+T)$; this can be put as $$I(a) \equiv \int_{t}^{t+T} {\frac{a + b cos(\delta t' + \delta_{0})}
{\sqrt{1+(a + b cos(\delta t' + \delta_{0}))^{2}}}} dt' = 0,
\label{ecua20}$$ where $$a = \frac{u(0)}{\sqrt{1-u(0)^{2}}} \mp \frac
{\pi \epsilon \cos(\delta_{0})}{4 \delta}$$ and $b=\pi \epsilon/4 \delta$. Noticing that, first $I(0)=0$; second, if $a < -|b|$ $I(a) < 0$ and if $a > |b|$ $I(a) > 0$, and third, $I'(a) > 0$ for all values of $a$, we arrive at the desired result that $I(a) = 0$ if and only if the relation (\[ecua8\]) \[$a = 0$\] holds.
Appendix II {#sec-aII .unnumbered}
===========
In [@McL] realistic model of a long Josephson junction is proposed, given by the following perturbed sG equation $$\phi_{tt} - \phi_{xx} + \sin(\phi) =
-\beta \phi_{t} + \alpha \phi_{xxt} - \gamma ,
\label{aecua1}$$ where the term $\beta \phi_{t}$ represents the dissipation due tunneling of normal electrons across the barrier, $\alpha \phi_{xxt}$ is the dissipation caused by flow of normal electrons parallel to the barrier and $\gamma$ is a distributed bias current. In this appendix we apply our theory to this problem in order to show that our technique to solve the equation for the collective velocity can be applied to other problems. In addition, as the equation above is realized very approximately by actual Josephson devices, by studying it we will providing experimental means of checking our results as well as predicting behavior which might have an application of interest in that context.
To begin with, we note that if $\alpha = 0$ this equation coincide with (\[ecua1\]) letting $\delta = 0$. Therefore, substituting $\delta = 0$ and $\gamma = - \epsilon \sin(\delta_{0})$ in Eqs. (\[ecua99\],\[ecua999\],\[ecua9\]) we obtain $$u(t) = \frac{d_{0} \exp(-\beta t) + d}
{\sqrt{1+(d_{0} \exp(-\beta t) + d)^{2}}},
%\label{ecua19}$$ where $ d_{0} = u(0)/\sqrt{1-u(0)^{2}} - d$ and $d=\pm \pi \gamma/4 \beta$. When $t$ goes to infinity, we have $ u(\infty) \to d/\sqrt{1+d^{2}}$. Notice that this expression coincides with the equilibrium solution $u_{\infty}$, obtained in [@McL].
For $\alpha \ne 0$ the same procedure as above leads us to a first-order ordinary differential equation for $u(t)$, which is given by $$\frac{du}{dt} = \pm \frac{\pi \gamma}{4} (1-u^{2})^{3/2} -
\beta u (1-u^{2}) - \frac{1}{3} \alpha u.
\label{ecuau}$$ If we now introduce the same change of variable as in Sec. \[sec-cc\], $y(t)=u(t)/\sqrt{1-u(t)^{2}}$, Eq. (\[ecuau\]) becomes $$\frac{dy}{dt} = \pm \frac{\pi \gamma}{4} -
(\beta + \frac{\alpha}{3}) y - \frac{1}{3} \alpha y^{3},
\label{ecuay}$$ Integrating (\[ecuay\]) we find $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{p + x_{1}^{2}}
\Bigg\{
\ln\Bigg(
c_{1} \frac{y-x_{1}}{\sqrt{\left(y+\frac{x_{1}}{2}\right)^{2}+k_{1}^{2}}}
\Bigg) & - & \nonumber \\
- \frac{3 x_{1}}{2 k_{1}}
\left[\arctan
\left(\frac{y+\frac{x_{1}}{2}}{k_{1}}
\right)
- c_{2}
\right]
\Bigg\} & = & - \alpha t,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
3 p & = & \frac{3 \beta}{\alpha} + 1 \\
2 q & = & \mp \frac{3 \pi \gamma}{4 \alpha}\\
D & = & q^{2} + p^{3}, \\
x_{1} & = & (\sqrt{D} - q)^{1/3} - \frac{p}
{(\sqrt{D} - q)^{1/3}}, \\
k_{1}^{2} & = & 3 p + \frac{3}{4} x_{1}^{2},\\
c_{1} & = & \frac{\sqrt{(y(0)+\frac{x_{1}^{2}}{2})^{2} +
k_{1}^{2}}}{y(0)-x_{1}}, \mbox{ and}\\
c_{2} & = & \arctan\left(\frac{y(0)+\frac{x_{1}}{2}}{k_{1}}\right). \end{aligned}$$
For large values of $t$, $y(\infty) \to x_{1}$, so the kink will move with constant velocity $u(\infty) \to
\frac{x_{1}}{\sqrt{1+x_{1}^{2}}}$, which depends on the parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$. For example, if $\gamma = 0$ ($q = 0$), $\displaystyle u(t)|_{t\to\infty} = 0$, i.e. by the influence of both dissipation terms ($- \beta \phi_{t}$ and $\alpha \phi_{xxt}$) the kink will be stopped.
[99]{}
M. Remoissenet, [*Waves called solitons*]{} (Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 1994).
A. Sánchez and A. R. Bishop, SIAM Review, in press (1998).
Yu. S. Kivshar and B. A. Malomed, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61**]{}, 763 (1989).
A. Sánchez and L. Vázquez, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**5**]{}, 2825 (1991).
Most important in contexts where soliton stability is a crucial factor, as it happens in many applications (Josephson junctions, fiber optics). Dynamical solitons are easy much more sensitive to perturbations; an archetypal example are those of the Korteweg-de Vries equation (see, e.g, [@km] and references therein).
G. L. Lamb, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**43**]{}, 99 (1971).
T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. London [**A247**]{}, 260 (1958).
T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. London [**A262**]{}, 237 (1961).
U. Enz, Phys. Rev. [**131**]{}, 1392 (1963).
R. Rajaraman, [*Solitons and Instantons*]{} (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982).
A. Barone and G. Paternó, [*Physics and applications of the Josephson effect*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1982).
E. Feldtkeller, Phys. Stat. Sol. [**27**]{}, 161 (1968).
J. D. Weeks and G. H. Gilmer, Adv. Chem. Phys., 157 (1979).
A. Sánchez, D. Cai, N. Grønbech-Jensen, A. R.Bishop, and Z. J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 14664 (1995).
J. Frenkel and T. Kontorova, J. Phys. USSR, [**1**]{}, 137 (1939).
F. R. N. Nabarro, [*Theory of crystal dislocations*]{} (Dover, New York, 1987).
C. Cattuto and F. Marchesoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 5070 (1997).
S. W. Englander, N. R. Kallenbach, A. J. Heeger, J. A. Krumhansl and S. Litwin, Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. USA [ **77**]{}, 7222 (1980).
M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{}, 5292 (1991).
L. V. Yakushevich, Reviews of Biophysics [**26**]{}, 201 (1993).
L. V. Yakushevich, Studia Biophysica [**121**]{}, 201 (1987).
P. J. Pascual and L. Vázquez, Phys. Rev. B [**32**]{}, 8305 (1985).
A. Sánchez, A. R. Bishop and F. Domínguez-Adame, Phys. Rev. E [**49**]{}, 4603 (1994).
D. Cai, A. R. Bishop and A. Sánchez, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 2, 1447 (1993).
M. B. Fogel, S. E. Trullinger, A. R. Bishop and J. A. Krumhansl, Phys. Rev. B [**15**]{}, 1578 (1977).
D. W. McLaughlin and A. C. Scott, Phys. Rev. A [**18**]{}, 1652 (1978).
P. S. Lomdahl, O. H. Olsen and M. R. Samuelsen, Phys. Rev. A [**29**]{}, 350 (1984).
J. C. Ariyasu and A. R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 3207 (1987).
D. W. McLaughlin and E. A. Overman, Phys. Rev. A [**26**]{}, 3497 (1982).
P. S. Lomdahl and M. R. Samuelsen, Phys. Rev. A. [**34**]{}, 664 (1986).
P. S. Lomdahl and M. R. Samuelsen, Phys. Lett. A. [**128**]{}, 427 (1988).
O. H. Olsen and M. R. Samuelsen, Phys. Rev. B [**28**]{}, 210 (1983).
L. L. Bonilla and B. A. Malomed, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 11539 (1991).
D. Cai, A. Sánchez, A. R. Bishop, F. Falo and L. M. Floría, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 9652 (1992).
P. J. Martínez, F. Falo, J. J. Mazo, L. M. Floría and A. Sánchez, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 87 (1997).
N. R. Quintero and A. Sánchez, preprint [cond-mat/9709063]{}, Phys. Lett. A, to appear.
A. R. Bishop, D. W. McLaughlin and M. Salerno, Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{}, 6463 (1989).
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling and B. P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes in Fortran 2nd Edition*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
For $\Omega_0=0.9$, the last point in Fig. \[graf4\], the breather does decay into radiation instead of a into kink-antikink pair. We have included this point in the plot because in this case we could make sure that the breather had indeed disappeared.
N. R. Quintero, A. Sánchez, and F. Domínguez-Adame, [ *Resonances, bifurcations, and kink dc motion in the ac driven $\phi^4$ equation*]{}, to be published.
J. C. Fernández, M. J. Goupil, O. Legrand, and G. Reinisch, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 6207 (1986).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multifragmentation reactions without large compression in the initial state (proton-induced reactions, reverse-kinematics, projectile fragmentation) are examined, and it is shown that the high temperatures obtained from fragment kinetic energy spectra and lower temperatures obtained from observables such as level population or isotope ratios can be understood in a common framework.'
---
[**Temperatures of Fragment Kinetic Energy Spectra\
**]{}
[**Wolfgang Bauer**]{}\
Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington\
Seattle, WA 98195, USA\
[and]{}\
National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory and\
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University\
East Lansing, MI 48824, USA\
The phenomenon of nuclear multifragmentation, the decay of highly excited nuclear matter into (nucleons and) several fragments of size $A_{\rm f}>5$, has been observed in proton-induced and heavy ion reactions [@Hue85; @Mor93]. Very recently, similar multifragmentation events have also been observed in the disintegration of C$_{60}$-fullerenes (‘buckyballs’) after bombardment with high-energy heavy ions [@Leb94]. It is clear by now that there is probably no one single mechanism responsible for the multitude of different fragmentation scenarios which range from sequential binary emission processes at low excitation energies [@Fri83] over statistical multifragmentation [@Bon82] to explosive vaporization. The probably most exciting possibility is the occurrence of a 2$^{\rm nd}$-order phase transition at the critical point of nuclear matter [@Min82; @Bau85; @Cam86].
The majority of theoretical investigations has been aimed at understanding the fragment mass distributions. However, there is considerable interest in fragment kinetic energy spectra, and the present letter is also concerned with this topic. In high-energy proton-induced [@Min82] and in relativistic projectile fragmentation [@Gre75] reactions one observes Boltzmann-like kinetic energy spectra of intermediate mass fragments with temperatures, for which the fragment mass dependence has been parameterized [@Min82] as $T_{\rm f} = T_o~(A_{\rm r} - A_{\rm f})/A_{\rm r}$, where $A_{\rm r}$ is the mass of the recoil residue. The temperature $T_o$ typically has a value of $\approx$ 15 MeV, much larger that nuclear temperatures extracted from isotope ratios or level population ratios [@Fri94], and also much larger than typical temperatures ($\approx 5-8$ MeV) used in statistical models [@Bon82] used to reproduced the experimental mass yield curves.
Here it is argued that the comparatively high value of $T_{\rm f}$ is a consequence of the addition of the Fermi momenta of the individual nucleons in the fragment and thus a consequence of the Fermi-Dirac nature of nucleons. The single-particle model is employed. It previously was successfully used [@Fes73; @Gol74; @Ber81] to explain the observed dispersion in fragment transverse momentum spectra generated in projectile fragmentation.
One starts with an ensemble of $A$ nucleons at (internal) temperature $T_{\rm in}$. In the single-particle picture their momentum distribution (in the non-relativistic limit) is given by $$\label{sp}
\rho({\bf p}) = (1 + \exp[(p^2/2m-\mu)/T_{\rm in}])^{-1}\ ,$$ where $\mu$ is the chemical potential. Adding up the individual momentum vectors of all $A_{\rm f}$ nucleons in a fragment one then arrives at the momentum distribution of the fragment $$\label{exact}
\rho({\bf P}_{\rm f}) = \int \prod_{i=1}^{A_{\rm f}}
\{d^3p_i\,\rho({\bf p}_i)\}
\delta^3({\bf P}_{\rm f} - \sum_{i=1}^{A_{\rm f}}{\bf p}_i)\ .$$
This addition procedure is of course nothing else but a random walk in momentum space and thus in the class of problems first posed by Pearson [@Pea05]. Since the single-particle probability distribution has 0 average and a fixed variance $\sigma^2$, the central limit theorem of Gauss applies in the present case, and – for sufficiently large number of steps, $A_{\rm f}$, in the random walk – the probability distribution can be written as $$\rho({\bf P}_{\rm f}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi A_{\rm f}\sigma^2}}
\exp\left(-\frac{P_{\rm f}^2}{2A_{\rm f}\sigma^2}\right)\ .$$
Using the non-relativistic approximation $E_{\rm f}=P_{\rm f}^2/(2m_N A_{\rm f})$, we therefore find an exponentially falling kinetic energy spectrum for the fragments $$\label{gauss}
\rho(E_{\rm f}) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi\,T_{\rm f}^3}} \sqrt{E_{\rm f}}
\exp\left(-\frac{E_{\rm f}}{T_{\rm f}}\right)\ ,$$ where in this picture the apparent temperature, $T_{\rm f}$, is given by $$\label{tf}
T_{\rm f} = \sigma^2 / m_N\ .$$
What exactly constitutes a sufficiently large number of steps is not [*a priory*]{} clear. However, in Fig. 1 I answer this question numerically by solving Eq. \[exact\] with a dispersion of $\sigma^2=(2/5)E_F\,m_N = 0.014$ GeV$^2$. (This choice will become more apparent below). For each fragment mass $5\times 10^6$ events were generated. Displayed are the resulting distributions (histograms) for $A_{\rm f}=2,3,5,12,100$. One can clearly see that even a very small number of steps (between 5 and 12) are sufficient to approach the limit given by Gauss, Eq. \[gauss\] (solid line).
In the simple Fermi-gas model at 0 temperature, the variance in the momentum distribution is given by $\sigma^2$ = $p_F^2/5$, where $p_F$ is the Fermi momentum. However, as pointed out by Goldhaber [@Gol74], there is the additional constraint that the momenta of all $A$ nucleons combined add up to 0. This leads to $$\label{sig2}
\sigma^2 = \frac{A-A_{\rm f}}{A-1}\langle p_i^2\rangle\ .$$ The term $(A-Af)/(A-1)$ is the recoil correction due to total momentum conservation. It explains the experimentally observed dependence of $T_{\rm f}$ on $A_{\rm f}$ [@Min82].
Inserting Eq. \[sig2\] into Eq. \[tf\] leads to an apparent fragment kinetic temperature $$\label{t_of_t}
T_{\rm f} = \frac{1}{m_N}\frac{A-A_{\rm f}}{A-1}\langle p_i^2\rangle
= \frac{A-A_{\rm f}}{A-1}\,\frac{2}{3}\langle E_k\rangle\ ,$$ where $\langle E_k\rangle$ is the average kinetic energy per nucleon as obtained from the single particle model. In the finite temperature case considered here this average is $$\label{e_of_t}
\langle E_k \rangle = \int_0^\infty d\epsilon
\frac{\epsilon^{3/2}}{1 + \exp[(\epsilon-\mu)/T_{\rm in}]} \left/
\int_0^\infty d\epsilon
\frac{\epsilon^{1/2}}{1 + \exp[(\epsilon-\mu)/T_{\rm in}]}\right.\
{}.$$
In the limit $T_{\rm in}\rightarrow 0$, we obtain $\mu\rightarrow E_F$ and $(1 + \exp[(\epsilon-\mu)/T_{\rm in}])^{-1}\rightarrow\theta(E_F-\epsilon)$, and the average of Eq. \[e\_of\_t\] becomes simply $\langle E_k(T_{\rm in}\!=\!0) \rangle$ = $\frac{3}{5}E_F$, and consequently, the apparent fragment kinetic temperature at $T_{\rm in}\!=\!0$ will [*not*]{} be 0, but rather $$T_{\rm f}(T_{\rm in}\!=\!0) =
\frac{A-A_{\rm f}}{A-1}\,\frac{2}{5}E_F\ .$$
In the case $T_{\rm in}>0$, the single particle model is still applicable. Its assumptions are not dependent on any sudden approximation (as frequently applied in the study of projectile fragmentation), but also hold for a system in equilibrium at some finite temperature. This was already pointed out by Goldhaber [@Gol74]. In this case, the numerical solution of Eq. \[e\_of\_t\] inserted into Eq. \[t\_of\_t\] will yield the desired answer, the dependence of the apparent temperature as extracted from fragment kinetic energy spectra on the ‘real’ temperature of the system. For small temperatures, $T_{\rm in}$, on can perform a Sommerfeld expansion of these equations around $T_{\rm in}=0$. This yields the approximation $$\mu \approx E_F \left(1 - \frac{\pi^2}{12}
\left(\frac{T_{\rm in}}{E_F}\right)^2
+ {\cal O}\left(\frac{T_{\rm in}}{E_F}\right)^4\right)$$ for the chemical potential and for the apparent fragment temperature the useful expression $$\label{ana}
T_{\rm f}(T_{\rm in}) \approx
\frac{A-A_{\rm f}}{A-1}\,\frac{2}{5}E_F
\left(1 + \frac{5\pi^2}{12}\left(\frac{T_{\rm in}}{E_F}\right)^2
+ {\cal O}\left(\frac{T_{\rm in}}{E_F}\right)^4\right)\ ,$$ which works to better than five percent up to $T_{\rm in}/E_F$ = 0.3. Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the numerical solution (ignoring the recoil correction term $(A-A_{\rm f})/(A-1)$) (solid line) as well as the approximation of Eq. \[ana\].
Bertsch [@Ber81] has pointed out that there is (for $T_{\rm in}=0$) a suppression of the dispersion due to Pauli correlations, which can amount to about 30% in the projectile fragmentation of $^{40}$Ca. This effect is not included in the simple estimate provided here.
The effects of final state interaction, the emission of a nucleon from the excited pre-fragment, on the fragment kinetic energy distribution is also small [@Ber81]. Typical thermal momenta of single nucleons are $p_t \approx \sqrt{3\,m_n\,T_{\rm in}}$. This results in corrections of the order $(p_t/P_{\rm f})^2 \approx T_{\rm in}/A_{\rm f} T_{\rm f}$, about 5% for fragments like carbon. Final state Coulomb interaction will mainly shift the energies upwards, and with it raise the temperature $T_{\rm f}$ slightly.
The exact value of $T_{\rm f}$ as a function of $T_{\rm in}$ depends on $E_F$, which in turn depends on the freeze-out density as $E_F(\rho) = E_F(\rho\!=\!\rho_0)\,(\rho/\rho_0)^{2/3}$. It is, perhaps, instructive to insert some typical numbers: If we assume a freeze-out density of $0.5\,\rho_0$, and a temperature of $T_{\rm in}=6$ MeV, then we obtain a Fermi energy of 24 MeV, and a slope constant (ignoring the recoil correction) of $T_{\rm f}=12$ MeV. This number is of the order obtained by projectile fragmentation reactions, and it therefore is possible that this kind of fragmentation reactions are not really a cold breakup of nuclei at nuclear matter density (as is conventionally assumed), but the fragmentation of a more dilute system at higher internal temperature.
In summary, by application of the single particle model it was shown that it is possible to understand the high values of apparent fragment kinetic energy spectra temperatures as compared to temperatures extracted from isotope ratios or level population ratios in proton-induced or reverse kinematics fragmentation reactions. One may speculate that this basic mechanism can also qualitatively explain similar observations for heavy ion induced fragmentation events with sizeable compression (by inclusion of radial flow momentum components), but the model employed here might be too simple for this case.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9403666 and a US National Science Foundation Presidential Faculty Fellow award. In addition, I thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the US Department of Energy for partial support during the completion of this work. Many useful discussions with the participants in the workshop ‘Hot and Dense Nuclear Matter’, in particular J. Bondorf, G. Bertsch, J. Randrup, and W. Friedman, are acknowledged.
[99]{} J. Hüfner Phys. Rep. [**125**]{} (1985) 131. L.G. Moretto and G.J. Wozniak, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [43]{} (1993) 379. T. LeBrun [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 3965. W.A. Friedman and W.G. Lynch, Phys. Rev. C [**28**]{} (1983) 16. J. Randrup and S.E. Koonin, Nucl. Phys. [**A356**]{} (1981) 223; J.P. Bondorf, Nucl. Phys. [**A387**]{} (1982) 25c; D.H.E. Gross [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. A [**309**]{} (1982) 41. R.W. Minich [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B118**]{} (1982) 458; A.S. Hirsch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**29**]{} (1984) 508. W. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. [**B150**]{} (1985) 53; W. Bauer [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A452**]{} (1986) 699; W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. C [**38**]{} (1988) 1297. X. Campi, J. Phys. A [**19**]{} (1986) L917; X. Campi, Phys. Lett. [**B208**]{} (1988) 351. D.E. Greiner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{} (1975) 152. D.J. Morrissey [*et al.*]{}, to appear in Ann. Rev. of Nucl. and Part. Phys. preprint MSUCL-922 (1994). H. Feshbach and K. Huang, Phys. Lett. [**B47**]{} (1973) 300. A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Lett. [**B53**]{} (1974) 306; A.S. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. C [**17**]{} (1978) 2243. G.F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**46**]{} (1981) 472. K. Pearson, Nature [**72**]{} (1905) 294; see also Lord Rayleigh, [*ibid*]{} p. 318.
Figure Captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
Fig. 1
: Fragment kinetic energy spectra for different masses (histograms) from solving Eq. \[exact\] with a value for the variance of 0.014 GeV$^2$. The solid line is the Gauss limit, Eq. \[gauss\].
Fig. 2
: Apparent temperature of fragment kinetic energy spectra (in units of the Fermi energy) as a function of the temperature, $T_{\rm in}$ of the Fermi gas. Solid line: numerical solution of Eq. \[e\_of\_t\] inserted into Eq. \[t\_of\_t\]. Dashed line: analytic approximation, Eq. \[ana\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Density functional theory methods are applied to investigate the properties of the new superconductor $\beta$-YbAlB$_4$ and its polymorph $\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$. We utilize the generalized gradient approximation + Hubbard U (GGA+U) approach with spin-orbit(SO) coupling to approximate the effects of the strong correlations due to the open $4f$ shell of Yb. We examine closely the differences in crystal bonding and symmetry of $\beta$-YbAlB$_4$ and $\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$. The in-plane bonding structure amongst the dominant itinerant electrons in the boron sheets is shown to differ significantly. Our calculations indicate that, in both polymorphs, the localized 4$f$ electrons hybridize strongly with the conduction sea when compared to the related materials YbRh$_{2}$Si$_{2}$ and YbB$_{2}$. Comparing $\beta$-YbAlB$_4$ to the electronic structure of related crystal structures indicates a key role of the 7-member boron coordination of the Yb ion in $\beta$-YbAlB$_4$ in producing its enhanced Kondo scale and superconductivity. The Kondo scale is shown to depend strongly on the angle between the B neighbors and the Yb ion, relative to the $x-y$ plane, which relates some of the physical behavior to structural characteristics.'
author:
- 'D. A. Tompsett'
- 'Z. P. Yin'
- 'G. G. Lonzarich'
- 'W. E. Pickett'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'The Role of Crystal Symmetry in the Magnetic Instabilities of $\beta$-YbAlB$_4$ and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}'
---
**I. Introduction**
Heavy electron systems have provided key insights into emergent quantum mechanical behavior in correlated materials. Such systems may be tuned by the application of pressure or a magnetic field through a quantum critical point[@GegenwartYb1; @LohneysenYb1]. In this region they may exhibit non-Fermi liquid properties[@GegenwartYb1; @LohneysenYb1; @ColemanYb1; @StewartYb1] and often superconductivity[@MathurYb1; @MonthouxYb1]. Quantum criticality has been widely reported in Ce, U and Yb systems[@MathurYb1; @SteglichYb1; @JaccardYb1; @PetrovicYb1; @OttYb1; @StewartYb2; @SchlabitzYb1]. However, while associated heavy-fermion superconductivity has been reported in Ce and U compounds[@SteglichYb1; @JaccardYb1; @PetrovicYb1; @OttYb1; @StewartYb2; @SchlabitzYb1], examples in Yb systems have been lacking. The discovery of superconductivity alongside non-Fermi liquid behavior[@NakatsujiYb1] in the clean Yb based heavy fermion (HF) compound [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} has therefore excited much interest. Thus there exists a clear impetus to determine the electronic structure of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and its relationship to other materials.
The superconductivity and pronounced non-Fermi liquid behavior of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} occur at ambient pressure[@NakatsujiYb1] and zero applied magnetic field. At zero field the resistivity $\rho\propto T^{3/2}$ (T is the absolute temperature) and there is a logarithmic divergence in the specific heat. The introduction of an external magnetic field tunes the system away from quantum criticality and towards conventional Fermi liquid behavior $\rho\propto T^{2}$. Recent quantum oscillation studies demonstrate heavy fermion behavior in the material[@O'FarrellYb1]. Furthermore, the Curie-like susceptibility at high temperatures suggests the presence of localized moments that are pivotal to the formation of the heavy Fermi liquid.
[[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} is similar to its polymorph, [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, in exhibiting Curie-Weiss type behavior in the susceptibility at high temperature and in the formation of a heavy fermion ground state at low temperatures. [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} differs from its polymorph, [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, firstly in that superconductivity has only been found in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (below 80mK). Furthermore, measurements of the low temperature specific heat[@Macaluso1] show a larger linear specific heat coefficient saturates at above 150 mol$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ with the application of small magnetic fields[@NakatsujiYb1] in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} compared to approximately 130 mol$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}[@Macaluso1]. This may point to stronger correlation effects in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} that contribute to its superconductivity. Electron spin resonance measurements[@HolandaYb1] also suggest that [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} possesses a unique signature of both local moment and conduction electron behavior that has been attributed to its quantum criticality and is not observed in [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. Also, while [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} shows features of quantum criticality and non-Fermi liquid behavior at low temperatures and ambient pressure, [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} behaves as a conventional Fermi liquid[@TomitaYb1].
In this investigation we consider the electronic and magnetic properties that may drive the intriguing behavior of both [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and its polymorph [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. We utilize density functional methods with DFT+U to model the system. Importantly, these calculations differ from the itinerant $f$ electron calculation favored in a recent quantum oscillation study of the low temperature Fermi surface[@O'FarrellYb1]. However, a DFT+U approach allows us to consider the driving interactions behind the behavior of the system, in particular in a Kondo physics framework. We also consider the relationship between these materials and related 4$f^{13}$ materials such as [[YbRh$_2$Si$_2$]{}]{} and YbB$_{2}$. In particular we consider the coupling of the 4*f* moments to the conduction sea and the proximity of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} to magnetic instabilities.\
**II. Crystal Structure**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:DNbFe2\] (Color online) Crystal structure of (top) *Cmmm* [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and (bottom) *Pbam* [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} viewed along the **c**-axis The green rectangular outlines show the conventional unit cells and we have doubled the unit cell along the **a**-axis. The black rectangle in the lower figure shows an outline of a unit cell in [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} that may be most easily compared to the conventional cell of the upper [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. ](bYbBitmapBound.pdf "fig:"){width="0.87\linewidth"}
![\[fig:DNbFe2\] (Color online) Crystal structure of (top) *Cmmm* [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and (bottom) *Pbam* [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} viewed along the **c**-axis The green rectangular outlines show the conventional unit cells and we have doubled the unit cell along the **a**-axis. The black rectangle in the lower figure shows an outline of a unit cell in [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} that may be most easily compared to the conventional cell of the upper [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. ](aYbBitmapBetaBox.pdf "fig:"){width="0.7\linewidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this investigation we use the crystal structure extracted experimentally by Macaluso [*et al.*]{}[@Macaluso1] for both [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} crystallizes in the ThMoB$_{4}$ structure with space group *Cmmm* and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} crystallizes in the YCrB$_{4}$ structure with space group *Pbam*. Both space groups are orthorhombic. The lattice parameters are shown in Table \[tab:cellParams\]. We also show the crystal structures of both polymorphs in Fig. \[fig:DNbFe2\]. We have doubled the conventional cells of each structure along the **a**-axis to aid visualization of the bonding networks. The lower symmetry structure of [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} in the lower panel may be most easily compared to [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} via the construction of the approximate unit cell outlined in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:DNbFe2\]. In comparing this new rotated cell in [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} with the structure of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, the bonding networks become similar. However, subtle differences in symmetry mean that the transport, heat capacity, and the bonding in the two systems are different.
$\alpha$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}
--------------------------------- ---- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------------
Space group *Pnam* (No.55) *Cmmm* (No.65) *Pmmm* (No. 47) *P6/mmm* (No. 191)
Lattice a 5.9220 7.3080 3.1346 3.2561
constants b 11.4370 9.3150 5.4293
(Å) c 3.5060 3.4980 3.4980 3.7351
Volume (Å$^{3}$/f.u.) 59.55 59.53 59.53 34.29
Atomic Yb 4*g* (*..m*) 4*i* (*m2m*) 1*a* (*mmm*) 1*a* (*6/mmm*)
positions (0.1294, 0.10543, 0) (0, 0.30059, 0) (0, 0, 0) (0, 0, 0)
(Wyckoff Al 4*g* (*..m*) 4*g* (*2mm*) 1*f* (*mmm*)
position, (0.1387, 0.4096, 0) (0.1816, 0, 0) (1/2, 1/2, 0)
site B1 4*h* (*..m*) 4*h* (*2mm*) 2*p* (*m2m*) 2*d* (*-6m2*)
symmetry, (0.2893, 0.3126, 1/2) (0.1240, 1/2, 1/2) (1/2, 1/6, 1/2) (1/3, 2/3, 1/2)
coordinates B2 4*h* (*..m*) 8*q* (*..m*) 2*n* (*m2m*)
(x,y,z)) (0.2893, 0.3126, 1/2) (0.2232, 0.1609, 1/2) (0, 1/3, 1/2)
B3 4*h* (*..m*) 4*j* (*m2m*)
(0.3840, 0.0468, 1/2) (0, 0.0920, 1/2)
B4 4*h* (*..m*)
(0.4740, 0.1943, 1/2)
Both structures are orthorhombic with relatively short **c**-axis lattice parameters which will bear importance for our electronic structure results. Both structures also contain a layer of interconnected 5-member and 7-member boron rings intercalated with Al and Yb atoms. Each Yb atom is coordinated above and below by 7-member boron rings in both structures. These seven member rings dominate the crystal field environment of the Yb atom and therefore impact its orbital state.
Crystallographically, the two polymorphs are primarily distinguished by the manner in which the 5-member and 7-member rings of the boron plane are interconnected. Both the 5-member and 7-member rings are irregular polygons. This irregularity is far more pronounced in the $\alpha$ structure. Therefore the intercalant Yb and Al atoms do not reside equally close to all boron atoms in the nearest boron ring in the two structures. For example, in Fig. \[fig:DNbFe2\] the bonds from the Al show the link to its nearest boron atom. In [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} these bonds lie along a single axis while there are two different orientations in $\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$. Although this difference is unlikely to influence the orbital state of an individual Yb Atom, it may be influential upon the magnetic coupling between the Yb 4$f$ magnetic moments. The alteration in symmetry is then likely to influence the magnetic state of the system and in this way be important to understanding the properties of these materials.
In this study we also consider the properties of two related crystal structures that both have 6-member coordination of the Yb ion. The first is a hypothetical structure, which we refer to as [[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, and has the same c-axis lattice parameter and cell volume as [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, but a honeycomb boron sublattice that leads to a regular 6-member coordination of the Yb and Al ions. The second structure we compare to is [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}(YbYbB$_4$) which exists in the same hexagonal symmetry as MgB$_2$ (*P6/mmm*)[@Avila1]. The cell parameters for both of these structures are also shown in Table \[tab:cellParams\]. Experimentally in [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} the Yb $f^{13}$ orbitals exhibit a Curie-Weiss like susceptibility at high temperatures and the compound is thought to order antiferromagnetically[@Avila1] at $T_N=5.6 \pm 0.2K$.
**III. Electronic Structure Methods**
The electronic structures determined in this investigation are based on the all-electron approach to density functional theory using full-potentials in WIEN2k[@Blaha1]. The Brillouin zone integration was achieved by the tetrahedron method typically using a $18\times18\times30$ **k**-point mesh. The radii of the muffin tins were set at 1.6$a_0$ for B, 2.11$a_0$ for Al and 2.15$a_0$ for Yb. We utilised $RK_{max}=8.0$.
We have calculated the electronic structure using the GGA-PBE[@PerdewYb1] correlation functional and with +U on the Yb sites for the 4$f$ orbitals. We employ $U=8$ eV and $J=1$ eV and spin-orbit coupling in a second variational approach. The ‘around mean field’ double counting correction in WIEN2k was used.
\[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[YbB$_2$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2.25\][**Yb-$f$**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**Yb-$f(J_z=-5/2)$**]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:ybalDOS\] (Color online) Density of states for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (top) and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (bottom).](betaYbAlB4DOSQSNeg1NoFrag.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
![\[fig:ybalDOS\] (Color online) Density of states for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (top) and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (bottom).](alphaYbAlB4DOSQSNeg1NoFrag.pdf "fig:"){width="0.97\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we compare and contrast the electronic structure of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} with [[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. We begin by showing the calculated density of states for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} in Fig. \[fig:ybalDOS\]. In all cases the large peaks in the DOS are dominated by the Yb 4$f$ contributions. The overall structure of the DOS for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} are similar. For both, a large manifold of states due to the filled *f* orbitals lies between -7 eV and -3 eV below the Fermi level. The states between -2 eV and +2 eV about the Fermi level are dominated by itinerant states that have little charge within the muffin tins. Visualization of the charge density shows that most of the itinerant charge is associated with the boron layers. The empty 4$f^{13}$ hole state sits just beyond 2 eV above the Fermi level. It is possible to obtain GGA+U solutions with a variety of different hole states (however, not all can be achieved). We find that the $J_z=-5/2$ hole orbital always leads to the lower energy.
The $J_z=-5/2$ hole is consistent with the result predicted by an approximate treatment of the crystal field symmetry of the Yb site[@Nevidomskyy1]. A low lying doublet of $m_J= \pm 5/2$ was predicted and shown to give a good fit to the measured magnetic susceptibility at high temperatures. Furthermore, our total energy calculations suggest that the energy scale for non-Ising flops from this state is at least 0.3eV ($\sim$ 3481K) which implies that thermal flops in this system are likely to be Ising-like. Calculating the expectation value of the Ising-like moment gives 3.4$\mu_B$ which is comparable to the measured values of the effective moment of 2.9$\mu_B$[@Macaluso1] and 3.1$\mu_B$[@NakatsujiYb1]. In our calculations the order is ferromagnetic and the magnetization is directed along the c-axis which is the easy axis in the measured magnetization[@Macaluso1]. We note that the calculated specific heat coefficients of 1.21 and 1.54 mJ/mol K$^2$ for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} correspond to large mass enhancements $\sim$100. This implies the presence of a low temperature heavy fermion ground state that is not represented by the bare DFT+U calculation.
\[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[YbB$_2$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2.25\][**Yb-$f$**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**Yb-$f(J_z=-5/2)$**]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:gybalYbB2DOS\] (Color online) Density of states for [[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (top) and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}(bottom).](gYbalDOSNoFrag.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
![\[fig:gybalYbB2DOS\] (Color online) Density of states for [[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} (top) and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}(bottom).](YbB2DOSPerFU_Max45NoFrag.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:gybalYbB2DOS\] we show the DOS for [[$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. Both exhibit a similar localised 4$f^{13}$ hole structure, but the hole state lies significantly further from the Fermi level than for both polymorphs of YbAlB$_4$ at approximately +3 eV. We find the entire manifold of *f*-states, both above and below the Fermi level, is shifted upwards and this is a result of the differing crystal field produced by the coordination of 6-member boron rings as well as the effective volume about the Yb site. Interestingly [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} seems to exhibit a very nearly gapped density of states at $\approx+1.75$ eV. Together these indicate that the 4$f$ hole may be less strongly linked by hybridization and spin-orbit effects with the itinerant states near the Fermi level.
**IV. Competing States and Quantum Criticality**
We digress from the electronic structure to discuss briefly some analysis relating to heavy fermion physics. In the Doniach picture of heavy fermion systems two scales may be considered to dominate the physics: the Kondo scale $T_{K}$ of local moment screening and the scale for the 4$f$ moments to magnetically order such as $T_{RKKY}$. By multiplying by the density of states at the Fermi level these may be expressed in dimensionless form as: $$\rho(E_F) T_{K} \propto \textrm{exp} \left(- \frac{E_0}{\Delta} \right)$$
$$\rho(E_F) T_{RKKY} \propto (\frac{\Delta}{E_0})^2 \\$$
$$\text{where~~~~} J \rho(E_F) = \frac{\Delta}{E_0}$$
Here $\Delta$ and $E_0$ are respectively the width and position with respect to the Fermi level $E_F$ of the 4$f$ level. Here $J$ is the local moment - itinerant electron coupling as in the Kondo model. We note that this Doniach approximation does not account for the degeneracies of the 4$f$ state in Yb[@ReadYb1]. The type of magnetic order and dimensionality may have further influences on the system[@IrkhinYb1; @IrkhinYb2; @IrkhinYb3]. However, within the model we may gain insight into the drivers of the Kondo physics in these systems.
Theoretical[@Nevidomskyy1] and experimental work using both doping and pressure tuning[@TomitaYb1] indicate that [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} is proximate to an antiferromagnetic instability. Experimentally, stoichiometric [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} is thought to order antiferromagnetically[@Avila1] at $T_N=5.6 \pm 0.2K$. Given the similar crystal structures of [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} and [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, we may compare these two compounds to determine which characteristics may promote the antiferromagnetism in [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} and the quantum criticality of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}.
In order to tune [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} away from antiferromagnetism towards a quantum critical point we need to effect an enhancement of $T_K$ over $T_{RKKY}$. Due to the exponential dependence of $T_K$ this may be achieved by an increase in the quantity $J \rho(E_F) = \frac{\Delta}{E_0}$. We may, for example, tune this quantity by the application of pressure, $p$. The application of pressure in Yb systems[@BoursierYb1; @YlvisakerYb1; @GoltsevYb1] will increase $\Delta$ due to increased hybridization and also increases $E_{0}$ since the valence fluctuation is between Yb$^{2+}$ and Yb$^{3+}$. Essentially, this is because the fluctuation involves the addition of an $f$ electron and therefore the effective energy barrier to the process, $E_{0}$, is smaller when the volume about the Yb ion is larger. Experimentally, the behavior of $E_{0}$ dominates[@MederleYb1; @PlesselYb1] and we are tuned deeper into the antiferromagnetic state with increasing $p$. Therefore, we typically require an effective negative pressure, or volume increase, in order to tune from a magnetic state towards a quantum critical point. Experimentally, an effective negative pressure has so far not been achieved by chemical pressure in these systems, but we may simulate the effect by increasing the unit cell volume in our electronic structure calculations.
In Fig. \[fig:VolDepYbB2DOS\] we show the density of states for the structure of [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} at an expanded unit cell volume of 46.68Å$^{3}$. The volume about the Yb ion is increased. As a result $E_{0}$ falls and $\Delta$ also decreases compared to [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} at its experimental volume in Fig. \[fig:gybalYbB2DOS\]. In this structure the value of $E_{0}$ is approximately the same as that in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. However, the width, $\Delta$, in the expanded [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} structure is much smaller than that found in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. As a result with such a volume tuning, $\Delta$ is likely to be small by the time we tune to a critical point.
\[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**[[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**Total DOS**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2.25\][**Yb-$f$**]{} \[0\]\[0\]\[2\][**Yb-$f(J_z=-5/2)$**]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:VolDepYbB2DOS\] (Color online) Density of states for [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} at the expanded unit cell volume: 46.68Å$^{3}$.](Delta4YbB2DOSNoFrag.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:kondoParams\] we compare the value of $\frac{\Delta}{E_0}$ for several important structures. An important feature from the table is the ability of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} to maintain a large hybridization, $\Delta$, even with a larger Yb-B distance compared to [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. This difference suggests that parameters beyond the volume about the Yb ion are important. The angle of inclination of the Yb ion to the boron ring may be pivotal to producing an enhanced $\frac{\Delta}{E_0}$ (and Kondo scale) while maintaining a large $\Delta$.
Structure Yb-B Distance (Å) Yb-B Angle $\Delta$ $E_0$ $\frac{\Delta}{E_0}$
---------------------------- ------------------- --------------- ---------- ------- ----------------------
[[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} 2.70 48$^{\circ}$ 0.25 2.2 0.11
[[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} 2.73 48$^{\circ}$ 0.23 2.2 0.10
$\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$ 2.516 46$^{\circ}$ 0.2 2.8 0.07
[[YbB$_2$]{}]{} 2.65 45$^{\circ}$ 0.2 3.2 0.06
To probe the importance of the angle, $\theta$, subtended by the Yb ion to the boron ring we utilize our hypothetical $\gamma$-YbAlB$_4$ structure. We do this by altering the aspect ratio of its unit cell to vary $\theta$, while retaining a constant unit cell volume to create a set of structures that we denote as $\gamma^*$-YbAlB$_4$. In Fig. \[fig:GammaKondoVsAngle\] we plot the value of $\Delta / E_0$ as a function of $\theta$. We see that the peak value is centered about 52$^{\circ}$, which is the angle subtended by the proposed ground state hole state $| m_J = \pm 5/2 > $. Importantly, while the angle $\theta$ is altered we find little variation in $E_0$ and it is the large changes in the hybridization, $\Delta$, that drive the strong dependence of $\Delta / E_0$ on angle. Therefore, [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} enhance their Kondo scale not only by increasing the effective Yb-B distance (to decrease $E_0$), but also approach the optimum angle for hybridization. It is the alternation of 5-member coordinated Al sites with 7-member coordinated Yb sites that allows [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} to form this advantageous angle of inclination. In this sense we may consider [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} to be *symmetry tuned* Kondo enhanced materials. In [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} this Kondo enhancement drives the material to quantum criticality.
Interesting future work with a fuller treatment of many-body effects with dynamical mean field theory[@ShimYb1; @MatsumotoYb1], may attempt to demonstrate this relationship between crystal structure and the heavy fermion ground state as has been shown in elemental Yb under the influence of pressure[@YlvisakerYb1]. We also note that due to the nature of the DFT+U method, the absolute value of the parameter $\Delta / E_0$ may be sensitive to the value of $U$ used in the calculations. However, the trend in $\Delta / E_0$ as a function of the geometric change $\theta$ is consistent for different values of $U$.
In this framework, we may also discuss why [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} is the only discovered example of an Yb based heavy fermion superconductor, while many Ce based examples exist. We proceed by considering pressure tuning resulting in uniform volume contraction. The effect of pressure on $\frac{\Delta}{E_0}$ will be different for Ce and Yb compounds. For Ce compounds the application of pressure decreases $E_{0}$, but increases $\Delta$. This is because the valence fluctuations are between Ce$^{3+}$ and Ce$^{4+}$. This fluctuation involves the removal of an $f$ electron and therefore the effective energy barrier, $E_{0}$, is small when the volume about the Yb ion is smaller. In contrast the application of pressure in Yb based compounds increases both $E_{0}$ and $\Delta$. In some sense these quantities are working against each other in terms of their Kondo physics in Yb compounds. For this reason at the quantum critical point, it is more likely that a narrow $\Delta$ will exist. Since $\Delta$ is indicative of the coupling to the itinerant electrons, then a lower tendency to superconductivity may be found in Yb based systems.
**V. Band structure**
Critical to the operation of heavy fermion systems is the interaction of the localized *f*-electrons with the conduction sea. This interaction leads to the dramatic mass enhancements and itinerant *f*-electrons in these systems via the Kondo effect. The RKKY interaction may also give rise to a significant scale for magnetic coupling that drives their magnetic properties.
In Fig. \[fig:bYbAlB4LDAPUBSConvCell\] we show the band structure for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. We have elected to plot the dispersion along the symmetry directions for the reciprocal conventional cell. ($\mathbf{\Gamma}=(0~0~0)$, $\mathbf{A}=(1/2 ~0 ~0)$, $\mathbf{B}=(1/2 ~1/2 ~0)$, $\mathbf{C}=(0 ~1/2 ~0)$, $\mathbf{Z}=(0 ~0 ~1/2)$, $\mathbf{Az}=(1/2 ~0 ~1/2)$, $\mathbf{Bz}=(1/2 ~1/2 ~1/2)$ and $\mathbf{Cz}=(0 ~1/2 ~1/2)$, in Cartesian coordinates. For [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} there are two Yb atoms in the unit cell which lead to the appearance of two flat Yb bands at approximately +2.2 eV above the Fermi level. The remaining 4$f$ states are located in a manifold between -7 eV and -3 eV below the Fermi level. With SO coupling these 4$f$ bands are spin mixed and split into a 4$f_{5/2}$ complex and a 4$f_{7/2}$ complex separated by the spin-orbit splitting of roughly 1.5 eV. These manifolds are further split by the anisotropy of the Coulomb interaction[@JohannesYb1]. This along with a Hund’s rule splitting due to the unoccupied 4$f$-hole makes identifying the 4$f_{5/2}$ and 4$f_{7/2}$ states a challenging task.
Two important features of the band structure have been highlighted in Fig. \[fig:bYbAlB4LDAPUBSConvCell\]. The red circle, centered at 1.5 eV at point C, indicates the location of a strongly hybridized *f*-hole band. In particular the archway shaped band shows strong *f*-character in a partial charges analysis. This *f*-character remains strong throughout its dispersion in the plane, and demonstrates a strong hybridization between the *f*-hole and the conduction states. In contrast such hybridization is almost entirely absent in the related quantum critical compound [[YbRh$_2$Si$_2$]{}]{}[@WiggerYb1].
In this band structure of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} the Yb moments are in a ferromagnetic configuration. This allows us to see the interaction of the Yb moment with the bands associated with itinerant electrons. The green circle, centered just above E$_F$ at point B, shows the location of strongly spin-split bands near the Fermi level. Both indicate strong interaction of the local *f*-hole with the itinerant electrons. This has the benefit of providing a measure of the degree of Kondo coupling of the Yb moment to the Fermi surfaces, because the exchange splitting of these bands reflects the coupling of the local moment to the itinerant bands. The exchange splitting of this band is approximately 100 meV, far larger than that found in [[YbRh$_2$Si$_2$]{}]{}[@WiggerYb1]. Consistent with experiment, the $T^*$, coherence temperature, in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}[@NakatsujiYb1] is $\approx200K$, almost an order of magnitude larger than that in [[YbRh$_2$Si$_2$]{}]{}[@TrovarelliYb1; @CustersYb1]. This large Kondo coupling may be critical in the behavior of these materials and is consistent with large estimates of $T^*$ from the measured specific heat[@Macaluso1]. As can be seen, however, the band crossing the Fermi level at **Cz** possesses very little exchange splitting. Therefore the Kondo coupling is highly anisotropic and likely to vary around the Fermi surface. This is consistent with the varying mass enhancements inferred from recent quantum oscillation studies[@O'FarrellYb1].
In Fig. \[fig:aYbAlB4LDAPUBS\] we show the band structure for [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. Again the Yb moments are in a ferromagnetic configuration. We note that the band structure has twice as many bands as [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} due to the fact that its primitive unit cell contains 4 formula unit cells for [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, while for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} there are only two. This leads to the appearance of increased complexity, yet the general structure of the two cases is similar. The position of the *f*-hole states at +2.2 eV above the Fermi level and the location of the 4$f_{5/2}$ and 4$f_{7/2}$ multiplets between -6.5 eV and -3.5 eV below the Fermi level are similar. This similarity is due to the similar local symmetry of the Yb environment. The [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} band structure also shows evidence for spin split bands near the Fermi level. An example is provided by the spin split band at $\Gamma$ approximately +0.8 eV above the Fermi level.
In Fig. \[fig:aYbAlB4LDAPUBS\] we show the band structure for [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. In this case there is only one formula unit per unit cell. Therefore there are fewer bands in the band structure and the Yb moment is necessarily in a ferromagnetic configuration. The band structure is highly dispersive in all directions. As expected from the density of states the *f*-hole level lies further from the Fermi level than in the cases of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. Also, there is less evidence for the presence of spin split itinerant bands near the Fermi level. These features are indicative of a smaller Kondo scale in [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}.
**VI. Charge Density Analysis**
In Fig. \[fig:DensContoursPlane\] we show contour plots of the valence charge density in the boron plane for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. The dominant chemical bonding resides within this boron plane and is driven by the short boron to boron distances, all of which are less than 1.9 Å. The boron bonding of these structures is very stable. For the high symmetry case of [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} shown in Fig. \[fig:DensContoursPlane\](c) we see that the bonding between the boron sites in its 6-membered rings is the same for every B-B bond. This bonding is of a similar character to that in graphite. In contrast for [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} all B-B bonds are not equivalent. The 5-member and 7-member rings determined by the crystallographic positions do not give rise to a dominant ring structure in the bonding charge density. Specific bonds within these 5-member and 7-member rings are stronger than others.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:DensContoursPlane\](a) the dominant B-B bonds in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} form a 2D network of large loops each of which contain two formula units. The boron network is well connected in both the **a**-axis and **b**-axis directions. In Fig. \[fig:DensContoursPlane\](b) [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} shows a different bonding network. The dominant B-B bonds form chains along the **a**-axis with double-boron branches. The difference in bonding anisotropy should also be reflected in anisotropy in transport behavior. As a result the bonding structure and distribution of the valence electrons can not be approximated as conforming to the ring structure as is the case in [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}.
The bond charge isocontours indicate that the bond population of the dominant bonds is approximately double that of the weak bonds. Interestingly, in both [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, the weak B-B bonds always lie between a Yb and an Al ion. There is a direct correlation between bond length and bond population. The weak bonds are all $\approx$1.86 Å in length, while all other B-B bonds are $\leq$1.77 Å. Therefore the subtle symmetry changes between these compounds are significant to the electronic structure.
[c]{} (a) [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}\
![\[fig:DensContoursPlane\] (Color online) Charge density contours in the boron plane on a linear scale for (a) [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, (b) [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and (c) [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. For [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}we have doubled the unit cell in the **a** and **b** directions to aid visualisation of the bonding. Note the different topology of the strong B-B bonds in the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ types, both contrasting with the regular, hexagonal topology of YbB$_2$.](bYbDensContours.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
\
(b) [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}\
![\[fig:DensContoursPlane\] (Color online) Charge density contours in the boron plane on a linear scale for (a) [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, (b) [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and (c) [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. For [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}we have doubled the unit cell in the **a** and **b** directions to aid visualisation of the bonding. Note the different topology of the strong B-B bonds in the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ types, both contrasting with the regular, hexagonal topology of YbB$_2$.](aYbContours.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
\
(c) [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}\
![\[fig:DensContoursPlane\] (Color online) Charge density contours in the boron plane on a linear scale for (a) [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, (b) [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and (c) [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}. For [[YbB$_2$]{}]{}we have doubled the unit cell in the **a** and **b** directions to aid visualisation of the bonding. Note the different topology of the strong B-B bonds in the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ types, both contrasting with the regular, hexagonal topology of YbB$_2$.](YbB2Contours.pdf "fig:"){width="1\linewidth"}\
The different valence bond networks demonstrated to exist in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}, [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} are likely then to affect the magnetic coupling between Yb moments. This may impact the RKKY interaction in these systems which may be the driving force behind magnetic instabilities. The uneven bond population surrounding the Yb ion also makes its environment anisotropic. This may be a key factor in producing the quantum criticality and superconductivity in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}.\
**VII. Conclusions**
We have obtained strong evidence for a large Kondo scale driven by strong interaction between the Yb *f*-state and the itinerant states in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. This is evidenced by strongly spin split bands and significant hybridization between the *f*-states and itinerant states near the Fermi level.
We present a case for a key role of the angle subtended by the Yb ion to the boron ring in producing the large Kondo scale and possibly the superconductivity of [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}. The introduction of the 7-member coordination of the Yb ion in [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} allows the angle of $\approx 48^{\circ}$ to be subtended to the boron ring. This angle brings the compound close to the optimal $\approx 52^{\circ}$, for the maximization of $\Delta / E_0$ which promotes its large Kondo scale while still allowing for a large hybridization of the 4$f$-hole with the conduction states. The importance of the angle subtended by the Yb ion to the boron ring suggests a significant scope for the use of experiments involving pressure tuning via *uniaxial* pressure that may be able to replicate these conditions in other materials. The compound [[YbB$_2$]{}]{} is a strong candidate for such measurements. The in-plane bonding structure amongst the dominant itinerant electrons in the boron sheets has been found to differ significantly between [[$\beta$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{} and [[$\alpha$-YbAlB$_4$]{}]{}.
**VIII. Acknowledgments**
We acknowledge an ICAM-I2CAM Institute for Complex Adaptive Matter travel grant that stimulated this collaboration. This project was supported partially by DOE grant DE-FG02-04ER46111 and benefitted from interactions within the Predictive Capability for Strongly Correlated Systems team of the Computational Materials Science Network.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Although developing countries are called to participate on the efforts of reducing [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions in order to avoid dangerous climate change, the implications of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} reduction targets in human development standards of developing countries remain a matter of debate [@Cocklin2007]. We show the existence of a positive and–time dependent correlation between the Human Development Index (HDI) and per capita [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Based on this empirical relation and three population scenarios extracted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report [@Alcamo2005], we calculate for the first time the cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions necessary for developing countries to achieve particular HDI thresholds. If current demographic and development trends are maintained, we estimate that by 2050 around 85% of the world’s population will live in countries with high HDI (above 0.8) as defined in the United Nations Human Development Report [@UNDP2009]. In particular, we estimate that at least 300Gt of cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions between 2000 and 2050 are necessary for the development of 104 developing countries in the year 2000. This value represents 30% of a previously calculated [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budget yielding a 75% probability of limiting global warming to $2\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Meinshausen2009]. For the achievement of higher HDI, for example setting the human development threshold at 0.9, resulting emissions necessary for development (600 up to 900 Gt) will pose even stronger constraints on previous estimated budgets. Since human development has been proved to be time and country dependent, we plead for future climate negotiations to consider a differentiated [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions allocation scheme for developing countries based on the achievement of concrete development goals.'
author:
- 'Lu[í]{}s Costa'
- Diego Rybski
- 'Jürgen P. Kropp'
bibliography:
- 'co2hdi-arxiv.bib'
date: ', arXiv version 02'
title: |
A Struggle for Reconciliation of\
Development and Climate Protection
---
Global [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emission budgets are useful to inform policy makers on the total greenhouse gases emissions permissible to achieve particular [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} atmospheric concentrations or global warming targets [@Meinshausen2009]. Although these approaches proved adequate for an international policy framework aimed at avoiding dangerous climate change [@Zickfeld2009], the allocation of emissions between developed and developing countries remains controversial [@Chakravarty2010; @Broecker2007]. In addition, the pressing challenge of climate change is said to require the participation of developing countries in the efforts to reduce [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions [@Elzen2008; @Chakravarty2010]. Nevertheless, the potential implications of such reductions on development standards remain unclear [@Cocklin2007]. This aspect deserves particular attention since it is expected that developing countries will extensively rely on fossil energy to fuel their development needs [@Bolin2001]. Estimating the necessary [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions for the achievement of concrete development goals therefore becomes necessary as a means to clarify the previous challenges in forthcoming climate negotiations.
We estimate future [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions based on the empirical relationship between HDI and [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions (see METHODS SUMMARY Section). The HDI is used as a summary measure reflecting the achievement of a country in three basic dimensions of human development: long healthy life, knowledge, and decent living standards. These dimensions are assessed based on the following indicators: life expectancy at birth, literacy rate of adults, gross enrolment rate, and gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity [@UNDP2008]. Despite being criticised, for example for treating income, health, and education as substitutes [@Neumayer2001], the HDI has an unquestionable role in raising the political profile of general health and educational policies [@Atkinson1997]. In addition, it has been consistently used by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as a reference index to measure and compare social and economic development within and between countries across time.
![ [**Correlations between HDI and [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions.**]{} [**a**]{}, HDI vs [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions in the year 2000 (all available countries, open circles). The dashed line represents a least squares fit through all values. The coefficient of determination is $R^2\simeq 0.81$ and the correlation coefficient is $\rho\simeq 0.90$. For some countries the values are shown explicitly with the various symbols detailed in the legend. [**b**]{}, Slope of regressions of HDI vs [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions for observed (filled symbols) and projected (open symbols) data. [**c**]{}, corresponding intercept values. The error bars are given by the standard errors.[]{data-label="fig:correlations"}](correlations3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:correlations\]a shows the [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions plotted against the corresponding HDI for countries with available data in the year 2000. The two quantities were found to be positively correlated in all years (1980-2006) with the correlation coefficients varying between a minimum of $0.89$ in 2005 and a maximum of $0.91$ in 2006. Since the emissions axis is logarithmic, we conclude that statistically the per capita [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions increase exponentially with the HDI. The dashed line represents the least squares fit to the data and we find that its slope and intercept systematically evolve in time as shown in Fig. \[fig:correlations\]b and c for the past and for our projections. This implies that in average, for a given HDI, the correspondent [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions decrease during the time frame under investigation (see Fig.\[fig:co2hdifits\] in Supplementary Information). Supported by the findings that no discernible decarbonising trends of energy supply among world regions can be identified [@Raupach2007] and no worldwide clean energy implementation foreseen [@Caldeira2003], our results reflect a near-future plausible world (2050) where [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions from fossil fuel combustion are still closely linked with human development. We therefore denote our approach as “Development As Usual” (DAU). Because no certainty exists about future models of development, the approach here followed reflects only one of multiple possible pathways for developing countries. favour what has been so far a western model of development, instead we just determine the associated [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions in the context of climate change targets.
By using the UNDP HDI threshold of 0.8 to differentiate countries with high human development from developing countries with medium and low human development [@UNDP2009], estimated global [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions were divided into two budgets. The first budget includes the emissions necessary for the development of countries with HDI below 0.8 while the second budget accounts for emissions occurring after development, this is, emissions from countries with HDI above 0.8. Emissions from countries carrying out a development transition (i.e., crossing the HDI threshold of 0.8 between 2000 and 2050) are added correspondingly to each budget. For example, we estimate India to achieve an HDI above 0.8 between the years 2035 and 2040. Until the HDI threshold is reached emissions are accounted to be necessary for development, from then on [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions from India are accounted to occur after development.
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:projections\] depicts the estimated cumulative emissions for three population scenarios from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report [@Alcamo2005] (see Supplementary Information) together with a set of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budgets for particular warming and concentration targets [@Broecker2007; @Meinshausen2009; @Wigley2007]. According to the DAU approach, global cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions by 2050 range from around 1700 up to 2300Gt with around 85% of the world’s population living in countries with an HDI above 0.8. When assessed on a per year basis, emissions range between 45.6 and 62.4Gt [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} in 2050 , which is within the range of recent projections using IPCC emissions scenarios [@Manning2010; @Nakicenovic2000].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Necessary for development\* [**200**]{} [**300**]{}
Emitted after development [**1500**]{} [**2000**]{}
[700]{} - [1000]{}
[800]{} - [1000]{}
Global [**1700**]{} - [**2300**]{}
By 2050
75% probability of not exceeding $2\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Meinshausen2009] (M75) [**1000**]{}
50% probability of not exceeding $2\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ [@Meinshausen2009] (M50) [**1400**]{}
By 2075
To limit [CO]{}$_2$ concentrations at 450ppm [@Broecker2007] (B450) [**1000**]{}
To limit [CO]{}$_2$ concentrations at 560ppm [@Broecker2007] [**2600**]{}
To limit [CO]{}$_2$ concentrations at 560ppm [@Wigley2007] [**3300**]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
Of a total of 165 countries, 104 were found to be developing countries (HDI below 0.8) in the year 2000. We estimate that between 200 and 300Gt of cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions will be necessary for developing countries to proceed with their development. In a DAU future, 61 developing countries are expected to overcome the HDI of 0.8 by 2050 (see Tab.\[tab:transitions\] in Supplementary Information for the complete list of countries) consuming roughly 98% of the above–mentioned 200-300Gt budget. The remaining 43 countries are likely to stay below the UNDP high human development threshold in the considered time frame. Total cumulative emissions occurring after development range from 1500 to 2000Gt of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{}. This amount is similarly divided among countries carrying out a development transition (700 to 1000Gt) and those whose development occurred before the year 2000 (800 to 1000Gt) as summarised in Tab \[tab:numbers\]. We found that emissions for development are very sensitive to the selected HDI score. The assumption that almost all developing countries want to achieve western developments styles would require setting the minimum development standard of a country to 0.9. In such a case, the emissions necessary for development by 2050 range from about 600 to 900 Gt of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{}. This range is higher by at least a factor of 3 than the values obtained for a HDI threshold of 0.8.
We further compare our estimates with previously calculated [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budgets for particular time frames, global warming targets and atmospheric [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} concentrations. We find that the emissions necessary for development consume up to 30% of the 1000Gt [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} limit for a 75% probability of keeping global warming below $2\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ by 2050, as calculated by Meinshausen *et al.* [@Meinshausen2009] and indicated as M75 in Fig. \[fig:projections\]. According to our projections, the 1000Gt budget limit by 2050 would already be exhausted around 2030 if human development proceeds as in the past. I the case that one adopts the [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} limit providing a 50% chance (M50) of staying below $2\,^{\circ}\mathrm{C}$ by 2050, then cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions necessary for development would still represent about 20% of the total budget. Similarly, the [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budget to stabilise atmospheric concentrations at 450ppm provided by Broecker [@Broecker2007] (indicated as B450 in Fig. \[fig:projections\]), would be exhausted within the next 20 years.
In a DAU world, we argue that up to 300Gt of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} represent a pre-condition for raising a considerable amount of developing countries (comprising HDI below 0.8 in the year 2000) to a minimum HDI of 0.8 in the year 2050. If development pathways proceed as in the past, resulting [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions will pose even tighter constraints on the achievement of the previously mentioned climate targets. Depending on mankind’s decision concerning acceptable levels of climate change and desirable human development goals, emissions necessary for development can represent substantial shares of the [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budgets here analysed (please see Tab \[tab:numbers\] for further [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} budgets). Since human development proved to be time- and country-dependent, in forthcoming climate negotiations we favour a differentiated and dynamic allocation scheme of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions based on human development achievements. Unlike in other approaches, such as in [@Meinshausen2007], here developing countries are not restricted in [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions until a particular human development threshold is reached. From then on the country is no longer considered to be developing, and should therefore engage on an adequate emissions reduction path. Independent of the emission reduction target, a fair allocation of emissions between developed and developing countries must consider the dependence between [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} and human development here discussed.
METHODS SUMMARY {#methods-summary .unnumbered}
===============
We estimate cumulative [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions during the period 2000 and 2050 from developed and developing countries based on the empirical relationship between [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions (due to fossil fuel combustion and cement production) and corresponding HDI. We choose not to include emissions from land use and other greenhouse gases since they were found not to be strongly correlated with personal consumption and national carbon intensities [@Chakravarty2010]. In addition, data of past [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} emissions from land use is uncertain due to the lack of historical data of both former ecosystem conditions and the extent of subsequent land use [@Rhemtulla2008].
In order to project per capita emissions of individual countries we make three assumptions which are detailed in the Supplementary Information (SI). First, we use logistic regressions to fit and extrapolate the HDI on a country level as a function of time. This is mainly motivated by the fact that the HDI is bounded between $0$ and $1$ and that it decelerates as it approaches $1$. Second, we employ for individual countries the correlations between [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions and HDI in order to extrapolate their emissions. This is an ergodic assumption, i.e. that the process over time and over the statistical ensemble is the same. Third, we let countries with incomplete data records evolve similarly as their close neighbours (in the emissions-HDI plane, see Fig. \[fig:correlations\]a) with complete time series of [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita emissions and HDI. Country–based emissions estimates are obtained by multiplying extrapolated [$\mathrm{CO}_2$]{} per capita values by population numbers of three scenarios extracted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report [@Alcamo2005].
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank M. Boettle, S. Havlin, A. Holsten, N. Kozhevnikova, D. Reusser, H.D. Rozenfeld and J. Sehring for discussions and comments. Furthermore, we thank A. Schlums for help with the manuscript. We also acknowledge the financial support from EU funded projects ENSURE (2008-2011) and BaltCICA (Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION (SI) {#supplementary-information-si .unnumbered}
==============================
Data
----
As detailed below, the analysed data consists of Human Development Index (HDI), CO$_2$ emissions per capita values, and Population numbers. In all cases the aggregation level is country scale. Both the HDI and the CO$_2$ data is incomplete, i.e. the values of some countries or years are missing. In addition, the set of countries with HDI or CO$_2$ data does not match 100% with the set of countries with population data (see Sec. \[sssec:limitations\]).
### Human Development Index (HDI) {#sssec:hdi}
The Human Development Index is provided by the United Nation Human Development Report 2009 and covers the period $1980$-$2007$ (in steps of 5 years until 2005, plus the years $2006$ and $2007$). The data is available for download [@hdidata] and is documented [@hdidocu].
The HDI is intended to reflect three dimensions of human development: (i) a long and healthy life, (ii) knowledge, and (iii) a decent standard of living. In order to capture the dimensions, four indicators are used: life expectancy at birth for “a long and healthy life”, adult literacy rate and gross enrolment ratio (GER) for “knowledge”, and GDP per capita (PPP US\$) for “a decent standard of living”. Each index is weighted with $1/3$ whereas the “adult literacy index” contributes $2/3$ to the education index (knowledge) and gross enrolment index $1/3$. An illustrative diagram can be found in [@UNDP2008].
### CO$_2$ emissions per capita
The data on CO$_2$ emissions per capita is provided by the World Resources Institute (WRI) $2009$ and covers the years $1960$-$2006$. The CO$_2$ emissions per capita are given in units of tons per year. It is available for download [@co2data] and is documented [@co2docu].
Carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) is transformed and released during combustion of solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels [@co2docu2]. In addition, CO$_2$ is emitted as cement is calcined to produce calcium oxide. The data does include emissions from cement production but estimates of gas flaring are included only from $1980$ to the present. The CO$_2$ emission values do not include emissions from land use change or emissions from bunker fuels used in international transportation [@co2docu2].
### Population {#sssec:datapop}
The population projections are provided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report 2001 and cover the period $2000$-$2100$ in steps of $5$ years (we only make use of the data until $2050$). The data is available for download [@popdata] and is documented [@popdocu]. We use the scenarios Adaptive Mosaic (AM), TechnoGarden (TG), and Global Orchestration (GO). We found minimal differences in our projections using the Order from Strength (OS) scenario and therefore disregard it.
The Adapting Mosaic scenario is based on a fragmented world resulting from discredited global institutions. It involves the rise of local ecosystem management strategies and the strengthening of local institutions [@popdocu].\
The TechnoGarden scenario is based on a globally connected world relying strongly on technology as well as on highly managed and often-engineered ecosystems to provide needed goods and services.\
The Global Orchestration scenario is based on a worldwide connected society in which global markets are well developed. Supra-national institutions are well established to deal with global environmental problems.\
### Notation
For a country $i$ at year $t$ we use the following quantities:
- Human Development Index (HDI): $d_{i,t}$
- CO$_2$ emissions per capita: $e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$\
in tons/(capitayear)
- CO$_2$ emissions: $e_{i,t}$\
in tons/year
- cumulative CO$_2$ emissions: $E_{i,t}$\
in tons
- population: $p_{i,t}$
Extrapolating CO$_2$ emissions {#ssec:co2project}
------------------------------
In this section we detail which empirical findings and assumptions are used to extrapolate per capita emissions of CO$_2$ and HDI values in a Development As Usual (DAU) approach. The projections are performed statistically, i.e. extrapolating regressions. Our approach is based on $3$ assumptions:
1. The Human Development Index, $d_{i,t}$, of all countries evolves in time following logistic regressions (Sec. \[sssec:extrahdi\]).
2. The Human Development Index and the logarithm of the CO$_2$ emissions per capita, $e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$, are linearly correlated (Sec. \[sssec:extraco2\]).
3. The changes of $d_{i,t}$ and $e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$ are correlated among the countries, i.e. countries with similar values comprise similar changes (Sec. \[sssec:extramis\]).
By Development As Usual we mean that the countries behave as in the past, with respect to these $3$ points. In particular, past behaviour may be extrapolated to the future.
It is impossible to predict how countries will develop and how much CO$_2$ will be emitted per capita. Accordingly, we are not claiming that the calculated extrapolations are predictions. We rather present a plausible approach which is supported by the development and the emissions per capita in the past. We provide the estimates consisting of projected HDI and emission values for download [@drdatadl].
### Extrapolating Human Development Index (HDI) {#sssec:extrahdi}
![ \[fig:hdicollaps\] Collapse of the HDI values based on logistic regression according to Eq. (\[eq:hdilogreg\]). We plot the HDI values of each country by using a transformed time $t^*=\frac{t+b_i}{a_i}$ so that the HDI values of all countries (open circles) fall, within their spreading, on the curve which is used to fit the data. The other symbols intend to highlight the countries exemplified in Fig. \[fig:correlations\] in the main text. The solid line corresponds to the function $d_{t} = \frac{1}{1+{\rm e}^{-t}}$. ](co2hdi_hdilogreg_collapse.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
We elaborate an evolution of the HDI values following a logistic regression [@HosmerL2000]. This choice is supported by the fact that the HDI is bounded to $0\le d_{i,t}\le 1$ and that the high HDI countries develop slowly. Therefore, we fit for each country separately $$\label{eq:hdilogreg}
\tilde{d}_{i,t} = \frac{1}{1+{\rm e}^{-a_it+b_i}}$$ to the available data (obtaining the parameters $a_i$ and $b_i$), whereas we only take into account those countries for which we have at least $4$ measurement points, which leads to regressions for $147$ countries out of $173$ in our data set. Basically, $a_i$ quantifies how fast a country develops and $b_i$ represents when the development takes place. Figure \[fig:hdicollaps\] in the SI represents a collapse (see e.g. [@MalmgrenSCA2009]) of the past HDI as obtained from the logistic regression. It illustrates how the countries have been developing in the scope of this approach.
Based on the obtained parameters, $a_i$ and $b_i$, we estimate the future HDI of each country assuming similar development trajectories as in the past. Table \[tab:transitions\] lists those countries which pass $d_{i,t}=0.8$ [@hdidocu] until $2051$ and provides periods when this is expected to happen according to our projections. Further, we expect from the extrapolations that before $2021$ more people will be living in countries with HDI above $0.8$ (see main text) than below. In addition, until $2051$ around $85$% will be living in countries with HDI above $0.8$.
---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --
2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047
2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051
Armenia $\bullet$
Colombia $\bullet$
Iran $\bullet$
Kazakhstan $\bullet$
Mauritius $\bullet$
Peru $\bullet$
Turkey $\bullet$
Ukraine $\bullet$
Azerbaijan $\bullet$
Belize $\bullet$
China $\bullet$
Dominican.Republic $\bullet$
El.Salvador $\bullet$
Georgia $\bullet$
Jamaica $\bullet$
Maldives $\bullet$
Samoa $\bullet$
Suriname $\bullet$
Thailand $\bullet$
Tonga $\bullet$
Tunisia $\bullet$
Algeria $\bullet$
Bolivia $\bullet$
Fiji $\bullet$
Honduras $\bullet$
Indonesia $\bullet$
Jordan $\bullet$
Sri.Lanka $\bullet$
Syrian.Arab.Republic $\bullet$
Turkmenistan $\bullet$
Viet.Nam $\bullet$
Cape.Verde $\bullet$
Egypt $\bullet$
Equatorial.Guinea $\bullet$
Guatemala $\bullet$
Guyana $\bullet$
Mongolia $\bullet$
Paraguay $\bullet$
Philippines $\bullet$
Kyrgyzstan $\bullet$
Nicaragua $\bullet$
Uzbekistan $\bullet$
Lao.People’s.Democratic.Republic $\bullet$
Morocco $\bullet$
Vanuatu $\bullet$
Botswana $\bullet$
India $\bullet$
Nepal $\bullet$
Bangladesh $\bullet$
Sao.Tome.and.Principe $\bullet$
Yemen $\bullet$
Bhutan $\bullet$
Ethiopia $\bullet$
Pakistan $\bullet$
Solomon.Islands $\bullet$
Uganda $\bullet$
---------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --
### Estimating CO$_2$ emissions per capita {#sssec:extraco2}
In Figure \[fig:correlations\] of the main text we find among the ensemble of countries correlations between the HDI, $d_{i,t}$, and the CO$_2$ emissions per capita, $e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$ (see also Fig. \[fig:co2hdiexpmis\] in the SI). We apply the exponential regression $$\label{eq:co2hdiexp}
\hat{e}^{(\rm c)}_{i,t} = {\rm e}^{h_{t} d_{i,t} + g_{t}}$$ to the country data by linear regression [@MasonGH1989] through $\log e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$ versus $d_{i,t}$ for fixed years $t$ and obtain the parameters $h_t$ and $g_t$ as displayed in the panels (b) and (c) of Fig. \[fig:correlations\] in the main text, respectively. In addition, we cross-checked the correlations between CO$_2$ emissions per capita and the individual components of the HDI, i.e. a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living (see Sec. \[sssec:hdi\]), and found similar correlations in all cases.
{width="70.00000%"}
We take advantage of these correlations and assume that the system is ergodic, i.e. that the process over time and over the statistical ensemble are the same. In other words, we assume that these correlations \[main text Fig. \[fig:correlations\], Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\])\] also hold for each country individually, and apply the exponential regression: $$\label{eq:co2hdiexpc}
\tilde{e}^{(\rm c)}_{i,t} = {\rm e}^{h_{i} d_{i,t}+g_{i}}
\enspace .$$ Thus, for each country, we obtain the parameters $h_i$ and $g_i$, characterising how its emissions per capita are related to its development (or vice versa). Note that while in Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\]) the year $t$ is fixed, leading to the time-dependent parameters $h_t$ and $g_t$, in Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexpc\]) the country $i$ is fixed, leading to the country-dependent parameters $h_i$ and $g_i$. This regression, Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexpc\]), is applied to $121$ countries for which sufficient data is available, i.e. at least $4$ pairs $e^{(\rm c)}_{i,t}$ and $d_{i,t}$. Based on extrapolated HDI values we then calculate the corresponding future emissions per capita estimates. Figure \[fig:top9tot\] in the SI shows for $9$ examples the past and extrapolated values of emissions per capita.
### Estimating values for missing countries {#sssec:extramis}
For $52$ countries out of $173$ the available data is not sufficient, i.e. there are not enough values to perform the regressions Eq. (\[eq:hdilogreg\]) or Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexpc\]). In order not to disregard these countries we take advantage of correlations, i.e. countries with similar HDI have on average similar changes of HDI as well as countries with similar emissions per capita have on average similar changes of emissions. In other words, in the $\ln e_{i,t}^{\rm (c)}$-$d_{i,t}$-plane, the countries behave similarly to their neighbourhood.
{width="70.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:correlations\]b and c in the main text also shows how the regressions to the emissions per capita versus the HDI evolve. The slope, $h_t$, becomes larger and the intercept, $g_t$, smaller. In both cases the standard error remains approximately the same, showing that the spreading of the cloud does not change. In other words, if the countries would develop independently from each other, then the error bars should increase with time.
{width="70.00000%"}
In order to further support this feature, in Fig. \[fig:co2hdicorr\] in the SI we show the correlations for both quantities. Thus, for each pair of countries $i$ and $j$ (that are in the set with sufficient data), we calculate $$\label{eq:hdicorr}
c_{i,j}(\Delta d) =
\frac{(\delta d_i-\langle\delta d\rangle)(\delta d_j-\langle\delta d\rangle)}
{\sigma^2_{\delta d}}
\enspace ,$$ where $\delta d_i=d_{i,2005}-d_{i,2000}$ is the difference in time, $\langle\delta d\rangle$ is the average of $\delta d$ among all countries providing enough data, and $\sigma^2_{\delta d}$ is the corresponding variance. In Fig. \[fig:co2hdicorr\](a) in the SI $c_{i,j}$ is plotted against $\Delta d_{i,j}=|d_{j,2000}-d_{i,2000}|$, the difference in space of the considered pair of countries. One can see that the correlations decay exponentially following $\tilde{c}_{i,j}(\Delta d)\approx {\rm e}^{-67.8 \Delta d -0.66}$. This indicates that countries that have similar HDI also develop similarly.
![ \[fig:co2hdifits\] Evolving correlations between CO$_2$ emissions per capita and HDI. The lines represent the linear regressions applied to the logarithm of CO$_2$ emissions per capita versus HDI for the past (solid lines) and our projections (dashed lines). The numbers at the right edge correspond to the $e_{i,t}$ for which the regressions cross $d_{i,t}=0.8$ in $1980$, $2005$ and projected for $2051$. ](correlations2.eps){width="0.80\columnwidth"}
For the emissions per capita we perform the analogous analysis, replacing $\delta d_{i}$ by $\delta \ln e_{i}^{\rm (c)}$ in Eq. (\[eq:hdicorr\]) and consequently in the quantities $\langle \ln \delta e^{\rm (c)} \rangle$, $\sigma^2_{\delta \ln e^{\rm (c)}}$, and $\Delta \ln e_{i,j}^{\rm (c)}$. In Fig. \[fig:co2hdicorr\](b) in the SI we obtain similar results as for the HDI. For the emissions, the correlations decay as $\tilde{c}_{i,j}(\Delta \ln e^{\rm (c)})\approx {\rm e}^{-1.82 \Delta \ln e^{\rm (c)}-2.27}$. For both, $\delta d_i$ and $\delta \ln e^{\rm (c)}$, the correlations were calculated between the years $2000$ and $2005$.
We take advantage of these correlations and use them to extrapolate $d_{i,t}$ and $e^{\rm (c)}_{i,t}$ by using the estimated correlation functions as weights. The change in development of a country $k$, belonging to the set of countries without sufficient data, we calculate with $$\delta d_{k} =
\frac{\sum_j \left( \tilde{c}_{k,j}(\Delta d) \delta d_{j} \right)}
{\sum_j \tilde{c}_{k,j}(\Delta d)}
\enspace ,$$ where the index $j$ runs over the set of countries with sufficient data. Then, the HDI in the following time step is $$d_{k,t+1}=d_{k,t}+\delta d_{k,t}
\enspace .$$ The analogous procedure is performed for the emissions per capita.
The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:co2hdiexpmis\] in the SI. For comparison, the panels (a) and (b) show the measured values for the years $2000$ and $2006$. The panels (c) to (g) exhibit the extrapolated values, whereas the black dots belong to the set of countries with sufficient data (only HDI-extrapolation and HDI-CO$_2$-correlations) and the brownish dots belong to the set of countries without sufficient data. In sum we can extrapolate the emissions for $172$ countries (for one there is no $2006$ emissions value). For most countries we obtain reasonable estimations (see also Sec. \[sssec:limitations\]). Panels (h) and (g) show the corresponding parameters $h_t$ and $g_t$ (slope and intercept). The extrapolated values follow the tendency of the values for the past, supporting the plausibility of this approach. Nevertheless, the standard errors increase in time, which indicates that the cloud of dots becomes slightly more disperse, i.e. weaker ensemble correlations between $e^{\rm (c)}_{i,t}$ and $d_{i,t}$.
Figure \[fig:co2hdifits\] in the SI summarises how the regressions – Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\]) to the cloud of points representing the countries – evolves in the past and according to our projections. Since the countries develop, the regression line moves towards larger values of the HDI and at the same time its slope becomes steeper. As a consequence, on average the per capita emissions of countries with $d_{i,t}\simeq 0.8$ decrease with time from approx. $5.2$tons per year in $1980$ to approx. $2.9$tons per year in $2005$ and we expect it to reach approx. $1.5$tons per year in $2051$.
### Uncertainty
In order to obtain an uncertainty estimate of our projections, we take into account the residuals of the regressions to the HDI versus time and CO$_2$ versus HDI. Thus, we calculate the root mean square deviations, $\sigma^{(d)}_i$ and $\sigma^{(e)}_i$, respectively. The upper and lower estimates of emissions per capita are then obtained from $$\tilde{d}_{i,t,(\pm)} = \frac{1}{1+{\rm e}^{-a_it+b_i \mp \sigma^{(d)}_i}}$$ and $$\tilde{e}^{(\rm c)}_{i,t,(\pm)} =
g_{i}{\rm e}^{h_{i} \tilde{d}_{i,t,(\pm)} \pm \sigma^{(e)}_i}
\enspace .$$ In a rough approximation, assuming independence of the deviations, the upper and lower bounds correspond to the range enclosing 90%.
The obtained ranges can be seen as gray bands in the Figs. \[fig:top9tot\] and \[fig:top9\], both in the SI. We find that the global cumulative CO$_2$ emissions between the years $2000$ and $2050$ discussed in the main text exhibit an uncertainty of approx. $12$% compared to the typical value, which also includes uncertainty due to the population scenarios (see Sec. \[sssec:datapop\] and Fig. \[fig:projections\] in the main text).
The global emissions we calculate for the years $2000$ and $2005$ (i.e. multiplying recorded CO$_2$ emissions per capita with recorded population numbers, see Sec. \[ssec:cumemi\]) are by less than $2$% smaller than those provided by the WRI [@co2data]. This difference, which can be understood as a systematic error, can have two origins. (i) Some countries are still missing. Either they are not included in the data at all, or they cannot be considered, such as when we multiply emissions per capita with the corresponding population and the two sets of countries do not match. (ii) The population numbers we use might differ from the ones WRI uses.
### Limitations {#sssec:limitations}
{width="70.00000%"}
Since countries with already large HDI can only have small changes in $d_{i,t}$, the emissions per capita also do not change much. For example, for Australia, Canada, Japan, and the USA we obtain rather stable extrapolations (Fig. \[fig:top9tot\] and \[fig:top9\], both in the SI). This could be explained by the large economies and the inertia they comprise.
In contrast, for some countries with comparably small populations, the extrapolated values of emissions per capita reach unreasonably high values, such as for Qatar or Trinidad&Tobago in Fig. \[fig:top9\] in the SI.
![ \[fig:polyfitw\] Correlations between CO$_2$ emissions per capita and HDI. For the year $2000$ three different ways of performing a regressions are exemplified: Solid line in the background: the regression when each country has the same weight. Dotted line: the countries have weights according to the logarithm of their population. Dashed line: the countries have weights according to their population. For comparison the five most populous countries are highlighted. ](co2hdi_polyfitw.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Since one may argue that countries with large populations should have more weight when fitting the per capita emissions versus the HDI, Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\]), in Fig. \[fig:polyfitw\] in the SI, for the year $2000$, we employ three ways of weighing. While the solid line is the same as in Fig. \[fig:co2hdiexpmis\](a) in the SI, the dotted line is a regression where the points are weighted with the logarithm of the country’s population. We found that it is almost identical to the unweighted one. In contrast, the dashed line is a regression where the points are weighted with the population of the countries (not their logarithm as before). The obtained regression differs from the other ones and as expected it is dominated by the largest countries (five of them are indicated in Fig. \[fig:polyfitw\] in the SI). However, this difference does not influence our extrapolations since we do not use the ensemble fit, Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\]), but instead regressions for individual countries, Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexpc\]).
### Enhanced development approach
In addition to the DAU approach, we also tested one of enhanced development where we force the countries with $d<0.8$ to reach an HDI of $0.8$ by $2051$. This can be done by parameterising the HDI-regression through two points, namely $d_{i,2006}$ and $d_{i,2050}=0.8$, instead of fitting Eq. (\[eq:hdilogreg\]). The corresponding emission values can then be estimated by following the ensemble fit, Eq. (\[eq:co2hdiexp\]), such as in Fig. \[fig:co2hdiexpmis\](a) and (b) in the SI. Nevertheless, since the relevant countries are rather small in population and still remain with comparably small per capita emissions, the difference in global emissions is minor, namely at most an additional $3$% (cumulative emissions until $2050$, GO population scenario). Thus, we do not further consider this enhanced development.
Cumulative emissions {#ssec:cumemi}
--------------------
To obtain the cumulative emission values, shown in Fig. \[fig:projections\] of the main text, we perform the following steps:
1. Estimate the emissions per capita, $e^{\rm (c)}_{i,t}$, according to the descriptions in Sec. \[ssec:co2project\].
2. \[it:step2\] Multiply the per capita emissions with the population of the corresponding countries, $e_{i,t}=e^{\rm (c)}_{i,t}\,p_{i,t}$, resulting in the total annual emissions of each country.
3. Calculate the cumulative emissions by integrating the annual emission values, $E_{i,t}=\sum_{\tau=t_0}^{t}e_{i,\tau}$, where we choose $t_0=2000$.
The intersection of the set of countries with projected per capita emission values with the set of countries with projected population values consists of $165$ countries.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Mueller Sánchez'
- 'R. I. Davies'
- 'F. Eisenhauer'
- 'L. J. Tacconi'
- 'R. Genzel'
- 'A. Sternberg'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: 'SINFONI adaptive optics integral field spectroscopy of the Circinus Galaxy [^1] '
---
Introduction
============
In the context of active galactic nuclei, star formation activity and the gas and stellar dynamics on scales of a few parsecs to a few tens of parsecs can be counted among the main debated issues. The unified model of active galaxies (see Lawrence [@lawrence] for a review) assumes that the inner region of Seyfert 2 galaxies is comprised of a dense circumnuclear torus that hides the nucleus and the broad-line region from our line of sight at near-infrared and optical wavelengths. The size scales on which models predict the canonical torus vary from an inner edge at 1 pc out to several tens of parsecs (Pier & Krolik [@pierandkrolik], Nenkova et al. [@nenkova], Schartmann et al. [@sch05]). These crucial size scales are exactly those that can be resolved with SINFONI in the nearest AGN.
The Circinus galaxy, at a distance of $4.2\pm0.8$ Mpc (Freeman et al. [@freeman]), is an ideal subject to study because of its proximity ($1\arcsec = 20$ pc). It is a large, highly inclined ($i=65 \degr$ Freeman et al. [@freeman]), spiral galaxy that hosts both a typical Seyfert 2 nucleus and a circumnuclear starburst on scales of 100–200pc (Maiolino et al. [@maio98]). Evidence for an obscured Seyfert 1 nucleus is provided by the finding of a broad ($\mathrm{FWHM} = 3300\, \mathrm{km s^{-1}}$) $\mathrm{H\alpha}$ line component in polarized light (Oliva et al. [@oliva98]). Their picture is also supported by recent X-ray observations. Those above 10 keV suggest direct X-ray detection of the nucleus through a column density of $4\times10^{24}\, \mathrm{cm^{-2}}$ (Matt et al. [@matt99]). The X-ray spectrum below 10 keV exhibits a flat continuum and a very prominent iron line, indicative of Compton scattering and fluorescent emission from gas illuminated by an obscured X-ray continuum source (Matt et al. [@matt96]). Circinus shows highly ionized gas extending along the minor axis of the galaxy, with a morphology that is reminiscent of the ionization cones seen in other Seyfert galaxies (Marconi et al. [@marconi94a]). H$_2$O maser emission has been detected, and the masing gas traces a thin accretion disk about 0.4 pc in radius, with, in addition, a fraction of the masers originating outside the disk, in what appears to be an outflow within $\sim$1 pc of the nucleus and aligned with the ionization cone (Greenhill et al. [@greenhill03]). Optical and near-infrared spectrophotometry of the nucleus show a typical Seyfert spectrum, including strong coronal lines (Oliva et al. [@oliva94]; Prieto et al. [@pri04]). There are also lines from H$_2$ and low-excitation ionic species, both believed to be associated with starforming regions. The distribution and kinematics of the Br$\gamma$ line have been interpreted in terms of ongoing star formation activity within a few tens of parsecs of the active nucleus (Maiolino et al. [@maio98]). A young stellar population with an age between $4\times10^7$ and $1.5\times10^8$ was found between these scales. Recent observations of the Circinus Galaxy in the range between $1-10\, \mu$m (Prieto et al. [@pri04]), resolve a $Ks$-band source with a FWHM of $\sim2$ pc and a spectral energy distribution compatible with a dust temperature of 300 K.
This paper presents high-resolution, nearly diffraction-limited integral field spectroscopic data of the Circinus galaxy in the $K$-band observed with the adaptive optics (AO) assisted imaging spectrograph SINFONI ([@bon04], [@eis03b]). The physical scale associated with our spatial resolution is 4pc, allowing us to investigate the properties of the nucleus and its interaction with the circumnuclear environment, highlighting the relationship between star formation and galactic nuclear activity.
We describe our observations and the data reduction procedure in Sect. \[observations\]. Sect. \[results\] describes the features observed in the spectrum of the galaxy and the methods we used to estimate the spatial resolution of our observations. In Sect. \[dustemission\] we analyze the morphology of the nuclear source and the origin of the observed $K$-band continuum. Sect. \[starformation\] discusses the morphologies of the emission and the absorption, and the age of the starburst at the nucleus. Then, in Sect. \[kinematics\] we discuss the kinematics of the emission and the mass distribution in the galaxy. Following these results, Sect. \[density\] deals with the gas density at the nucleus and the physical characteristics of the torus. A study of the detected coronal lines is presented in Sect. \[coronal\], and we present our conclusions in Sect. \[concl\].
Observations and data reduction {#observations}
===============================
The data presented here were obtained on 15 Jul 2004 during commissioning of SINFONI ([@bon04; @eis03b]) on the VLT UT4. The instrument consists of a cryogenic near infrared integral field spectrometer SPIFFI ([@eis03a]) coupled to a visible curvature adaptive optics (AO) system ([@bon03]). SINFONI performs imaging spectroscopy by cutting the two-dimensional field of view into 32 slices and then rearranging each of the slices (slitlets) onto a one-dimensional pseudo longslit, which is dispersed by a grating wheel and at last the spectra are imaged on the detector.
The AO module was able to correct on the nucleus of Circinus (for which it measured R=14.1mag) in seeing of $\sim$0.5, to reach a resolution of 0.2 in the $K$-band (see Section \[dustemission\]). This performance is good considering that the optical nucleus of Circinus is rather extended rather than point-like. With the appropriate pixel scale selected, the spectrograph was able, in a single shot, to obtain spectra covering the whole of the $K$-band (approximately 1.95–2.45 $\mathrm{\mu m}$) at a spectral resolution of $R\sim4200$ for each $0.0125\arcsec\times0.025\arcsec$ pixel in a $0.80\arcsec\times0.80\arcsec$ field of view. A total of 6 sky and 6 on-source exposures of 300sec each were combined to make the final data cube with a total integration time of 1800sec.
The data were reduced using the SINFONI custom reduction package SPRED (Abuter et al. [@abuter05]). This performs all the usual steps needed to reduce near infrared spectra, but with the additional routines for reconstructing the data cube. Following subtraction of the sky frames from the on-source frames, the data were flatfielded and corrected for dead/hot pixels. The data were then interpolated to linear wavelength and spatial scales, after which the slitlets were aligned and stacked up to create a cube. Finally the atmospheric absorption was compensated using the A0V star HD190285. Flux calibration was performed by comparison to the high spatial resolution broad band K$_s$ image and photometry obtained with NAOS-CONICA of 11.4 mag in a 0.38aperture (Prieto et al. [@pri04]), which was also cross-checked with 2MASS photometry.
No additional point-spread function (PSF) calibration frames using stars were taken. This is primarily because, although in principle one can match the brightness of a calibration star on the wavefront sensor to the AGN, it is not possible to replicate either the spatial extent of the AGN or the background galaxy light associated with it – resulting in a potentially considerable mismatch between the science and calibration PSFs ([@dav04]). The spatial resolution has instead been measured using the methods described in Section \[psf\].
[Spectroscopic features and spatial resolution]{} {#results}
=================================================
-------------------------- -------------------- ----------------------------------
Line $\lambda^a$ Flux$^b$
($\mathrm{\mu m}$) ($10^{-18}$ $\mathrm{W m^{-2}}$)
$\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0S(3) 1.9576 6.0
$\mathrm{[Si}$[vi]{}\] 1.9634 53.9
$\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0S(2) 2.0338 3.8
$\mathrm{[Al}$[ix]{}\] 2.040 10.0
$\mathrm{[He}$[i]{}\] 2.0587 5.0
$\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0S(1) 2.1218 9.0
$\mathrm{Br\gamma}$ 2.1661 14.1
$\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0S(0) 2.2233 3.4
$\mathrm{[Ca}$[viii]{}\] 2.3213 36.9
$\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0Q(1) 2.4066 3.4
-------------------------- -------------------- ----------------------------------
: Measured nuclear emission line fluxes for Circinus. All measurements are given for a 0.8 circular aperture centered on the continuum peak.[]{data-label="fluxes"}
$^a$ Wavelengths are in the rest frame\
$^b$ Uncertainities are approximately $3.2\times10^{-20}$ $\mathrm{W m^{-2}}$\
The purpose of this section is to present general results extracted from the data to provide an overview of the features observed in the nuclear region of Circinus. A more detailed analysis is given in subsequent sections.
Spatial Resolution {#psf}
------------------
A good way to estimate the spatial resolution is by using a broad line in the spectrum, such as a potential observation of Br$\gamma$ emission from the BLR, which at the distance of Circinus is expected to be spatially unresolved. This has the advantage of measuring the spatial resolution directly from the science frames, and includes all effects associated with shifting and combining the cube. Nevertheless, as can be seen in Figure \[spectrumcircinus\], we have detected only narrow lines, which are spatially resolved in our observations. As a result, and due to the lack of other point sources in the field, we used indirect means to derive our spatial resolution, making use of a NACO image of the galaxy from Prieto et al. ([@pri04]) which contains unresolved star clusters over a field of view of $27\arcsec\times27\arcsec$. Two approaches were used to estimate the PSF of our observations by means of the NACO image. One method of estimating the SINFONI PSF effectively consists of deconvolving the SINFONI continuum image with the intrinsic image of the galaxy, since: $$%\begin{equation}
\mathrm{IM_S} =
\mathrm{PSF_S} \otimes
\mathrm{IM_{intr}}
%\end{equation}$$ where IM$\mathrm{_S}$ is the Circinus image from SINFONI, PSF$\mathrm{_S}$ is the point spread function, and IM$\mathrm{_{intr}}$ is the intrinsic image of the galaxy. We obtained the intrinsic image in a similar way, by first deconvolving the NACO image with the NACO PSF. In the NACO image, the smooth underlying galaxy profile was approximated by isophotal analysis using the isophote package from IRAF. This was then subtracted, leaving only the compact sources in the field. The narrowest point in this subtracted image was used as the NACO PSF, which was measured directly to have 0.14 FWHM. The deconvolution of the NACO image with its PSF was performed using the Lucy algorithm (Lucy [@lucy74]) also implemented in IRAF. This deconvolved image was rebinned to our pixel scale of 0.0125/pix. For the final stage, instead of deconvolving IM$\mathrm{_S}$ with IM$\mathrm{_{intr}}$, we fit the SINFONI image with the intrinsic image convolved with the parameterized PSF$\mathrm{_S}$. This avoids the noise amplification which is an inherent feature of deconvolution. The PSF$\mathrm{_S}$ could be well matched by a symmetrical moffat function. Mismatches were minimized by varying the parameters (center, scale, $\alpha$ and $\beta$) of a moffat function defined as $\mathrm{I}(r) = \big(1+(\frac{r}{\alpha})^2\big)^{-\beta}$ and then performing a $\chi^2$ minimization test, resulting in a FWHM spatial resolution of $0.20\arcsec$ ($\sim 3.9$ pc) with $\alpha=0.148\arcsec$ and $\beta=1.8$ for this method. An elliptical moffat function was also tested as a possible PSF for our observations. However, this did not improve significantly the fit and so was discarded.
In order to avoid the first deconvolution of the method described above, the second approach to derive the SINFONI PSF consists of convolving the NACO PSF with a parameterized degradation function, the latter being obtained by fitting the SINFONI image with the NACO image convolved with the same function. A symmetrical moffat function was used as degradation function. Once again, mismatches were minimized by varying the parameters of the moffat function and then performing a $\chi^2$ minimization. The SINFONI PSF was obtained by convolving the NACO PSF with the degradation function. The final FWHM resolution estimated in this way was $0.22\arcsec$ ($\sim 4.2$ pc) with $\alpha=0.219\arcsec$ and $\beta=3.2$.
The confidence on the resulting PSF for both cases was evaluated by the residual of the fitting the following function which considers the difference between the data and model, weighted according the flux in each pixel, and normalised by the total flux in the frame: $$%\begin{equation}
\textrm{Residual}=\frac{\sqrt{\sum((\textrm{IM$_{\rm S}$}-\textrm{Model})^2 \cdot
\textrm{IM$_{\rm S}$})}}{\left(\sum(\textrm{IM$_{\rm S}$})\right)^{1.5}} \cdot 100
%\end{equation}$$ where $IM_{\rm S}$ is the SINFONI continuum image as above and $Model$ is our constructed image – either the intrinsic galaxy profile convolved with the SINFONI PSF, or the NACO image convolved with the degradation function. The numerator is the quantity minimized during the fit, which was then normalized using the integrated image of the continuum. The residual of the fit in both cases was evaluated as $0.1\%$, indicating that both methods performed equally well in estimating the PSF. We chose to adopt the PSF obtained by the second approach because no deconvolution is performed.
Distribution of emission and absorption features {#spectrum}
------------------------------------------------
In Figure \[spectrumcircinus\] we present a spectrum of Circinus at a spectral resolution of $R\sim4200$, integrated over a 0.8square aperture centered on the nucleus. The most prominent of the emission lines are the coronal lines \[Si[vi]{}\] at 1.96 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ and the \[Ca[viii]{}\] at 2.32 $\mathrm{\mu m}$. We also detect the \[Al[ix]{}\] 2.04 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ line, first mentioned by Maiolino et al. ([@maio98]). In addition to these high excitation lines, the $\mathrm{H_2}$ 1-0S(1) 2.12 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ and $\mathrm{Br\gamma}$ 2.17 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ emission lines are clearly recognizable. The line fluxes, which are presented in Table \[fluxes\], are comparable to previous measurements (Maiolino et al. [@maio98]).
The $K$-band flux density, calculated from the continuum image shown in Figure \[linemaps\] within an aperture of 0.8 is $3.1\times10^{-14}$ $\mathrm{W m^{-2}}$ $\mathrm{\mu m}^{-1}$ (approximately 50mJy). The stellar features, traced by the CO bandheads, are also distinguishable in the spectrum. However, not all of the stellar features are diagnostically useful. For example, the $^{12}$CO(3-1) band is partially filled by the \[Ca[viii]{}\] emission line, and the rest of the bandheads with wavelengths longer than 2.34 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ are affected by residual atmospheric features or other emission lines. Therefore, only the $^{12}$CO(2-0) band was useful to extract information about the fraction of the nuclear flux that is indeed stellar.
Images of the 2.2-$\mathrm{\mu m}$ continuum and the Br$\gamma$, $\mathrm{H_2}$ (1-0)S(1), \[Ca[viii]{}\], and \[Si[vi]{}\] line emission, as well as the $^{12}$CO(2-0) bandhead flux are presented in Figure \[linemaps\]. The location of the nucleus, as defined by the centroid of the continuum emission, has been marked with an encircled cross in all maps. This source is offset by $\sim0.15\arcsec$ to the south-east of the peak of the Br$\gamma$ and H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line emission as well as of the stellar light. Such an offset is consistent with the results of Prieto et al. ([@pri04]) who found that the center of the $K$-band radiation is located at $\sim0.15\arcsec$ south-east of the brightest central emission seen in the $J$-band and HST F814W images. In contrast to these authors who argued that the $K$-band source is fully obscured at shorter wavelengths and that the emission at these shorter wavelengths is due to nuclear light scattered by the compact dusty structure surrounding the Circinus nucleus, our results suggest a different interpretation because the offset remains even in the $K$-band but only for particular components of the line and continuum emission. We argue that, at least for near infrared emission, the offset arises because the star formation is centered $\sim$0.15 to the north west of the non-stellar continuum peak. The issue of extinction is addressed further in Section \[density\].
Nuclear dust emission {#dustemission}
=====================
The observed equivalent width of the $^{12}$CO(2-0) bandhead was used to obtain the fraction of the nuclear flux from the stars in this region, by assuming that the intrinsic (i.e. purely stellar) equivalent width in the nuclear region must be consistent with values predicted by the models created with the stellar population synthesis code STARS ([@ste98; @tho00], Davies et al. [@dav03]). We used the measured flux of the $^{12}$CO(2-0) band to estimate the amount of non-stellar continuum using the equation: $$%\begin{equation}
1-D = \frac{EW_{\mathrm{obs}}}{EW_{\mathrm{intr}}}
%\end{equation}$$ where $D$ is the dilution factor, that is the ratio of stellar to total continuum, and $EW_{\mathrm{obs}}$ and $EW_{\mathrm{intr}}$ are the observed and intrinsic stellar equivalent widths respectively. The intrinsic equivalent width is nearly independent of star formation history for any ensemble of stars as predicted by the STARS models, having an almost constant value of $\sim12$Å assuming solar metallicity (Davies et al. [@davies06]). The observed stellar equivalent width in the central 0.8 was found to be $\sim$1.8Å, implying that $\sim$85% of the total nuclear $K$-band luminosity in this region originates from the non-stellar component, a fraction that increases on smaller scales. In Figure \[profiles1\], the $K$-band continuum azimuthally averaged radial surface brightness profile is plotted along with those of the PSF and stellar and non-stellar components. The stellar component represents the radial profile of the stellar absorption bandhead $^{12}$CO(2-0) image in Fig. \[linemaps\]. All profiles are normalized to their respective peak values; and the stellar profile is centered 0.15 north west of the non-stellar profile. The predominance of the non-stellar component on these scales is vividly demonstrated by the similarity of the non-stellar and total $K$-band profiles, as well as by the red spectral slope in Fig. \[spectrumcircinus\].
Such nuclear $K$-band emission is interpreted as thermal radiation from hot dust which is heated by the intense UV and X-ray radiation emitted by the Seyfert nucleus. It is often assumed that the dust is close to the sublimation limit ($\sim1600$K) since it is the hottest emission which will have the greatest impact in the near infrared. However, the slope of the nuclear spectrum in the $K$-band indicates a temperature (unreddened) closer to 740K, similar to that found for NGC1068 by Thatte et al. ([@thatte97]), but significantly more than the 300K derived by Prieto et al. ([@pri04]) from modelling the broad band colours. Since the spectral range of the $K$-band is smaller than the 1–10$\mu$m interval used by Prieto et al. ([@pri04]), the spectral slopes in these ranges are different, but nevertheless compatible. The estimated temperature of $\sim$700K from the $K$-band continuum characterizes only the hottest dust, while 300K dust would dominate the mid-infrared SED.
As can be seen from Figure \[profiles1\], the non-stellar $K$-band source is marginally resolved. Indeed, a quadrature correction of its FWHM ($\sim 0.3 \arcsec$) with that of the PSF yields an intrinsic size of $\sim 0.2 \arcsec$ (3.9 pc). The factor of 2 discrepancy with the size reported by Prieto et al. ([@pri04]) arises primarily from the spatial resolution estimated in the NACO data. Compared to their 0.16 our estimate is 0.14, which would give a source size of $\sim0.15\arcsec$. This emphasises the difficulty of estimating the intrinsic size of only marginally resolved sources. Within the uncertainty of about 0.05, the sizes are consistent with each other and with those predicted by the torus models (Pier & Krolik [@pierandkrolik], [@pie93]; Nenkova et al. [@nenkova]) in which the inner edge of the dust torus lies $\sim$1 pc away from the AGN.
Nuclear star formation {#starformation}
======================
Images of the Br$\gamma$ and H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line emission, which are often associated with star formation, are presented in Figure \[linemaps\]. As the AGN is highly obscured (see Oliva et al. [@oliva98] and Matt et al. [@matt96], [@matt99]), no broad line region is visible. Several lines of evidence suggest that the Br$\gamma$ emission is associated with star formation activity surrounding the Seyfert nucleus rather than the narrow line region and ionisation cone. These are the similarity of the morphologies of the Br$\gamma$, $^{12}$CO(2-0), and H$_2$ 1-0S(1) emission: the $^{12}$CO(2-0) is only slightly more extended than the two lines, and all three are offset to the north west. Additional support is provided by the consistency and uniformity of the Br$\gamma$ and H$_2$1-0S(1) velocity fields and dispersion maps (see Section \[kinematics\] and Figure \[velmaps\]). In particular, the velocity field of the Br$\gamma$ has a gradient matching that of the galaxy’s major axis rather than showing signs of outflow along the minor axis. We note in fact that the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) appears to be slightly more extended than the Br$\gamma$, particularly at weaker levels westwards in the direction of the ionization cone (Maiolino et al. [@maio98]); and it is only in this region that there are significant differences between their velocity fields, with the 1-0S(1) showing signs of outflow. Figure \[profiles2\] shows the azimuthally averaged surface brightness radial profiles of the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) and narrow Br$\gamma$ emission lines and the $^{12}$CO(2-0) stellar absorption bandhead.
Both an exponential profile and $r^{1/4}$ de Vaucouleurs profile provide good matches to each of these. We prefer to parameterise the profile with the former, because of the clear evidence of a circumnuclear disk from the existence of certain features (namely a bar, Maiolino et al. [@maio00]; and a ring, Marconi et al. [@marconi94b]). At these scales, less than 20 pc, the Br$\gamma$, and H$_2$ 1-0S(1) data are characterised by a disk-scale length $r_{\mathrm{d}}$ = $4^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ pc. Due to the symmetry in the morphology of the Br$\gamma$, and H$_2$ 1-0S(1) profiles, the profiles were not corrected for inclination. This would perhaps be a surprising result for an inclined disk, but indeed the kinematics and simulations suggest that the thickness of the disk plays an important part in the observed morphology: a disk inclined at 65$^\circ$ with a thickness of only 4pc FWHM – equivalent to an exponential scale height of 1.7pc – is consistent with the symmetrical morphology. We return to this point in Section \[kinematics\] where we discuss the kinematics in more detail. The complex morphology of the stellar component was analyzed in more detail by several simulations. Since the observed stellar luminosity is expected to be produced by several clusters, simulations were carried out in order to study the way the clusters superpose to create the observed complex morphology. In the simulations each cluster was defined by two parameters: its position inside the field, and its mass. The positions were assigned randomly following the radial distribution of the stellar component in Fig. \[profiles2\], so that the probability of finding a cluster in any position depends on an exponential profile slightly more extended than the line emission. For the mass distribution, systems of young clusters, including super star clusters which are preferentially found at the very heart of starbursts, appear to be well represented by a power law mass and luminosity function with $\alpha=-2$. The range of masses was from $1\times10^3$ to $3\times10^5$ $M_{\sun}$ which are typical values for star clusters (Meurer et al. [@meurer95]). Each cluster was characterized by a two dimensional Gaussian function with FWHM = 0.2$\arcsec$, our spatial resolution. The clusters were generated randomly over a circular field of 0.5$\arcsec$ radius. According to the mass distribution, a mass was assigned to each of them until the observed stellar mass in the region was reached, namely $1\times10^6$ $M_{\sun}$ (see below). Each cluster had the same mass-to-light ratio. The summation of all clusters over the whole field yields the overall morphology of the stellar component. Fig. \[SC\_simulations\] shows the results of the simulations. It can be seen from Fig. \[SC\_simulations\] that when massive star clusters are present in the field, the clumpiness of the whole set increases. On the other hand, for a low mass distribution the field remains uniform and symmetric, and therefore the clumpiness decreases.
The observed morphology in Fig. \[SC\_simulations\] can be best reproduced by a set of star clusters with a mass distribution ranging from $1\times10^3$ to $5\times10^4$ $M_{\sun}$, or alternatively a constant mass with value of $1\times10^4$ $M_{\sun}$, although other scenarios cannot be excluded . Our simulations indicate that the observed complexity and asymmetry of the morphology of the stellar component could easily arise from the superposition of a number of star clusters with typical mass $10^4$ $M_{\sun}$.
We determine the age of the star formation by means of two diagnostics: the intrinsic equivalent width of the Br$\gamma$ line and the supernova rate to stellar $K$-band luminosity ratio ($\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$) in the nuclear region. These provide independent information on the star formation history, the former representing the number of hot young blue supergiant stars and the latter the number of supernova remnants, both normalised to the number of later type red giant and supergiant stars. By comparing the two diagnostics to models, the age of the starburst can be satisfactorily constrained. The $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$ was estimated from the observed Br$\gamma$ flux and the stellar continuum (i.e. corrected for dilution by subtracting the continuum contribution from hot dust), resulting in $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$ = 30 Å in a $0.8\arcsec$ aperture. The supernova rate $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$ was obtained using the empirical relation presented in Condon ([@condon92]) with a spectral index $\alpha = 0.1$ (as measured between 5 and 8.64 GHz), and a flux density at 8.64 GHz of $S_{10}$ = 12 mJy, resulting in a value of $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$ = 2.21$\times 10^{-4}$ yr$^{-1}$. The radio flux density was calculated by means of the 1resolution radio image from Davies et al. ([@davies98]). The flux density at 8.64 GHz was summed over an aperture of $0.8\arcsec$, to be consistent with our fluxes, giving 14 mJy. Then the thermal contribution was calculated as given in Condon ([@condon92]) for a standard electron temperature of 1$\times 10^4$ K. The resulting 2 mJy was subtracted from the total flux density at 8.64 GHz. Dividing $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$ found in this way by the stellar $K$-band luminosity $L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ of $1.5\times 10^6$ $L_{\sun}$ found after multiplying the observed $K$-band luminosity $L_{\mathrm{K}}$ by the dilution factor $D$, yielded a ratio of 1.5$\times 10^{-10}$ $L_{\sun}^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$.
We have used the evolutionary synthesis code STARS ([@ste98; @tho00], Davies et al. [@dav03]) to determine the star formation history assuming an exponentially decaying star formation rate of the form $exp(-t/t_{scl})$, where $t_{scl}$ is the burst decay time scale and $t$ is the age of the star cluster. We make the standard assumptions of solar metallicity, and a Salpeter IMF of slope $\alpha = -2.35$ in the range 1–120 $M_{\sun}$. An important advantage of this model is that it allows us to study not only instantaneous and continuous scenarios, but also finite star formation timescales.
We obtain different ages for the starburst depending on the timescale of the star formation. We consider 4 timescales: continuous star formation with $t_{scl} = 10^{9}$yr, an instantaneous burst with $t_{scl} = 10^{6}$yr, and two intermediate scenarios with $t_{scl} = 10^{7}$ and $10^8$yr. First, we compared the calculated intrinsic Br$\gamma$ equivalent width with that from STARS. Figure \[starburstmodels\] shows the evolution of $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$, $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$, $M_*$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ and $L_{\mathrm{bol}}^*$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ as functions of cluster age for each model. It can be seen from this figure that $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$ alone cannot constrain the age since all scenarios are plausible. Using the ratio $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ together with $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$, we note that within the central $R<8$ pc, the constant and the instantaneous star formation models do not fit completely both of the observational constraints ($EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$ = $30$Å and $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ = $1.47\times10^{-10}$ $L_{\sun}^{-1}$ yr$^{-1}$).
The star formation timescales $t_{scl} = 10^7$ and $t_{scl} = 10^8$yr do fit these constrains from the intersections points at $2\times 10^7$ and $8\times 10^7$yr respectively. While the data are consistent with these two scenarios, the shorter timescale would require a degree of fine-tuning, particularly since the supernovae responsible for the radio conntinuum are only just beginning to appear and $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$ is decaying relatively quickly. Thus there is only a small range of possible ages for this timescale. At an age of 80Myr, the constraints give rise to a wider range of allowed ages, suggesting this is the more likely scenario. Crucially, in either case the data indicate the presence of a young stellar population within a few parsecs of the active nucleus which is now less than half as intense as when it began.
For the preferred star formation scenario given above we find a current mass to $K$-band luminosity ratio of $\sim$0.6$M_\odot/L_\odot$, yielding a stellar mass of $M_*$ $\approx$ $1\times 10^6$ $M_{\sun}$. Another important parameter to analyze is the bolometric luminosity attributable to the nuclear star formation. Figure \[starburstmodels\] shows the evolution of the bolometric luminosity to $K$-band luminosity ratio for an ensemble of stars. From this Figure we obtain $L_{\mathrm{bol}}^*$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ $\approx$ 150. By multiplying this ratio by the observed stellar $K$-band luminosity of $L_{\mathrm{K}}^* = 1.5\times 10^6$ $L_{\sun}$, we find that the star formation in this region has $L_{\mathrm{bol}}^*$ = $2.3\times 10^8$ $L_{\sun}$ and accounts for $1.4\%$ of the bolometric luminosity of the entire galaxy ($L_{\mathrm{bol}}$ = $1.7\times 10^{10}$ $L_{\sun}$, Maiolino et al. [@maio98]).
Let us now assume a screen extinction of $A_{\mathrm{V}}$ = 9 mag, as suggested by Maiolino et al. ([@maio98]) for the nuclear region. Since $A_{\mathrm{K}}$ $\approx$ $A_{\mathrm{V}} / 10$ (Howarth [@howarth83]), $L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ is $\sim$2 times that observed. This consideration has no effect on the $EW(\mathrm{Br\gamma})$, but it reduces the $\nu_{\mathrm{SN}}$/$L_{\mathrm{K}}^*$ by a factor of two. This new constraint does not change the prefered star formation scenario, still suggesting that the star formation is very young. The bolometric luminosity attributable to the nuclear star formation in this case would be $L_{\mathrm{bol}}^*$ = $4.5\times 10^8$$L_{\sun}$.
A perhaps more physical model than screen extinction is mixed extinction, where the dust and gas are uniformly mixed with the stars. In either case, the near infrared color excess is defined as $$%\begin{equation}
E_{H-K} = -2.5\log\bigg[\frac{I_H/I_{0H}}{I_K/I_{0K}}\bigg]
%\end{equation}$$ where, $I_H$ and $I_K$ are the observed intensities in the two bands, and $I_{0H}$ and $I_{0K}$ are the intrinsic intensities. One can then use either $I_\lambda/I_{0\lambda} = e^{-\tau_\lambda}$ for the screen model or $I_\lambda/I_{0\lambda} = (1-e^{-\tau_\lambda})/\tau_\lambda$ for the mixed model to derive the optical depth. With the usual wavelength scaling that $\tau_{\rm V} = 5.5\tau_{\rm H} = 9.7\tau_{\rm K}$ one can then estimate the optical depth in the visual. The near infrared excess $E_{H-K} = 0.45$–0.60 reported by Maiolino et al. ([@maio98]) then implies an extinction, after accounting for the galactic foreground, of $\tau_{\rm V} = 4.4$–6.2 for the screen model, and $\tau_{\rm V} = 12$–25 for the mixed model, similar to the estimate of Prieto et al. ([@pri04]). We note also that for the mixed model, the colour excess will saturate because if $\tau_\lambda$ is greater than a few, $I_\lambda/I_{0\lambda} \sim 1/\tau_\lambda$ so that the excess becomes $E_{H-K} \sim -2.5\log{\tau_K/\tau_H}$. The limiting value of $E_{H-K} = 0.6$ is consistent with the upper end of the measured range, suggesting that greater extinctions cannot be ruled out. We can, nevertheless, impose a very strong limit on the maximum possible extinction: the intrinsic luminosity from this nuclear star formation cannot exceed the galaxy’s bolometric luminosity ($L_\mathrm{bol}^{*,nuc} < L_{\mathrm{bol}}$). The lower limit, that $L_\mathrm{bol}^{*,nuc} > L_\mathrm{bol}/75$, comes from the starburst model under the assumption of no extinction. The actual value of $L_\mathrm{bol}^{*,nuc}$ is governed by the scaling of the starburst model. And this scaling depends directly on the ratio between the intrinsic and observed fluxes in the waveband where it is determined. Since the ratio between the intrinsic $K$-band and bolometric luminosities of the nuclear stellar component is fixed by the starburst model, it follows that the intrinsic $K$-band stellar luminosity must be less than 75 times the observed $K$-band stellar luminosity. Assuming a mixed model, one has $I_K/I_{0K} \sim 1/\tau_{\rm K}$, implying that $\tau_{\rm K} \sim 75$, equivalent to $\tau_{\rm V} \sim 750$. A more meaningful, although less robust, limit is found if one excludes the circumnuclear star formation which Maiolino et al. ([@maio98]) estimated to account for $\sim10^{10}$L$_\odot$. In this case $L_{\mathrm{bol}}$/$L_{\mathrm{bol}}^{*,nuc} < 30$ and the maximum optical depth would be of order $\tau_{\rm V} \sim 300$. Although these limits are large, they are important and further discussion on the extinction will be presented in Section \[density\].
Gas kinematics and mass in the nuclear region {#kinematics}
=============================================
In Figure \[velmaps\] the projected velocity maps of the H$_2$ and the Br$\gamma$ lines are presented, as well as the difference in the velocity fields of the two lines. The maps for both emission lines are broadly consistent, exhibiting a gradual increase in velocity from north to south along a position angle (P.A.) of $\sim18\degr$ for the Br$\gamma$ and $\sim25\degr$ (excluding the righthand side, see below) for the 1-0S(1). Given the typical uncertainty of 5–10$\degr$ in each of these, they are consistent. They are the same as the galaxy’s major axis (Freeman et al. [@freeman]), a strong indication of pure galaxy rotation, and suggesting that there are no warps in the galaxy down to scales at least as small as a few parsecs. At smaller scales (from 0.1 to $\sim$0.4 pc), the maser emission traces a warped, edge-on accretion disk, which changes the P.A. from $\sim$29$\degr$ at 0.1pc to $\sim$56$\degr$ at 0.4 pc (Greenhill et al. [@greenhill03]). Our results suggest that at larger scales ($\sim$1 pc), possibly at the starting point of the torus, the galaxy’s position angle has reverted back to $\sim$25$\degr$.
The fact that the P.A. for the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) velocity field appears to be greater is due primarily to the change in velocity gradient in a 0.3strip along the western edge of the map; excluding this region, the difference between the maps is statistically insignificant (see Figure \[velmaps\] right image). The western region coincides with the extension of emission in the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) flux map and seems likely to be associated with a molecular outflow in (or at the edge of) the ionisation cone, perhaps radiatively driven by the AGN. It is important to notice that the observed velocity field of the Br$\gamma$ line is clearly different to the one expected if it was associated with the NLR of the AGN, which would exhibit an increase in velocity in the western direction along the minor axis of the galaxy, as an outflow in the ionisation cone.
By correcting the velocity maps for inclination ($i$ = 65$\degr$), we find a rotation velocity of 75kms$^{-1}$ at 8 pc from the nucleus. The velocity dispersion of the stars in the nuclear region is almost constant with a value of $\sigma_{\mathrm{obs}}$ $\approx$ 80kms$^{-1}$. By correcting the measured dispersion for the instrumental resolution corresponding to $\sigma_{\mathrm{inst}} \approx 32$ km $s^{-1}$, we obtain an intrinsic dispersion of $\sigma_{\mathrm{z}}$ $\approx$ 70kms$^{-1}$, yielding a velocity to dispersion ratio of $V_{\mathrm{rot}}/\sigma_{\mathrm{z}}$ $\approx$ 1.1. This borderline ratio suggests that while there is significant rotation, random motions are also important – and on these scales perhaps dominant. Indeed, the kinetic energy in random motions is of order $3\sigma^2$ while that in the ordered rotation is $V_{\mathrm{rot}}^2$. This would imply that the distribution of gas is rather thick – consistent with our suggestion in Section \[starformation\] that the symmetry of the observed isophotes is due to the physical height of the nuclear region.
Further evidence that this is the case comes from the scale height derived if one assumes that the gas and stars are self gravitating, although this should only really be applied to a thin disk. In this case $$%\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\mathrm{z}}^2 = 2\pi \mathrm{G} \Sigma z_0
%\end{equation}$$ where $\sigma_{\mathrm{z}}$ is the velocity dispersion of the stars, $\Sigma$ is the surface density of the disk, and $z_0$ is a characteristic measure of the scale-height of the disk perpendicular to the plane. In the nuclear region at $R<0.4\arcsec$ (8 pc), we estimate the mass of the gas and the stars residing in the disk to be $1.7\times 10^7$ $M_{\sun}$ (see also Section \[density\]), yielding a mean surface density of $\Sigma = 8.5\times 10^4$ $M_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$. By considering an intrinsic $\sigma_{\mathrm{z}}$ = 70 km/s, we obtain a height of $z_0 = 2$pc, consistent with our earlier estimate based on the isophotal symmetry.
We suggest that this thickness does not necessarily imply that there is a distinct spheroidal structure in the central few parsecs; but that we are only looking at the very inner region of a larger disk which extends out perhaps as far as circumnuclear ring. By measuring the rotation velocity within a truncated field of view – i.e. before $V_{\mathrm{rot}}$ reaches its asymptotic value – one would underestimate $V_{\mathrm{rot}}/\sigma$. It is also possible that either dynamics associated with the black hole, or heating from the AGN or local intense star formation, have caused the inner region of the disk to thicken.
For systems where the velocity dispersion is significant, estimating the mass from the rotational velocity alone leads to an underestimate. Accounting for random motions is not trivial, but can be approximated by $M_{\mathrm{dyn}}$ = $(V_{\mathrm{rot}}^2+3\sigma^2)r/G$. Hence we obtain a dynamical mass for the nucleus within $\pm0.4\arcsec$ of $M_{\mathrm{dyn}}$ = $3.5\times 10^7$ $M_{\sun}$.
Dimensioning the clumpy star forming torus in Circinus {#density}
======================================================
The spatial scales on which we have traced the gas and stars are similar to those associated with standard torus models (e.g. Pier & Krolik [@pierandkrolik], [@pie93]; Nenkova et al. [@nenkova], Schartmann et al. [@sch05], Fritz et al. [@fri06]). Indeed, the latter two authors have modelled Circinus specifically and find size scale for the torus of 30pc and 12pc respectively. However, to understand better the relation between the gas and the stars, we need, in addition to the stellar mass found in Section \[starformation\], to estimate the gas mass. Fortunately, as we discuss below, there is a way to do this from our data.
--------------- ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
Galaxy log$\frac{L_{\mathrm{(1-0)S(1)}}}{L_{\sun}}^a$ log$\frac{M_{\mathrm{gas}}}{M_{\sun}}$ log$\frac{L_{\mathrm{IR}}}{L_{\sun}}$ log$\frac{L_{\mathrm{(1-0)S(1)}}}{L_{\mathrm{IR}}}$ log$\frac{L_{\mathrm{(1-0)S(1)}}}{M_{\mathrm{gas}}}$ References$^b$
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
IR 01364-1042 6.7 10.2 11.8 -5.0 -3.4 1
IR 05189-2524 7.0 10.4 12.1 -5.1 -3.4 1
IR 09111-1007 6.9 10.4 11.9 -5.0 -3.4 1
IR 14378-3651 6.8 10.2 12.1 -5.3 -3.3 1
IR 17208-0014 7.3 10.6 12.3 -5.1 -3.4 1
NGC1614 6.2 9.7 11.6 -5.3 -3.5 2
NGC2623 6.5 10.0 11.5 -5.0 -3.5 2
IR 10173-0828 5.8 9.9 11.8 -5.9 -4.1 2
NGC6090 6.7 10.5 11.5 -5.0 -4.0 2
NGC6240 8.0 10.6 11.8 -3.9 -2.6 2
NGC7469 6.4 10.2 11.6 -5.2 -3.8 2
Mrk231 7.2 10.3 12.5 -5.3 -3.1 2
Mrk273 7.3 10.6 12.1 -4.8 -3.3 2
Arp220 7.0 10.5 12.2 -5.2 -3.5 2
NGC695 6.4 10.6 11.7 -5.2 -4.2 3
NGC1068 6.0 10.0 11.5 -5.5 -4.0 3
NGC5135 6.2 10.2 11.1 -4.9 -4.0 3
--------------- ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
$^a$ Reference for $L_{\mathrm{(1-0)S(1)}}$ data: Goldader et al. ([@gold97]), except for NGC6090 Sugai et al. ([@sug00])\
$^b$ References for $M_{\mathrm{gas}}$ data: (1) Mirabel et al. ([@mirabel90]); (2) Bryant & Scoville ([@bryant99]); (3) Gao & Solomon ([@gao04])\
Table \[galaxies\] lists 17 galaxies for which there are in the literature both measurements of the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line flux and estimates of the total gas mass from mm CO1-0 or CO2-1 luminosities. The H$_2$ 1-0S(1) luminosities are primarily from Goldader et al. ([@gold97]), since these are taken in large (3 or more) apertures and therefore are more likely to include all, or nearly all, the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) flux. In addition, these galaxies are actively star forming – as evidenced by their classification as luminous or ultraluminous galaxies. As the table shows, nearly all of these have similar ratios of the 1-0S(1) luminosity with the infrared luminosity $L_{\rm IR}$, and also with the molecular mass estimated from the CO luminosity $L_{\rm CO}$. The former relation has previously been noted by Goldader et al. ([@gold97]), who suggested it could be explained in terms of supernova remnants if the H$_2$ originates in gas shocked by the expanding shells. On the other hand, Davies et al. ([@dav03]) argued that in general the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line in such galaxies is excited by fluorescence by young stars of gas dense enough that the lower vibrational levels are thermalised. In either case, if the H$_2$ emission is primarily associated with star formation, it would not be unreasonable to find a correlation with $L_{\rm IR}$.
Similarly, a correlation between $L_{\rm IR}$ and $L_{\rm CO}$ has been known for a long time (see Young & Scoville [@you91] for a review). Recent work (Gao & Solomon [@gao04]) shows that while $L_{\rm IR}$ and $L_{\rm CO}$ are correlated, the logarithmic relation is linear only over limited luminosity ranges and there is a clear trend of $L_{\rm IR}$/$L_{\rm CO}$ (i.e. star formation efficiency) with luminosity. They also showed that if one uses instead a tracer of dense gas such as HCN, the equivalent ratio $L_{\rm IR}$/$L_{\rm HCN}$ is constant; although for our application one then has the difficulty of estimating the gas mass from the $L_{\rm HCN}$.
In both relations, NGC6240 is a major exception, having by far the largest H$_2$ 1-0S(1) luminosity. The reason is most probably that the excitation mechanism is most probably shocks rather than fluorescence (e.g. Sugai et al. [@sug97]). For this reason, we have excluded NGC6240 from the sample. Given the correlations above, it would not be unreasonable also to expect a relation between 1-0S(1) luminosity and H$_2$ mass as traced by the CO luminosity (or even better would be HCN luminosity). In fact we find that the logarithmic ratio of these two quantities is log$\frac{L_{\mathrm{(1-0)S(1)}}}{M_{\mathrm{gas}}} = -3.6\pm0.32$ which corresponds to $\sim2.5\times 10^{-4} L_{\sun}$/$M_{\sun}$ with a 1$\sigma$ uncertainty of a factor 2. This is a quite remarkable result for such a diverse sample – that includes galaxies with powerful AGN for which X-ray irradiation of gas may be an important contributor to the 1-0S(1) luminosity. It gives us confidence that we can use the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line, without needing to know the details of how it is excited, to make at least an approximate estimate of the total (cold) molecular gas mass.
We apply this result to the nuclear region of Circinus because it has had recent vigorous star formation close to the AGN, and thus matches the sample. From the total H$_2$ 1-0S(1) luminosity of $4.4\times 10^3$ $L_{\sun}$ we estimate the total molecular mass to be $1.7\times 10^7$ $M_{\sun}$ – fully consistent with the dynamical mass estimated in Section \[kinematics\]. The gas mass surface density is then $8\times 10^4$ $M_{\sun}$ pc$^{-2}$, yielding a column density of $n_{\mathrm{H}}$ = $5.2\times 10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, which is very similar to that implied by X-ray observations (e.g. Matt et al. [@matt99]). Since $n_{\mathrm{H}}$ $\approx$ $1.5\times 10^{21}$ $\tau_{\mathrm{V}}$, the mean gas density implies an optical depth through the thickness of the disk of $\tau_{\mathrm{V}}$ = $3000$. This is far larger than the most likely values estimated in Section \[starformation\], and also inconsistent with the maximum possible optical depth.
This discrepancy suggests that the canonical torus in the unified model of AGN is not only forming stars but is a clumpy medium – so that much of the star light is not obscured despite the presence of huge gas column densities.
Coronal lines {#coronal}
=============
-------------------------- ------ ----------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ --------------- -----------------
Line IP Component Flux $F_{\mathrm{broad}}$/$F_{\mathrm{narrow}}$$^a$ Velocity$^b$ FWHM Line Wdith
(eV) (W m$^{-2}$$\times 10^{-18}$) (km s$^{-1}$) (km s$^{-1}$)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
\[Si[vi]{}\] 167 Broad 26.8 -103 300
$\mathrm{[Si}$[vi]{}\] 167 Narrow 24.7 1.1 $\sim$0 175
$\mathrm{[Al}$[ix]{}\] 285 Broad 2.6 -228 300
$\mathrm{[Al}$[ix]{}\] 285 Narrow 8.2 0.3 $\sim$0 200
$\mathrm{[Ca}$[viii]{}\] 127 Broad 28.0 -87 540
$\mathrm{[Ca}$[viii]{}\] 127 Narrow 20.0 1.4 $\sim$0 150
-------------------------- ------ ----------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ --------------- -----------------
$^a$ The ratio for each line is written in the row of the narrow component.\
$^b$ Velocity shift from the systemic velocity.\
Because of the high ionization potential (IP$>$100 eV) associated with Coronal Line Region (CLR) emission lines, highly energetic processes are required. The lines can be excited either by a hard UV to soft X-ray continuum, very hot collisionally ionized plasma, or a combination of both. If the excitation occurs via collisions, the gas temperature should be about $T = 10^6$ K. In the case of photoionization via the hard AGN continuum, temperatures of only a few $10^3-10^4$ K are needed.
In our observations of Circinus the \[Si[vi]{}\], and \[Ca[viii]{}\] lines are extremely strong and \[Al[ix]{}\] is also detected, as apparent in the spectrum in Figure \[spectrumcircinus\]. Due to the low signal to noise ratio of the $K$-band spectrum after 2.42$\mu$m, we exclude the \[Si[vii]{}\] line at 2.48 $\mu$m studied by Prieto et al. ([@prieto05]). From this spectrum and also that in Figure \[spectrumcaviii\], it can be seen that the \[Ca[viii]{}\] line sits on top of the stellar $^{12}$CO(3-1) absorption bandhead. A template star (HD179323, shifted to the redshift of Circinus) was used to correct the stellar features in the spectrum and hence reconstruct the full \[Ca[viii]{}\] line profile. As the deep CO bandheads are produced in the atmospheres of red (super)giant stars which dominate the emission around $2.3\,\mu$m, HD179323 (spectral type K0Iab) was choosen for this purpose. The correction was achieved by convolving the template with a Gaussian broadening function, and varying its parameters to minimise $\chi^2$, which was measured across the $^{12}$CO(2-0) bandhead. The $^{12}$CO(3-1) bandhead of the template was then convolved with the broadening function and subtracted from the galaxy’s spectrum.
Figure \[clprofiles\] shows that in all three coronal line profiles we observe asymmetric and broadened lines, indicating the presence of two or more components within the coronal line region. In order to quantify the profile, we have fitted a superposition of two Gaussians to each line, as is summarised in Table \[clr\]. As can be seen in Figure \[spectrumcaviii\] for the case of \[Ca[viii]{}\], there is a strong narrow component and a weaker blueshifted broad component. These also have different spatial extents. Figure \[profiles3\] shows azimuthally averaged radial profiles of the broad and narrow components of this line, as well as the PSF. It is clear that the broad component is resolved and spatially more extended. The flux peaks at about 1.5 pc from the nucleus. On the other hand, the narrow component is unresolved and most of its flux comes from a region of less than 1 pc across and coincident with the non-stellar $K$-band continuum peak (rather than the peak in Br$\gamma$, H$_2$ 1-0S(1), and stellar continuum). These characteristics suggest that they originate in different regions around the AGN, and perhaps are even excited by different mechanisms.
In the case of the narrow component, the fact that it is compact and centered on the nucleus suggests that it originates physically close to the AGN. Since the lines are narrow and at systemic velocity, these clouds of ionized material are not out-flowing which is also an indication that they are excited by photoionization (Oliva at al. [@oliva94; @oliva99]).
In the case of the broad component, the fact that it is blue shifted indicates that part of the gas must arise in outflows around the AGN, as has been suggested by Rodríguez-Ardilla et al. ([@rod04]). Previous work on the coronal line emission in Circinus (Oliva et al. [@oliva94]) had ascribed the excitation to photoionisation. This was in part due to the narrow width of the most prominent component (typically 175kms$^{-1}$, from Table \[clr\]). However, the considerable broadening associated with the blue wing (FWHM$>$300 km s$^{-1}$) opens the possibility that some fraction of it might in fact be excited by fast shocks. The picture of a shock-excited blue component is supported by the results of Prieto et al. ([@prieto05]), who suggested that in addition to photoionization, shocks must contribute to the coronal emission. They proposed shock excitation as an additional energy source to explain the extended coronal line emission, as traced by \[Si[vii]{}\], in a sample of 4 nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies. Although it could be a single broad component, we consider a more likely scenario to involve many narrow components arising from different clouds moving at different velocities whose emission combines to produce the observed morphology and profile. A mechanism by which broad coronal lines are created in out-flowing cloudlets which have been eroded from the main clouds is an intepretation which has been proposed for the detailed morphological and kinematic data available for NGC1068 (Cecil et al. [@cecil02]).
It is interesting that we observe a correlation between the IP and the blueshift, as well as the $F_{\mathrm{broad}}$/$F_{\mathrm{narrow}}$, of the forbidden lines. As the ionization potential increases, the blueshift also increases and the $F_{\mathrm{broad}}$/$F_{\mathrm{narrow}}$ decreases. This can be understood if the acceleration of cloudlets away from the AGN is driven impulsively (which one might expect given the enormous variability of hard X-ray luminosity in many AGN) so that the cloudlets with the highest velocities will also be closest to the AGN – and as they travel further out, they will be decelerated by drag against the interstellar medium (probably small in the ionisation cone) and by the increasing gravitational pull. The gravitational pull is significant since it depends not only on the black hole mass, as assumed by Maiolino et al. ([@maio00]), but also on the gas and stars in the nuclear region which we have shown provide an order of magnitude more mass than the black hole alone on scales of 10pc. Additionally, those lines which required the hardest ionising continuum will arise preferentially closer to the AGN. Thus although the strength of the narrow component which originates close to the AGN will depend on IP since there are fewer photons energetic enough to ionise species with higher IP; it will be even harder to create these lines in outflowing cloudlets, since they are already further from the AGN: they will arise only in the fastest clouds closest to the AGN. Lines with less extreme IP will be generated also in slower clouds further from the AGN and hence the mean blueshifted velocity will be less. Although we do not find a clear correlation between the IP and the width of the fit to the broad component, that of the \[Ca[viii]{}\] line exhibits the highest dispersion for the lowest IP, providing further support for this hypothesis that lines with the lower IP can arise in regions which are further from the AGN and hence moving outward slower.
Conclusions {#concl}
===========
We have presented near-infrared adaptive optics integral field spectroscopy of the nuclear region of the Circinus galaxy with an angular resolution of 0.2 and spectral resolution $R \sim 4200$, which we use to probe the gas and stellar morphologies and kinematics on scales of a few parsecs.
In the central 0.8, the non-stellar continuum dominates the $K$-band, contributing 85% of the total flux density. Offset by $\sim$0.15 from its peak are the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) and Br$\gamma$ lines and stellar continuum. The similarity of their morphologies and kinematics lead us to conclude that they all originate predominantly with recent vigorous star formation. Analysis of these diagnostics together with the radio continuum suggest that within 8pc of the AGN there is a starburst which is exponentially decaying on a timescale of 100Myr and began only 80Myr ago, and currently has a bolometric luminosity of $\sim$1.4% that of the entire galaxy.
We have found that it is possible to make a reasonable estimate of the total gas mass from the H$_2$ 1-0S(1) line luminosity, finding that it is an order of magnitude more than the young stars, and also consistent with the column densities to the AGN implied by X-ray observations. Since the scales on which the gas and stars exist are similar, we suggest that the torus is forming stars; and because of the limits on extinction to the stars, that the torus must be a clumpy medium rather than uniform.
The coronal lines comprise two components: a prominent narrow (FWHM $\sim 175$kms$^{-1}$) part which is at systemic velocity, spatially unresolved (at our 4pc FWHM resolution), and centered on the non-stellar continuum; and a broad (FWHM $>300$kms$^{-1}$) blue shifted part which is spatially extended. We argue that the narrow part arises in clouds physically close to the AGN; and that the blue wing originates, as appears to be the case in some other Seyfert galaxies, from cloudlets that have been eroded form the main clouds and are accelerated outward.
The authors are grateful to Almudena Prieto for kindly providing the $K$-band NACO image used for estimation of our spatial resolution. The authors are most gratefull to the entire SINFONI team from ESO, MPE, and NOVA for their support in the SINFONI comissioning.
Abuter, R., et al. 2005, “SINFONI Data Reduction Software”, to be published in the Proceedings of the Workshop [*IFS techniques and data reduction*]{}, 4-8 July, CfaI Durham, eds J. Gerssen, J. Allington-Smith & D. Robertson, in a special edition of New Astronomy Reviews, Elsevier Bonnet, H., et al. 2003, “Implementation of MACAO for SINFONI at the VLT, in NGS and LGS modes”, in [*Adaptive Optical System Technologies II*]{}, eds Wizinowich P., Bonaccini D., Proc. SPIE, 4839, 329 Bonnet, H., et al. 2004, “First Light of SINFONI at the VLT”, in [*The ESO Messenger*]{}, 117, 17 Bryant, P. M., Scoville, N. Z. 1999, , 117, 2632 Cecil, G.,Dopita, M. A., Groves, B., Wilson, A. S., Ferruit, P., Pécontal, E., Binette, L. 2002, , 568, 627 Condon, J. J. 1992, , 30, 575 Davies, R. I., Forbes, D. A., Ryder, S., et al. 1998, , 293, 189 Davies, R., Sternberg, A., Lehnert, M., Tacconi-Garman, L. 2003, ApJ, 597, 907
Davies, R., Tacconi, L., Genzel, R., Ott, T., Rabien, S. 2004, in [*Advancements in Adaptive Optics*]{}, eds Bonnacini D., Ellerbroek B., Raggazoni R., Proc. SPIE, 5490, 473 Davies, R. I., et al. 2006 in preparation Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2003a, “The Universe in 3D: First Observations with SPIFFI, the Infrared Integral Field Spectrometer for the VLT”, in [*The ESO Messenger*]{}, 113, 17 Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2003b, “SINFONI - Integral field spectroscopy at 50 milli-arcsecond resolution with the ESO VLT”, in [*Instrument Design and Performance for Optical/Infrared Ground-based Telescopes*]{}, eds Iye M., Moorwood A., Proc. SPIE, 4841, 1548 Freeman, K. C., Karlsson, B., Lyngå, G.,Burrell, J. F., van Woerden, H., Goss, W. M., Mebold, U. 1977, , 55, 445 Fritz, J., Franceschini A., Hatziminiaoglou, E., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 767
Gao, Y., Solomon, P. M. 2004, , 606, 271 Goldader, J. D., Joseph, R. D., Doyon, R., Sanders, D. B. 1997, , 108, 449 Greenhill, L. J., Booth, R. S., Ellingsen, S. P., et al. 2003, , 590, 162 Howarth, I. D. 1983, , 203, 301 Lawrence, A. 1987, , 99, 309 Lucy, L. B. 1974, , 79, 745 Maiolino, R., Krabbe, A., Thatte, N., Genzel, R. 1998, , 493, 650 Maiolino, R., Alonso Herrero A., Anders S., Quillen A., Rieke M., Rieke G., Tacconi-Garman L. 2000, ApJ, 531, 219
Marconi, A., Moorwood, A. F. M., Salvati, M., Oliva, E. 1994, , 291, 18 Marconi, A., Moorwood, A. F. M., Origlia, L., Oliva, E. 1994, The ESO Messenger, 78, 20 Matt, G., Fiore, F., Perola, G., et al. 1996, , 281, L69 Matt, G., Guainazzi, M., Maiolino, R., et al.1999, , 341, L39 Meurer, G. R., Heckman, T. M., Leitherer, C., et al.1995, ApJ, 110, 2665 Mirabel, I. F., Booth, R. S., Garay, G., Johansson, L. E. B., Sanders, D. B. 1990, , 236, 327 Nenkova, M., Ivezíc, Ž., Elitzur, M. 2002, , 570, L9 Oliva, E., Salvati, M., Moorwood, A. F. M., Marconi, A. 1994, , 288, 457 Oliva, E., Marconi, A., Cimatti, A., di Serego Alighieri, S. 1998, , 329, L21 Oliva, E., Marconi, A., Moorwood, A. F. M. 1999, , 342, 87 Pier, E., Krolik, J. 1992, , 401, 99 Pier, E., Krolik, J. 1993, ApJ, 418, 673
Prieto, M. A., Meisenheimer, K., Marco, O., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 135 Prieto, M. A., Marco, O., & Gallimore, J. 2005, accepted for Rodríguez-Ardilla A., Pastoriza, M., Viegas, S., Sigut, T., Pradhan, A. 2004, , 425, 457 Schartmann M., Meisenheimer K., Camenzind M., Wolf S., Henning Th., 2005, A&A, 437, 861
Sternberg, A. 1998, ApJ, 506, 721
Sugai, H., Malkan, M., Ward, M., Davies, R., McLean, I. 1997, ApJ, 481, 186
Sugai, H., Davies, R., Ishii, M., Ward, M. 2000, MNRAS, 317, 447
Thatte, N., Quirrenbach, A., Genzel, R., Maiolino, R., Tecza, M. 1997, , 490, 238 Thornley, M., Förster Schreiber, N., Lutz, D., Genzel, R., Spoon, H., Kunze, D., Sternberg, A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 641
Young J., Scoville N., 1991, ARAA, 29, 581
[^1]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Chile
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Grenoble, France'
author:
- |
Jan Stark\
on behalf of the DØ Collaboration\
title: $B$ Physics at DØ
---
FERMILAB-Conf-04/096-E
Introduction
============
The DØ Collaboration has implemented a major upgrade of their detector for Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron. Certain components of this upgrade have significantly improved DØ’s physics potential compared to Run I. The upgrade is described in more detail in Ref. [@bib:RunII]. One of the aspects most relevant for physics is the new charged particle tracking system located in a 2 T field produced by a superconducting solenoidal magnet. The tracking system consists of a scintillating fibre tracker and an inner tracker based on silicon detectors. It provides coverage over a wide range in pseudo-rapidity ($|\eta|<2$, with potential for extension up to $|\eta|<3$) and allows the efficient reconstruction of tracks, including down to low transverse momentum of $p_{\rm T} =180$ MeV/$c$. Due to the limited radius of the fibre tracker (imposed by the geometry of calorimeter, reused from Run I), the track $p_{\rm T}$-resolution is not as good as, [*e.g.*]{}, in CDF, which translates into less good resolutions on the mass of fully reconstructed hadrons. Typical mass resolutions for decay modes[^1] like $B^+ \rightarrow J/\psi(\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) K^+$ are 40 MeV/$c^2$, which still allows a clean identification of hadrons. Track impact parameters $d_0$, in the plane transverse to the beam axis, with respect to the primary vertex are measured with high precision ($\sigma(d_0) = 50$ $\mu$m for tracks with $p_{\rm T} \simeq 1$ GeV/$c$, improving asymptotically to $\sigma(d_0) = 15$ $\mu$m for tracks with $p_{\rm T} \ge 10$ GeV/$c$), which allows precise measurements of the time-dependence of decays (lifetimes, flavour oscillations, CP violation, etc). Another key ingredient of the upgraded DØ detector is the muon detector and its associated trigger system. The muon detector, located outside the calorimeter, relies on three layers of scintillation counters and drift chambers, one of which is placed in front of toroidal magnets, the other two behind the toroids. Muons with momentum greater than $\sim 1.4$ GeV/$c$ ($\sim 3.5$ GeV/$c$) penetrate the calorimeter (toroid magnet) at $\eta = 0$. The muon system provides wide coverage over $|\eta|<2.0$, including at the trigger level. The data used for the measurements reported here have been recorded with single and di-muon triggers. The single muon triggers are prescaled away at the highest instantaneous luminosities.\
Most of the results reported in this article are based on 250 pb$^{-1}$ of data (before prescales) collected during the period from April 2002 to January 2004. Some of the results are based on earlier subsets of this data sample.
Production and decay characteristics of the $X(3872)$
=====================================================
The Belle Collaboration has recently discovered a new particle, the , with a mass of $3872.0 \pm 0.6 \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.5 \, ({\rm syst})$ MeV/$c^2$, produced in $B^{\pm} \rightarrow \X K^{\pm}, \; \X \rightarrow J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays [@bib:XBelle]. The existence of the state has been confirmed, also using the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ mode, in $p\overline{p}$ collisions by CDF [@bib:XCDF]. At this time, it is still unclear whether this particle is a $c\overline{c}$ state or a more complex object; see, [*e.g.*]{}, Refs. [@bib:XEichten; @bib:XQuigg; @bib:XToern].\
We perform a more detailed study [@bib:XD0] of the production and decay characteristics of the in $p\overline{p}$ collisions. The $c\overline{c}$ state $\psi(2S)$ has a mass $m(\psi(2S)) = 3685.96 \pm 0.09$ MeV/$c^2$ [@bib:PDG] close to the , and has the same decay mode $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$. It therefore provides a good benchmark for comparison with the . Using 230 pb$^{-1}$ of data, we reconstruct $522 \pm 100$ $\X \rightarrow J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays. We split our samples of $\psi(2S)$ and decays into two subsamples according to transverse momentum $p_{\rm T}(J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-)$, and compare the event-yield fractions $f_{\psi(2S)}$ and $f_{\X}$ with $$f_{\rm P} = \frac{N(P) {\rm ~at~} p_{\rm T}(J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-) > 15 \; {\rm GeV}/c^2}{N(P) {\rm ~at~} p_{\rm T}(J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-) \le 15 \; {\rm GeV}/c^2} \; ,$$ where $P=\psi(2S)$ or . The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:X\]. We repeat this study for splittings according to the rapidity $y$ of the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ system, the helicity of the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ ($\mu^+ \mu^-$) system, the effective proper decay length and isolation (Fig. \[fig:X\]). The helicity of the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ ($\mu^+ \mu^-$) system is inferred by boosting one of the pions (muons) and the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ system into the di-pion (di-muon) rest frame and measuring the angle $\theta_{\pi}$ ($\theta_{\mu}$) between them. The effective proper decay length $dl$ is defined as the distance in the transverse plane from the primary vertex to the decay vertex of the $J/\psi$, scaled by the mass of the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ system divided by $p_{\rm T}(J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-)$. The isolation is defined as the ratio of the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ momentum to the sum of the momentum of the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ and the momenta of all other reconstructed charged particles within a cone of radius $\Delta R = 0.5$ in $\eta/\phi$ space about the direction of the $J/\psi \pi^+ \pi^-$ momentum. In summary, no significant differences between the and the $c\overline{c}$ state $\psi(2S)$ are found when the data are separated according to any of these production and decay variables.
Precision measurement of $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$
==============================================
The spectator quark model predicts that the two charge states with one heavy quark $Q$ ($Q\overline{u}$ and $Q\overline{d}$) have the same lifetime. Deviations from this simple picture have been evaluated from first principles of QCD using Operator Product Expansion (an overview is presented, [*e.g.*]{}, in Ref. [@bib:BigiOPE] and references therein) and are expected to be proportional to $1/[m(Q)]^3$. Using inputs from quenched lattice QCD, recent NLO calculations [@bib:NiersteTau] yield $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0) = 1.053 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.017$, but unquenching effects could be sizeable.\
We measure $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$ in 250 pb$^{-1}$ of data using large samples of semileptonic $B^+$ and decays collected using single muon triggers. Semileptonic decays are reconstructed in the final state $\Dzb(\rightarrow K^+ \pi^-)\mu^+ X$, where $X$ denotes any additional decay products. Figure \[fig:tauD0\] shows the $m(K^+ \pi^-)$ spectrum for $K^+ \pi^- \mu^+$ events after $p_{\rm T}$ and tracking hit requirements on the tracks and cuts on the significance of the impact parameter of the $K^+$ and $\pi^-$ tracks, the significances of the distances in the transverse plane between the primary vertex and the and vertices, the angle in the transverse plane between the $\Dzb \mu^+$ momentum and the direction of the $\Dzb \mu^+$ vertex w.r.t. the primary vertex, as well as the requirement $2.3 < m(\Dzb \mu^+) < 5.2$ GeV/$c^2$. The signal in the peak contains $109k$ events. The next step is to identify the subsample of events in which the originates from a $D^{*-} \rightarrow \Dzb \pi^-$ decay. Due to the small $D^{*-}$/mass difference, the transverse momentum of the pion tends to be low, and for small transverse momentum of the $D^{*-}$, the slow pion reconstruction efficiency is limited by tracking acceptance. For each $\Dzb \mu^+$ candidate, an additional pion with charge opposite to the charge of the muon is searched for. The mass difference $\Delta m = m(\Dzb \pi^-) - m(\Dzb)$ for events with such an additional slow pion is shown in Fig. \[fig:tauDst\]. The peak corresponds to $D^{*-} \mu^+$ events.\
The slow pion reconstruction allows the sample to be split into a “ sample” ($\Dzb(\rightarrow K^+ \pi^-)\mu^+ X$ events in which no slow pion is found) and a “$D^*$ sample” ($\Dzb(\rightarrow K^+ \pi^-) \pi^- \mu^+ X$). The sample is enriched in $B^+$ decays, while the $D^*$ sample is enriched in . This separation between the species gives us access to the lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$. We further require $p_{\rm T}(\Dzb)> 5$ GeV/$c$. This cut reduces the event yields by $\sim 35$ %, but it also ensures a good slow pion reconstruction efficiency (88 %, independent, within uncertainty, of the meson decay length) and therefore a good separation between the and $D^*$ samples. The relative abundances of different species of hadrons in the and $D^*$ samples are evaluated from measured branching fractions and their uncertainties, and the reconstruction efficiencies for the different decay chains. Isospin relations are used to infer some unmeasured branching fractions from measured ones. The sample contains 82 % $B^+$, 16 % and 2 % , while the $D^*$ sample contains 86 % , 12 % $B^+$ and 2 % .\
As the semileptonic decays in our samples are only partially reconstructed, the proper decay time of a candidate can only be inferred approximately from the measured decay length in the transverse plane $l_{\rm T}$. For each event, we calculate the [*visible proper decay length*]{} (VPDL) defined as $x^m = l_{\rm T}\cdot\frac{m(B)}{p_{\rm T}(\Dzb\mu)}$, and we require $\sigma(x^m) < 200$ $\mu$m. The expected VPDL distribution for a given species and a given decay chain is obtained from the expected proper decay time distribution and the distribution of $K=p_{\rm T}(\Dzb\mu)/p_{\rm T}(B)$ (“$K$-factor”, determined from simulated events). The lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$ could be extracted from fits to the VPDL distributions of the and $D^*$ samples. We chose a different technique. We group the events into 8 bins of VPDL, and measure the ratio $$r_i = \frac{N_i(D^{*-}\mu^+)}{N_i(\Dzb\mu^+)}$$ separately in each bin $i$. The event yields $N_i(D^{*-}\mu^+)$ and $N_i(\Dzb\mu^+)$ are determined from separate fits to the $m(K^+\pi^-)$ mass spectra (similar to the one in Fig. \[fig:tauD0\]) of the and $D^*$ samples in each bin. The $D^*$ sample contains a small contribution of combinatorial background from events with a true , which is counted as signal in the $m(K^+\pi^-)$ fit. This contribution is subtracted using the $m(K^+\pi^-)$ distribution of wrong charge combinations $\Dzb \pi^+$ in each VPDL bin and a correction factor $C$ to take into account differences in the combinatorial background between right and wrong charge combinations. The correction factor $C = 1.22 \pm 0.04$ is derived from the full sample. The lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$ is determined from a fit to the 8 values $r_i$. An advantage of this technique compared to fits to VPDL distributions is that the background is properly subtracted in all VPDL regions and no parameterisation of the VPDL distribution of background is needed in the fit. This technique also provides an elegant way to take into account the decay length significance cuts described above. Additional inputs to the $r_i$ fit are the relative contents of the and $D^*$ samples, taking into account the effect of reconstruction efficiencies (in particular the slow pion reconstruction efficiency), the distributions of $K$-factors for different decay chains, the decay length resolution (from simulation) and the lifetime $\tau(B^+)$ which is fixed to the PDG value $\tau(B^+) = 1.674 \pm 0.018$ ps [@bib:PDG].\
Figure \[fig:VPDL\] shows the measured values of the $r_i$, as well as the result of the fit. We obtain the preliminary measurement $$\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0) = 1.093 \pm 0.021 \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.022 \, ({\rm syst}) \; .$$ The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainty on a possible decay-time dependence of the slow pion reconstruction efficiency, uncertainties in the relative reconstruction efficiencies for different hadron decay chains, the uncertainty in Br$(B^+ \rightarrow D^{*-} \pi^+ \mu^+ \nu X)$ which is used in the estimate of the sample compositions, the $K$-factors from simulation and the uncertainty in the decay length resolution differences between the and $D^*$ samples. This preliminary DØ measurement is one of the most precise measurements of $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$, and it is consistent with previous measurements [@bib:PDG]. It is also consistent with the most recent preliminary CDF measurement, $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0) = 1.080 \pm 0.042$, based on fully reconstructed hadronic $B \rightarrow J/\psi X$ decays in 240 pb$^{-1}$ [@bib:Jonas].
/mixing with opposite-side muon tagging
=======================================
We use our sample of semileptonic $\Bz \rightarrow \D^{*-} \mu^+ \nu$ decays to measure the /mixing frequency $\Delta m_d$. Compared to the lifetime measurement, we need an additional key ingredient: the ability to identify (“tag”) the initial flavour of the meson. Opposite-side muon tagging relies on the charge of muons among the decay products from the “other $b$” from $b\overline{b}$ pair production to infer the initial flavour of the reconstructed . Typically, the $b\overline{b}$ pair leads to two-jet events with two mesons in two back-to-back jets. The final state can also contain a $b$ baryon and/or more than two jets. In addition, if the two $b$-jets originate from the flavour excitation or gluon splitting processes, the angle between the two jets is not necessarily close to 180 degrees, but varies within a rather wide range. We select tagging muons with $p_{\rm T}>2.5$ GeV/$c$ and $\cos(\Delta\phi) < 0.5$, where $\Delta\phi$ is the difference between the $\phi$ directions of the momentum of the $\Dzb \mu^+$ system from the reconstructed and the momentum of the tagging muon. This algorithm provides an estimate of the initial flavour for $(4.76 \pm 0.19)$ % of all reconstructed / mesons.\
The mixing frequency $\Delta m_d$ has been measured with high precision by many experiments, most recently at the -factories. We use the study of / mixing to benchmark our flavour tagging. A fit to the observed asymmetry between the number of mixed and unmixed events as a function of VPDL allows us a simultaneous measurement of $\Delta m_d$ and the tagging purity $\kappa = \frac{N_{\rm R}}{N_{\rm R}+N_{\rm W}}$, where $N_{\rm R}+N_{\rm W}$ is the number of events for which the tagging algorithm has provided an estimate of the initial flavor, and $N_{\rm R}$ is the number of events in which the estimate was correct. This allows us to measure the performance of our flavour tagging in data before we use it in more difficult studies of, [*e.g.*]{}, / mixing and CP violation. The measurement of $\Delta m_d$ also constrains more exotic models of $b$ production in hadron collisions (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@bib:Exotic]).\
Using 250 pb$^{-1}$ of data, we obtain the VPDL-dependent asymmetry between mixed and unmixed events shown in Fig. \[fig:mixing\] and the preliminary measurements $$\Delta m_d = 0.506 \pm 0.055 \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.049 \, ({\rm syst}) \, {\rm ps}^{-1} {\rm ~~~~~and~~~~~} \kappa = 73.0 \pm 2.1 \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.8 \, ({\rm syst}) \, \% \; .$$ The systematic uncertainties on $\Delta m_d$ are dominated by the uncertainties in the method used to fit the number of signal events in each VPDL bin. The systematic uncertainties on $\kappa$ are dominated by the uncertainty in the contribution to the signal sample, on the proper decay time resolution and in the alignment of the tracking system. The measured value of $\Delta m_d$ is consistent with the world average [@bib:PDG].\
This kind of analysis is currently being repeated for other, complementary, tagging algorithms based on opposite-side electrons, jet charge and same-side tags. These additional taggers will further improve our overall flavour tagging efficiency.
Observation of semileptonic decays to narrow mesons
====================================================
Orbitally excited states of the $D$ meson are usually referred to as mesons. In the simplest case, mesons consist of a charm quark and a light quark in a state with orbital angular momentum $L=1$. In the limit $m(c) \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the spin of the charm quark decouples from the other angular momenta, and the angular momentum sum $j = S + L$ of the light quark spin $S$ and the orbital angular momentum $L$ is conserved. For $L=1$, one therefore expects one doublet of states with $j = 3/2$ and another doublet with $j = 1/2$. The two $j = 3/2$ states are denoted $D^0_1$ and $D^{*0}_2$. In contrast to the $j = 1/2$ states, the $D^0_1$ and $D^{*0}_2$ decay through a D-wave and are thus expected to be narrow (20 to 30 MeV/$c^2$, while the $j = 1/2$ states decay through an S-wave and are expected to be several hundred MeV/$c^2$ wide). For a recent theoretical overview of the topic, see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref. [@bib:Zoltan] and references therein.\
The $D^0_1$ and $D^{*0}_2$ have been observed and studied in several experiments, most recently by Belle [@bib:DststBelle] and [@bib:DststBaBar] in the hadronic decay $B^- \rightarrow D^{**0} \pi^-$. We study $D^0_1$, $D^{*0}_2$ produced in semileptonic decays. Our measurements further constrain meson spectroscopy and improve the understanding of the samples of semileptonic decays we use as a tool for studies of the time-dependence of decays (lifetimes, mixing, etc). Figure \[fig:Dstst\] shows the $m(D^* \pi)$ spectrum we observe in candidate $B \rightarrow (D^0_1, D^{*0}_2) \mu^- \nu X \rightarrow D^{*+} \pi^{-} \mu^- \nu X$ decays using 250 pb$^{-1}$ of data. The excess in right-sign combinations can be interpreted as combined effect of the $D^0_1$ and $D^{*0}_2$. From topological analyses at LEP [@bib:PDG], we know the inclusive rate $${\rm Br}(B \rightarrow D^{*+} \pi^- \mu^- \nu X) = 0.48 \pm 0.10 \, \% \; .$$ Our preliminary result constrains the resonant contribution $${\rm Br}(B \rightarrow \{D^0_1, D^{*0}_2\} \mu^- \nu X)
\cdot {\rm Br}(\{D^0_1, D^{*0}_2\} \rightarrow D^{*+} \pi^-)
= 0.280 \pm 0.021 \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.088 \, ({\rm syst}) \, \% \; .$$ The branching ratio for decays to has been determined using a normalisation to the decays $B \rightarrow D^{*+} (\rightarrow D^0 \pi^+) \mu^- \nu X$, whose branching ratios are well known [@bib:PDG]. The systematic uncertainties are dominated by the uncertainty on the $p_{\rm T}$ dependence of the soft pion reconstruction efficiency, as well as the effects of possible contributions from wide resonances and the effect of possible interference effects between the $D^0_1$ and $D^{*0}_2$ on the tails of the mass distribution, which are not taken into account in this preliminary analysis.
Fully reconstructed decays
===========================
DØ’s good tracking acceptance and efficiency, including for tracks from, [*e.g.*]{}, $K^0_{\rm S} \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ or $\Lambda \rightarrow p^+ \pi^-$ that originate far away from the primary vertex, also allow the exclusive reconstruction of hadronic decays. The example of $\Bz \rightarrow J/\psi(\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) K^0_{\rm S}$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:exclusive\]. Using this decay mode in 114 pb$^{-1}$ of data, we obtain the preliminary measurement $\tau(\Bz) = 1.56^{+0.32}_{-0.25} \, ({\rm stat}) \pm 0.13 \, ({\rm syst})$ ps, consistent with the world average [@bib:PDG]. Figure \[fig:exclusive\] also shows the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow J/\psi(\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) \Lambda(\rightarrow p^+ \pi^-)$ signal. A lifetime measurement in this channel is currently being finalised. Another signal with rich physics potential, $\Bs \rightarrow J/\psi(\rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) \phi (\rightarrow K^+ K^-)$, is also included in Fig. \[fig:exclusive\].
Sensitivity analysis of the rare decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$
====================================================================
As discussed, [*e.g.*]{}, in Refs. [@bib:Jonas; @bib:Buras; @bib:Dedes] and references therein, the rare decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ is a promising window on possible physics beyond the Standard Model. We study the sensitivity of DØ to this decay using 180 pb$^{-1}$ of data. The main discriminating variables used to suppress background are the isolation of the muon pair, the transverse decay length $|\vec{l}_{xy}|$ of the $\mu^+ \mu^-$ vertex w.r.t. the primary vertex, and the opening angle between $\vec{l}$ and $\vec{p}(\mu^+ \mu^-)$. The $\mu^+ \mu^-$ mass spectrum after cuts is shown in Fig. \[fig:bsmumu\]. Based on the number of events observed in the mass sidebands (Fig. \[fig:bsmumu\]), we expect $7.3 \pm 1.8$ background events in the signal region (Fig. \[fig:bsmumu\]), and, in the absence of an excess over the expected background, a limit of Br$(B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-) < 1.0 \cdot 10^{-6}$ at $95 \; \%$ CL. This expected limit takes into account both statistical and systematic uncertainties. The expected signal has been normalised to an abundant sample of fully reconstructed $B^{\pm} \rightarrow J/\psi K^{\pm}$ decays. Possible contributions from $B_d \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ are expected to be small compared to $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$, and are neglected here. The signal box has not been opened yet, [*i.e.*]{} the number of events in the signal region has not been looked at. The event selection is currently being reoptimised, and a very competitive limit on a slightly larger data sample is expected on a short timescale.
Conclusion and outlook
======================
The large acceptance in terms of rapidity and transverse momentum of the charged particle tracking system and the muon system, including the muon trigger, make the upgraded Run II DØ detector an excellent tool for physics. In this article we have presented selected physics results based on up to 250 pb$^{-1}$ of Run II data. Large samples of semileptonic decays have been accumulated using single muon triggers. The excellent impact parameter resolution of the tracking system allows precise measurements of the decay-time dependence of decays, and one of the world’s most precise measurements of $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0)$ has been performed. The muon reconstruction capabilities also allow pure flavour tagging, which is another key ingredient for the study of flavour oscillations and CP violation. The good tracking efficiency down to very low transverse momenta has made possible the observation of semileptonic decays to mesons. Large yields of hadronic decays of $b$ hadrons to $J/\psi \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$ are obtained using di-muon triggers. Di-muon trigger data have also been used for a detailed study of the characteristics of the state and a search for the rare decay $B_s \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$. Other hadronic decays are collected by triggering on single opposite-side muons. Events recorded in this way are particularly powerful for measurements that require flavour tagging, as the tag is provided by the muon that fired the trigger. In addition, the proper decay time distribution of these events is not biased by the trigger. Such events will be included in future analyses. Other improvements are expected from the future use of $dE/dx$ information from the silicon tracker, which provides kaon and proton identification at very low momenta. In combination with information from the tracking system, DØ’s calorimeter is starting to be used to identify non-isolated low-$p_{\rm T}$ electrons. Together with the calorimeter, the preshowers (which provide finer granularity than the calorimeter) are used to identify $\pi^0$ decays. In summary, the exciting times of the competitive DØ Run II physics program have started.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
T. LeCompte and H.T. Diehl, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**50**]{}, 71 (2000).
Belle Collaboration, S.K. Choi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 262001 (2003).
CDF II Collaboration, D. Acosta [*et al.*]{}, [hep-ex/0312021]{}, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (2003).
E.J. Eichten [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{}, 094019 (2004).
C. Quigg, La Thuile 2004, [hep-ph/0403187]{} (2004).
N.A. Törnqvist, Phys. Lett. [**B590**]{}, 209 (2004).
DØ Collaboration, V.M. Abazov [*et al.*]{}, [hep-ex/0405004]{}, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett. (2004).
Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{}, 010001 (2002) and references therein.
I.I. Bigi, [hep-ph/0001003]{} (2000).
U. Nierste, [hep-ph/0209008]{} (2002).
J. Rademacker for the CDF Collaboration, in these proceedings.
E. Berger [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 4231 (2001).
Z. Ligeti, lectures given at the 30$^{th}$ SLAC Summer Institute, [hep-ph/0302031]{} (2003).
Belle Collaboration, K. Abe [*et al.*]{}, [hep-ex/0307021]{}, submitted to Phys. Rev. D (2003).
Collaboration, B. Aubert [*et al.*]{}, contribution to LP 2003, [hep-ex/0308026]{} (2003).
A.J. Buras, Phys. Lett. [**B566**]{}, 115 (2003).
A. Dedes [*et al.*]{}, FERMILAB-PUB-02-129-T, [hep-ph/0207026]{} (2002).
[^1]: Throughout this article, references to a hadron or to a decay reaction also imply their charge conjugate.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We begin by showing that every real analytic orbifold has a real analytic Riemannian metric. It follows that every reduced real analytic orbifold can be expressed as a quotient of a real analytic manifold by a real analytic almost free action of a compact Lie group. We then extend a well-known result of Nomizu and Ozeki concerning Riemannian metrics on manifolds to the orbifold setting: Let $X$ be a smooth (real analytic) orbifold and let $\alpha$ be a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$. Then $X$ has a complete smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric conformal to $\alpha$.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Virginia\
Charlottesville, VA 22903\
USA
author:
- Marja Kankaanrinta
title: On real analytic orbifolds and Riemannian metrics
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
In this paper we consider Riemannian metrics on smooth, i.e., ${\rm C}^\infty$, and real analytic orbifolds. As is well-known, a smooth Riemannian metric for any smooth orbifold can be constructed by using invariant Riemannian metrics on orbifold charts and gluing them together by a smooth partition of unity. Real analytic manifolds admit real analytic Riemannian metrics, since they can be real analytically embedded in Euclidean spaces. Neither of these two methods to construct Riemannian metrics work for real analytic orbifolds and a different approach is needed.
Recall that an orbifold is called [*reduced*]{} if the actions of the finite groups on orbifold charts are effective. We first study the frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(X)$ of a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold $X$. The frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(X)$ is a real analytic manifold and the general linear group ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts properly and almost freely, i.e., with finite isotropy subgroups, on ${\rm Fr}(X)$. Thus ${\rm Fr}(X)$ has a ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$-invariant real analytic Riemannian metric ([@IK], Theorem I), which induces a real analytic Riemannian metric on $X$. We then show that every real analytic orbifold inherits a real analytic Riemannian metric from the corresponding reduced orbifold. Therefore we obtain:
\[realanalcase\] Let $X$ be a real analytic orbifold. Then $X$ has a real analytic Riemannian metric.
Since, by Theorem \[realanalcase\], every real analytic orbifold has a real analytic Riemannian metric, we can construct the orthonormal frame bundle ${\rm OFr}(X)$ for every reduced real analytic orbifold. Exactly as in the smooth case ([@ALR], Theorem 1.23) we prove:
\[Orthonframe\] Let $X$ be a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold. Then $X$ is real analytically diffeomorphic to the quotient orbifold ${\rm OFr}(X)/{{\rm O}(n)}$.
Notice that if $X$ is a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold, then ${\rm OFr}(X)$ is a real analytic manifold with a real analytic, effective, almost free action of the orthogonal group ${\rm O}(n)$. Thus Theorem \[Orthonframe\] implies the following:
\[quotbygroup\] Let $X$ be a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold. Then $X$ is real analytically diffeomorphic to a quotient orbifold $M/{\rm O}(n)$, where $M$ is a real analytic manifold and ${\rm O}(n)$ acts on $M$ real analytically, effectively and almost freely.
It follows that reduced real analytic orbifolds can be studied by using methods developed for studying real analytic almost free actions of compact Lie groups.
To prove Theorems \[realanalcase\] and \[Orthonframe\], we use two kinds of comparisons. Firstly, we compare Riemannian metrics on a quotient orbifold $M/G$ to $G$-invariant Riemannian metrics on the $G$-manifold $M$ (Section \[quotmetr\]). Secondly, we compare Riemannian metrics on an orbifold to those on the corresponding reduced orbifold (Section \[compX\]). We conclude the paper by applying these comparisons to prove a result concerning complete Riemannian metrics:
\[complthm\] Let $X$ be a smooth (resp. real analytic) orbifold. For any smooth (resp. real analytic) Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on $X$ there exists a complete smooth (resp. real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$ which is conformal to $\alpha$.
The corresponding result for Riemannian metrics on smooth manifolds has been proven by K. Nomizu and H. Ozeki ([@NO], Theorem 1). The corresponding equivariant result, which also is used in the proof of Theorem \[complthm\], was proved by the author ([@Ka], Theorems 3.1 and 5.2).
[[*Acknowledgements.*]{} The author’s research was supported by the visitors program of the Aalto University during the academic year 2012 - 2013. The author would like to thank the Department of Mathematics and Systems Analysis of the Aalto University for its hospitality during her stay.]{}
Definitions {#orbi}
===========
We first recall the definition of an orbifold:
\[orbichartdef\] Let $X$ be a topological space and let $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$.
1. An [*orbifold chart*]{} of $X$ is a triple $(\widetilde{U}, G, \varphi)$, where $\widetilde{U}$ is an open connected subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $G$ is a finite group acting on $\widetilde{U}$ and $\varphi\colon \widetilde{U}\to X$ is a $G$-invariant map inducing a homeomorphism $U=\varphi(\widetilde{U})\cong\widetilde{U}/G$. Let ${\rm ker}(G)$ be the subgroup of $G$ acting trivially on $\widetilde{U}$.
2. An [*embedding*]{} $(\lambda,\theta)\colon (\widetilde{U}, G, \varphi)\to
(\widetilde{V}, H,\psi)$ between two orbifold charts is an injective homomorphism $\theta\colon G\to H$ such that $\theta$ is an isomorphism from ${\rm ker}(G)$ to ${\rm ker}(H)$, and an equivariant embedding $\lambda\colon \widetilde{U}\to\widetilde{V}$ with $\psi\circ\lambda=\varphi$.
3. An [*orbifold atlas*]{} on $X$ is a family ${\cal{U}}=\{ (\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)\}$ of orbifold charts which cover $X$ and satisfy the following: For any two charts $(\widetilde{U},G,\varphi)$ and $(\widetilde{V}, H,\psi)$ and a point $x\in
\varphi(\widetilde{U})\cap \psi(\widetilde{V})$, there exist a chart $(\widetilde{W}, K,\mu)$ such that $x\in\mu(\widetilde{W})$ and embeddings $(\widetilde{W}, K,\mu)\to (\widetilde{U},G,\varphi)$ and $(\widetilde{W}, K,\mu)\to (\widetilde{V}, H,\psi)$.
4. An orbifold atlas ${\cal{U}}$ [*refines*]{} another orbifold atlas ${\cal{V}}$ if every chart in ${\cal{U}}$ can be embedded into some chart in ${\cal{V}}$. Two orbifold atlases are [*equivalent*]{} if they have a common refinement.
\[orbidef\] An $n$-dimensional [*orbifold*]{} is a paracompact Hausdorff space $X$ equipped with an equivalence class of $n$-dimensional orbifold atlases.
An orbifold is called [*smooth*]{} (resp. [*real analytic*]{}), if for every orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$, $G$ acts smoothly (resp. real analytically) on $\widetilde{U}$ and if each embedding $\lambda\colon\widetilde{U}\to\widetilde{V}$ is smooth (resp. real analytic).
Let $X$ be an orbifold, and let $x\in X$. Let $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$ and $(\widetilde{V}, H,\psi)$ be orbifold charts of $X$ such that $x\in\varphi(\widetilde{U})\cap \psi(\widetilde{V})$. Let $\tilde{x}\in\widetilde{U}$ and $\tilde{y}\in\widetilde{V}$ be such that $\varphi(\tilde{x})=\psi(\tilde{y})=x$. We denote the isotropy subgroups at $\tilde{x}$ and $\tilde{y}$ by $G_{\tilde{x}}$ and $H_{\tilde{y}}$, respectively. Then $G_{\tilde{x}}$ and $H_{\tilde{y}}$ are isomorphic. Thus we can associate to every $x\in X$ a finite group, well-defined up to an isomorphism, and called [*the local group*]{} of $x$.
Orbifold maps are defined as follows:
\[orbimap\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth (real analytic) orbifolds. We call a map $f\colon X\to Y$ a [*smooth (real analytic) orbifold map*]{}, if for every $x\in X$, there are charts $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$ around $x$ and $(\widetilde{V}, H,\psi)$ around $f(x)$, such that $f$ maps $U=\varphi(\widetilde{U})$ into $V=\psi(\widetilde{V})$ and the restriction $f\vert U$ can be lifted to a smooth (real analytic) equivariant map $\widetilde{f}\colon\widetilde{U}\to \widetilde{V}$. A smooth (real analytic) map $f\colon X\to Y$ is called a [*smooth (real analytic) diffeomorphism*]{} if $f$ is a bijection and if the inverse map $f^{-1}\colon Y\to X$ is smooth (real analytic).
\[huomatutus\] Let $X$ be an orbifold and let $F$ be any finite group. Replace every orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$ of $X$ by the orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}, G\times F, \varphi)$, where $G\times F$ acts on $\widetilde{U}$ via the projection $G\times F\to G$. Doing this for every orbifold chart of $X$ yields an orbifold $Y$. The identity maps $X\to Y$ and $Y\to X$ are orbifold maps, and they are smooth (real analytic) if $X$ and $Y$ are smooth (real analytic) orbifolds. This means that two orbifolds are not necessarily considered equivalent, even if they are diffeomorphic. However, if there is a diffeomorphism $f\colon X\to Y$, where both $X$ and $Y$ are reduced orbifolds, then $X$ and $Y$ have equivalent sheaf categories ([@MP], Proposition 2.1). In particular, in this case the local groups of $x$ and $f(x)$ are isomorphic, for every $x\in X$.
\[riemmetriikka\] A [*Riemannian metric*]{} $\alpha$ on an orbifold $X$ is given by a collection of Riemannian metrics $\alpha^{\widetilde{U}}$on the $\widetilde{U}$ of the orbifold charts $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$ so that
1. the group $G$ acts isometrically on $\widetilde{U}$ and
2. the embeddings $\widetilde{W}\to \widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{W}\to \widetilde{V}$ of Part 3 of Definition \[orbichartdef\] are isometries.
If $X$ is a smooth (real analytic) orbifold and if all the $\alpha^{\widetilde{U}}$ are smooth (real analytic), then $\alpha$ is a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric.
Let $X$ be a smooth orbifold, and let $(\widetilde{U}_i, G_i,
\varphi_i)$, $i\in I$, be orbifold charts of $X$ such that $\{\varphi_i(\widetilde{U}_i)\}_{i\in I}$ is a locally finite cover of $X$. Then each $\widetilde{U}_i$ has a smooth Riemannian metric $\alpha^{\widetilde{U}_i}$, and by averaging over $G_i$, we may assume that $\alpha^{\widetilde{U}_i}$ is $G_i$-invariant, i.e., that $G_i$ acts isometrically on $\widetilde{U}_i$. Gluing these Riemannian metrics together, by using a smooth partition of unity, gives a smooth Riemannian metric on $X$ ([@MM], Proposition 2.20). All the orbifolds in [@MM] are assumed to be reduced. However, the proof of Proposition 2.20 also works in the general case.
We next recall the way to define [*distance*]{} on a connected Riemannian orbifold, for details and proofs, see [@Bo]. Assume a smooth (real analytic) orbifold $X$ is equipped with a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric $\alpha$. Let $\gamma\colon [0,1]\to X$ be an [ *admissible*]{} curve ([@Bo], Definition 35). The interval $[0,1]$ can be decomposed into finitely many subintervals $[t_i, t_{i+1}]$ such that $\gamma( [t_i, t_{i+1}])\subset U_i=\varphi(
\widetilde{U}_i)$, for some chart $(\widetilde{U}_i, G_i,\varphi_i)$ of $X$. Let $\gamma_i$ denote the restriction of $\gamma$ to $[t_i,t_{i+1}]$, and let $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$ be a lift of $\gamma_i$, for every $i$. If $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$ is piecewise differentiable, its length can be calculated by integrating. If $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$ is merely continuous, then its length can be calculated by approximating it by piecewise differentiable curves. Every lift of $\gamma_i$ has the same length and the length of the lift does not depend on which chart of $X$ is being used. Thus the lenght $L_\alpha(\gamma_i)$ of $\gamma_i$ can be defined to be the lenght of $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$. Then the length $L_\alpha(\gamma)$ of $\gamma$ equals the sum of the $L_\alpha(\gamma_i)$.
Every curve connecting two points on an orbifold can always be replaced by an admissible curve whose local lifts are at most as long as the ones of the original curve ([@Bo], Remark 39). Thus the distance between any given points $x$ and $y$ of a connected orbifold $X$ can be defined to be $$d_\alpha(x,y)=
\inf \{ L_\alpha(\gamma)\mid \gamma \,\, {\rm is \,\, an\,\, admissible\,\,
curve\,\, joining}\,\, x \,\,{\rm to}\,\, y\}.$$
Then $X$ equipped with the metric $d_\alpha$ becomes a metric space. If $d_\alpha$ is a complete metric, then any two points on $X$ can be joined by a minimal geodesic realizing the distance $d_\alpha(x,y)$ ([@Bo], Theorem 40). Moreover, $X$ is a locally compact length space. Thus it follows that $d_\alpha$ is a complete metric if and only if the metric balls in $X$ are relatively compact.
Riemannian metric on a quotient orbifold {#quotmetr}
========================================
Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $M$ be a smooth (real analytic) manifold. Assume $G$ acts on $M$ by a smooth (real analytic) almost free action. Assume also that the action is [*proper*]{}, i.e., that the map $$G\times M\to M\times M,\,\,\, (g,x)\mapsto (gx,x),$$ is proper. It is well-known that the quotient $M/G$ is a smooth (real analytic) orbifold and that every smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on $M$ induces a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $M/G$. We present a proof of this basic result here (Theorem \[indmetr\]), since we failed to find one in the literature.
The main idea is to use the [*differentiable slice theorem*]{}: Let $x\in M$ and let $Gx$ denote the orbit of $x$. Let $G_x$ denote the isotropy subgroup of $G$ at $x$. A $G$-invariant neighbourhood of $x$ can be equipped with a smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metric. Then there is a $G_x$-invariant smooth (real analytic) submanifold ${\rm N}_x$ of $M$ that contains $x$ and is $G_x$-equivariantly diffeomorphic to an open $G_x$-invariant neighbourhood of the origin in the normal space ${\rm T}_x(M)/{\rm T}_x(Gx)$ to $Gx$ at $x$. The manifold ${\rm N}_x$ is called a [*linear slice*]{} at $x$. It intersects the orbit $Gx$ orthogonally, and it intersects every orbit it meets trasversely but not necessarily orthogonally. The exponential map takes an open neighbourhood of the zero section of the normal bundle of $Gx$ diffeomorphically to the neighbourhood $G{\rm N}_x$ of $Gx$ which can be identified with the twisted product $G\times_{G_x}
{\rm N}_x$. The map $$f\colon G{\rm N}_x\cong G\times_{G_x}{\rm N}_x\to G/G_x\cong Gx,\,\,\,
gy\mapsto gx,$$ is smooth (real analytic) and $G$-equivariant. The map $f$ is exactly the map that assigns to every point $z$ in $G{\rm N}_x$ the unique nearest point $f(z)$ in $Gx$. Thus, if $g\in G$ and $y\in {\rm N}_x$, then the distance from $gy$ to $Gx$ equals $d(gy,gx)=d(y,x)$, where $d$ denotes the metric induced by the local Riemannian metric on the connected components of $G{\rm N}_x$.
Let $x\in M$ and let ${\rm N}_x$ be a linear slice at $x$ constructed by using a local $G$-invariant Riemannian metric $\alpha_1$. There is a real analytic local cross section $\delta\colon U\to G$ of the map $G\to G/G_x$, $g\mapsto gG_x$, defined in some $G_x$-invariant neighbourhood $U$ of $eG_x$ in $G/G_x$ and having the property $\delta(eG_x)=e$. We may choose $\delta$ to be $G_x$-equivariant, i.e., $\delta(hu)=h\delta(u)h^{-1}$, for every $h\in G_x$ and for every $u\in U$. Let $f_0\colon G{\rm N}_x\to G/G_x$, $gy\mapsto gG_x$. The map $F\colon U\times {\rm N}_{x}\to V$, $(u,s)\mapsto \delta(u)s$, is a smooth (real analytic) diffeomorphism onto some neighbourhood $V$ of ${\rm N}_x$. The inverse of $F$ is given by $F^{-1}\colon V\to U\times {\rm N}_{x}$, $y\mapsto (f_0(y),\delta(f_0(y))^{-1}y)$. Let then $y\in {\rm N}_x$ and let ${\rm N}'_y$ be a linear slice at $y$ constructed by using a local $G$-invariant Riemannian metric $\alpha_2$. We may assume that ${\rm N}'_y\subset V$. Let ${\rm pr}\colon U\times {\rm N}_x\to
{\rm N}_x$ be the projection, and let $\lambda={\rm pr}\circ
F^{-1}\vert\colon {\rm N}'_y\to {\rm N}_x$. Then $\lambda$ is an equivariant embedding and it induces the identity map on the orbit space level.
It follows that the quotient $M/G$ is an orbifold with orbifold charts $({\rm N}_x, G_x, \pi_x)$, where $x\in M$ and $\pi_x$ denotes the natural projection ${\rm N}_x\to {\rm N}_x/G_x
\cong (G{\rm N}_x)/G$. The ${\rm N}_x$ are defined by using local $G$-invariant Riemannian metrics.
Let us next consider a smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on $M$. For every $x\in M$, let ${\rm N}_x$ be a linear slice constructed by using $\alpha$. Then $\alpha$ induces a smooth (real analytic) $G_x$-invariant Riemannian metric $\alpha\vert{\rm N}_x$ on ${\rm N}_x$, for every $x$. (The inner product on ${\rm T}_z{\rm N}_x$, $z\in {\rm N}_x$, is given by first projecting to ${\rm T}_z{\rm N}_z$ and then composing with $\alpha$.) Thus $G_x$ acts isometrically on ${\rm N}_x$, for every $x\in M$. By construction, the embeddings ${\rm N}_y\to {\rm N}_x$ are isometries. Let then ${\rm N}'_x$ be a linear slice at $x$ defined by using some local $G$-invariant Riemannian metric. The map $\lambda\colon {\rm N}'_x\to {\rm N}_x$ induces a smooth (real analytic) $G_x$-invariant Riemannian metric $\lambda_\ast(\alpha\vert{\rm N}_x)$ on ${\rm N}'_x$. Thus also $\lambda$ is an isometry. Consequently, the Riemannian metrics obtained on the linear slices satisfy the conditions of Definition \[riemmetriikka\]. Therefore, $\alpha$ induces a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $M/G$. We have proved:
\[indmetr\] Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $M$ be a smooth (real analytic) manifold on which $G$ acts by a proper, smooth (real analytic) almost free action. Then the quotient $M/G$ is a smooth (real analytic) orbifold. Every smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on $M$ induces a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric $\hat{\alpha}$ on $M/G$.
We leave it for the reader to verify the following observation:
\[viimeinen\] Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $M$ be a smooth (real analytic) manifold on which $G$ acts by a proper, smooth (real analytic) almost free action. Assume $M/G$ is connected. Let $M_0$ be a connected component of $M$, and let $H=\{ g\in G\mid gM_0=M_0\}$. Then the following hold:
1. $H$ is a closed subgroup of $G$, and it contains the connected component $G_0$ of the identity element of $G$,
2. the quotient orbifolds $M/G$ and $M_0/H$ are canonically smoothly (real analytically) diffeomorphic,
3. there is a one-to-one correspondence between smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metrics on $M$ and smooth (real analytic) $H$-invariant Riemannian metrics on $M_0$,
4. there is a one-to-one correspondence between smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant maps $M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ and smooth (real analytic) $H$-invariant maps $M_0\to
{\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $G$, $M$ and $\alpha$ be as in Theorem \[indmetr\]. Let $x\in M$ and let ${\rm N}_x$ be a linear slice at $x$, defined by using $\alpha$. Let $\delta\colon U\to G$ be a real analytic cross section of the map $G\to G/G_x$, $g\mapsto gG_x$, as before Theorem \[indmetr\]. Let $F\colon U\times {\rm N}_{x}\to V$, be the smooth (real analytic) diffeomorphism defined by using $\delta$, and let ${\rm pr}\colon U\times {\rm N}_{x}\to {\rm N}_x$ denote the projection. Let $\gamma\colon [0,1]\to V\subset G{\rm N}_x$ be a curve. The map ${\rm pr}\circ F^{-1}$ takes every point in $V$ to a point in the same orbit. Thus the curves ${\rm pr}\circ F^{-1}\circ\gamma$ and $\gamma$ induce the same curve $[0,1]\to M/G$. Assume there is $c\in (0,1)$ such that $\gamma(c)=x$. Let $\gamma_0$ be the geodesic segment connecting $({\rm pr}\circ F^{-1}\circ \gamma)(0)$ to $x$ and let $\gamma_1$ be the geodesic segment connecting $x$ to $({\rm pr}\circ F^{-1}\circ\gamma)(1)$. Then the two geodesic segments are contained in ${\rm N}_x$ and they intersect orthogonally the $G$-orbits they meet (see [@AKLM], the proof of Proposition 3.1 (2)). Let $\gamma^\ast$ denote the curve $\gamma_0\cup\gamma_1$. We obtain:
\[huom\] For every curve $\gamma\colon [0,1]\to V$ such that $\gamma(c)=x$, for some $c\in (0,1)$, there is a curve $\gamma^\ast\colon [0,1]\to {\rm N}_x$ having the following properties:
1. $L_{\hat{\alpha}}(\gamma^\ast)
=L_\alpha(\gamma^\ast)
\leq L_\alpha(\gamma)$,
2. $\pi(\gamma^\ast(0))=\pi(\gamma(0))$ and $\pi(\gamma^\ast(1))=\pi(\gamma(1))$.
We point out that for any curve $\gamma$ in ${\rm N}_x$, $L_{\hat{\alpha}}(
\gamma)$ denotes the length of $\gamma$ calculated by using the Riemannian metric $\alpha\vert
{\rm N}_x$ defined before Theorem \[indmetr\], while $L_\alpha(\gamma)$ denotes the length of $\gamma$ calculated by using the $G_x$-invariant submanifold Riemannian metric $\alpha$ induces on ${\rm N}_x$. If $\gamma$ intersects orthogonally every orbit it meets, then the two lengths are the same.
Assume $M/G$ is connected. Let $M_0$ be a connected component of $M$, and let $H$ be the subgroup of $G$ consisting of the elements that map $M_0$ to itself, as in Lemma \[viimeinen\]. Let $\alpha$ be a smooth (real analytic) $G$-invariant Riemannian metric on $M$. By restriction, we may consider $\alpha$ as an $H$-invariant Riemannian metric on $M_0$. Let $d_{\alpha}$ be the $H$-invariant metric induced on $M_0$ by $\alpha$. The metric $d_{\alpha}$ then induces a metric $\widetilde{d}_{{\alpha}}$ on $M_0/H\cong M/G$, where $$\widetilde{d}_{{\alpha}}(\pi(x),\pi(y))=\inf \{ d_\alpha(x,hy)\mid h\in H\}.$$ Let $d_{\hat\alpha}$ be the metric that the Riemannian metric $\hat\alpha$ induces on $M/G$. We will use Lemma \[huom\] to prove the following result:
\[samametriikka\] Let $M$, $G$, $\alpha$ and $\hat{\alpha}$ be as in Theorem \[indmetr\]. Assume $M/G$ is connected. Then $\widetilde{d}_{{\alpha}}=d_{\hat\alpha}$.
By Lemma \[viimeinen\], we may without loss of generality assume that $M$ is connected. Let $x, y\in M$. We will show that $\widetilde{d}_{{\alpha}}
(\pi(x),\pi(y))=d_{\hat\alpha}(\pi(x),\pi(y))$. Let $\gamma\colon
[0,1]\to M/G$ be a curve such that $\gamma(0)=\pi(x)$ and $\gamma(1)=\pi(y)$. We may assume that $\gamma$ is admissible. Let $\widetilde{\gamma}\colon [0,1]\to M$ be a lift of $\gamma$. Decompose the interval $[0,1]$ into finitely many subintervals $[t_i,t_{i+1}]$, $1\leq i\leq m$, such that $\widetilde{\gamma}( [t_i, t_{i+1}])$ is contained in a small neighbourhood $V_i\cong
U_i\times {\rm N}_{x_i}$ of ${\rm N}_{x_i}$, as before Lemma \[huom\], where ${\rm N}_{x_i}$ is a linear slice at $x_i\in \widetilde{\gamma}([t_i,t_{i+1}])$. We may assume that $x_1=\widetilde{\gamma}(0)$ and $x_m=\widetilde{\gamma}(1)$. For every $1<i<m$, let $c_i\in (t_i,t_{i+1})$ be such that $\widetilde{\gamma}(c_i)=x_i$. Let $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$ denote the restriction of $\widetilde{\gamma}$ to $[t_i,t_{i+1}]$, for every $i$. By Lemma \[huom\], we may replace every curve $\widetilde{\gamma}_i$ by a curve $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i\colon
[t_i,t_{i+1}]\to {\rm N}_{x_i}$ having the properties that $\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i(t_i))=\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}_i(t_i))$, $\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i(t_{i+1}))=\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}_i(t_{i+1}))$ and $$L_{\hat{\alpha}}(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i)
=L_\alpha(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i)
\leq L_\alpha(\widetilde{\gamma}_i).$$ We next show that the $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast _i$ can be chosen in such a way that they define a curve $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast\colon [0,1]\to M$, where $\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast(0))=\pi(x)$ and $\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast(1))=\pi(y)$. For example, $\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_1(t_2))=\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_2(t_2))$, $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_1(t_2)\in {\rm N}_{x_1}$ and $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_2(t_2)=g\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_1(t_2)$, for some $g\in G$. Thus, if $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_1(t_2)\not=
\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_2(t_2)$, we can replace $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_2$ by $g^{-1}\circ \widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_2$. Continuing like this, we can replace every $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast_i$, if necessary, in such a way that we obtain a curve $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast\colon
[0,1]\to M$. The curve $\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast$ induces a curve $\gamma^\ast\colon [0,1]\to M/G$ with $\gamma^\ast(0)=\pi(x)$ and $\gamma^\ast(1)=\pi(y)$. It follows from the way $\gamma^\ast$ was constructed that $$L_{\hat\alpha}(\gamma^\ast)=
L_{\alpha}(\widetilde{\gamma}^\ast)
\leq L_{\alpha}(\widetilde{\gamma}).$$ Since $\gamma$ was an arbitrary path from $\pi(x)$ to $\pi(y)$, it follows that $$d_{\hat\alpha}(\pi(x),\pi(y))\leq
\widetilde{d}_\alpha(\pi(x),\pi(y)).$$
Let then $z\in M$ and let ${\rm N}_z$ be a linear slice at $z$. Let $\mu\colon [0,1]
\to {\rm N}_z$ be a curve. We may assume that $\mu$ is simple, starts at $z$ and intersects each orbit at most once. If $\mu([0,1])$ is orthogonal to every orbit it meets, then $L_{\alpha}(\mu)=L_{\hat{\alpha}}(\mu)$. If $\mu([0,1])$ is not orthogonal to every orbit it meets, then we may replace $\mu$ by a curve $\mu^\ast\colon [0,1]
\to G{\rm N}_z$ with $\mu^\ast(t)\in G\mu(t)$, for every $t\in [0,1]$, such that $\mu^\ast([0,1])$ is orthogonal to every orbit it meets. Then $$L_{\hat{\alpha}}(\mu)=
L_{{\alpha}}(\mu^\ast)\geq \widetilde{d}_{\alpha}(\pi(\mu(0)),\pi(\mu(1))).$$ Replacing local lifts of any path from $\pi(x)$ to $\pi(y)$ in this manner and gluing them at the endpoints shows that $$\widetilde{d}_\alpha(\pi(x),\pi(y))
\leq
d_{\hat\alpha}(\pi(x),\pi(y)).$$
According to Lemma 2.4 in [@Ka], the metric $\widetilde{d}_{\alpha}$ on $M/G\cong M_0/H$ is complete if and only if the $H$-invariant metric $d_{{\alpha}}$ on $M_0$ is complete. Since, by Theorem \[samametriikka\], $\widetilde{d}_{{\alpha}}=d_{\hat\alpha}$, it follows that $d_{\hat{\alpha}}$ is complete if and only if $d_{\alpha}$ is complete. We conclude:
\[korollaari\] Let $G$ be a Lie group and let $M$ be a smooth (real analytic) manifold on which $G$ acts by a proper, smooth (real analytic) almost free action. Let $\alpha$ be a $G$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $M$ and let $\hat{\alpha}$ be the smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric that $\alpha$ induces on $M/G$. Then $\hat{\alpha}$ is complete if and only if $\alpha$ is complete.
Comparing Riemannian metrics on $X$ and $X_{\rm red}$ {#compX}
=====================================================
Let $X$ be a smooth (real analytic) orbifold. Assume $X$ is not reduced. Replacing every orbifold chart $(\widetilde{U}, G,\varphi)$ by a chart $(\widetilde{U}, G/{\rm ker}(G), \varphi)$ yields a smooth (real analytic) reduced orbifold $X_{\rm red}$. The orbifolds $X$ and $X_{\rm red}$ are identical as topological spaces and the identity map $X\to X_{\rm red}$ is an orbifold map. Let $(\widetilde{U}, G, \varphi)$ be an orbifold chart of $X$. Then a Riemannian metric on $\widetilde{U}$ is invariant under the action of $G$ if and only if it is invariant under the action of $G/{\rm ker}(G)$. The following proposition follows immediately from Definition \[riemmetriikka\]:
\[one-to-one\] There is a one-to-one correspondence between Riemannian metrics on $X$ and Riemannian metrics on $X_{\rm red}$. A Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on $X$ is smooth (real analytic) if and only if the corresponding Riemannian metric $\alpha_{\rm red}$ on $X_{\rm red}$ is smooth (real analytic).
\[huomautus\] Assume $X$ is connected. Let $d_\alpha$ and $d_{\alpha_{\rm red}}$ be the metrics induced on $X$ by $\alpha$ and on $X_{\rm red}$ by $\alpha_{\rm red}$, respectively. If we just consider $X$ and $X_{\rm red}$ as topological spaces, i.e., if we identify $X_{\rm red}$ with $X$, then both $d_\alpha$ and $d_{\alpha_{\rm red}}$ are metrics on $X$ and $d_\alpha=d_{\alpha_{\rm red}}$. In particular, this implies that $\alpha$ is complete if and only if $\alpha_{\rm red}$ is complete.
Real analytic Riemannian metric {#real}
===============================
In this section we show that every real analytic orbifold has a real analytic Riemannian metric. In order to do that, we first need to construct the [*frame bundle*]{} ${\rm Fr}(X)$ of a reduced real analytic orbifold $X$. The construction is similar to that in the smooth case. For details, see [@MM], pp. 42–43.
Recall that, for an $n$-dimensional real analytic manifold, the frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(M)$ is a real analytic fibre bundle over $M$, the fibre of $x\in M$ is the manifold of all ordered bases of the tangent space ${\rm T}_x(M)$. The frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(M)$ admits a canonical right action of the general linear group ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ which makes it a principal ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$-bundle over $M$.
For a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold $X$, we first form the frame bundles ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)$ corresponding to orbifold charts $(\widetilde{U}_i,
G_i,\varphi_i)$. The action of $G_i$ on $\widetilde{U}_i$ induces a left action on ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)$: $$G_i\times {\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)\to {\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i),\,\,\,
(g,(x, B_x))\mapsto (gx,(dg)_x(B_x)).$$ Since $G_i$ acts effectively on $\widetilde{U}_i$, it follows that the action of $G_i$ on ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)$ is free. The group ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts on ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)$ from the right and the action commutes with the action of $G_i$. Thus ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)/G_i$ is a real analytic manifold on which ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts real analytically. In fact, we can consider ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)/G_i$ as a twisted product ${\widetilde{U}}_i\times_{G_i}{\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$. It now follows from Lemma 0.1 in [@IK], that ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts properly on ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)/G_i$.
Assume $A\in {\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ and $[x,I]A=[x,I]$. Then $(x, A)=(gx,(dg)_x)$, for some $g\in G_i$. Thus $g\in (G_i)_x$ and $A=(dg)_x$. It follows that the isotropy subgroups of the ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$-action are finite, i.e., ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts almost freely on ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)/G_i$.
The frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(X)$ of $X$ can be constructed by gluing together the quotients ${\rm Fr}(\widetilde{U}_i)/G_i$. This is done by using the gluing maps induced by the embeddings $\lambda_{ij}\colon \widetilde{U}_i\to\widetilde{U}_j$ between orbifold charts. We obtain:
\[apuframe\] Let $X$ be a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold. Then the frame bundle ${\rm Fr}(X)$ of $X$ is a real analytic manifold on which ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts by a proper, real analytic, effective, almost free action. The orbifolds $X$ and ${\rm Fr}(X)/{\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ are real analytically diffeomorphic.
We are now ready to prove Theorems \[realanalcase\] and \[Orthonframe\]:
[*Proof of Theorem \[realanalcase\].*]{} Let us first assume that $X$ is a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold. By Theorem \[apuframe\], $X\cong{\rm Fr}(X)/{\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$. Since ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$ acts properly and real analytically on ${\rm Fr}(X)$, it follows from Theorem I in [@IK], that ${\rm Fr}(X)$ has a real analytic ${\rm GL}_n({\mathbb{R}})$-invariant Riemannian metric ${\alpha}$. But then, by Theorem \[indmetr\], ${\alpha}$ induces a real analytic Riemannian metric on $X$.
Let then $X$ be any real analytic orbifold, and let $X_{\rm red}$ be the corresponding reduced orbifold. By the first part of the proof, we know that $X_{\rm red}$ has a real analytic Riemannian metric. It now follows from Proposition \[one-to-one\], that also $X$ has a real analytic Riemannian metric.
[*Proof of Theorem \[Orthonframe\].*]{} Let $X$ be a reduced $n$-dimensional real analytic orbifold. Since $X$ has a real analytic Riemannian metric, by Theorem \[realanalcase\], we can construct the orthonormal frame bundle ${\rm OFr}(X)$ of $X$ (denoted by ${\rm Fr}(X)$ in [@ALR]), exactly as in the smooth case, see pp. 11 - 12 in [@ALR]. The proof is now similar to the proof of the smooth case ([@ALR], Theorem 1.23).
The following result is well-known, see Proposition 2.1 in [@SU] for the smooth case. The proof of the real analytic case is similar.
\[seuraus\] Let $X$ be a reduced $n$-dimensional smooth (real analytic) orbifold and let ${\rm OFr}(X)$ be the orthonormal frame bundle of $X$. Let $\beta$ be a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on ${\rm OFr}(X)/{\rm O}(n)$. Then there is an ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on ${\rm OFr}(X)$ such that $\beta$ equals the Riemannian metric $\hat{\alpha}$ induced on ${\rm OFr}(X)/{\rm O}(n)$ by $\alpha$.
Theorem \[Orthonframe\], Corollary \[korollaari\], Proposition \[seuraus\], Proposition \[one-to-one\] and the remark after it imply the following correspondence:
\[vastaavuus\] Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional smooth (real analytic) orbifold, and let $X_{\rm red}$ be the reduced orbifold corresponding to $X$. Then every smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$ is induced by an ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$. Conversely, any ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ induces a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$. A Riemannian metric on $X$ is complete if and only if it is induced by a complete ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant Riemannian metric on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$.
Complete Riemannian metric {#complete}
==========================
Recall that two smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metrics $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ on a smooth (real analytic) orbifold $X$ are called [*conformal*]{}, if there exists a smooth (real analytic) orbifold map $\omega\colon X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\omega(x)>0$ for every $x\in X$ and $\alpha_1=\omega\alpha_2$.
[*Proof of Theorem \[complthm\].*]{} Let ${\rm id}\colon X\to X_{\rm red}$ be the identity map. By Theorem 1.23 in [@ALR] and Theorem \[Orthonframe\], there is a smooth (real analytic) diffeomorphism $f\colon X_{\rm red}\to {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})
/{\rm O}(n)$. Let $\pi\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})\to
{\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red}) /{\rm O}(n)$ denote the natural projection. Let $\alpha$ be a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$, and let $\alpha_{\rm red}$ be the corresponding Riemannian metric on $X_{\rm red}$. The diffeomorphism $f$ induces a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric $f^\ast\alpha_{\rm red}$ on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})
/{\rm O}(n)$. By Proposition \[seuraus\], there is an ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric $\beta$ on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ such that the Riemannian metric $\hat{\beta}$ induced on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})
/{\rm O}(n)$ by $\beta$ equals $f^\ast\alpha_{\rm red}$. By Theorems 3.1 and 5.2 in [@Ka], there is an ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) map $\omega\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})\to
{\mathbb{R}}$ such that the Riemannian metric $\omega^2\beta$ on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ is complete. Let $\bar{\omega}\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})/{\rm O}(n)\to
{\mathbb{R}}$ denote the map induced by $\omega$. Then $(\bar{\omega}^2\circ f\circ {\rm id})\alpha$ is a complete smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$ conformal to $\alpha$.
A Riemannian metric $\alpha$ on a connected orbifold $X$ is called [*bounded*]{} if $X$ is bounded with respect to the metric induced by $\alpha$. The following result concerning bounded Riemannian metrics was originally proved by Nomizu and Ozeki in the manifold setting ([@NO], Theorem 2).
\[boundthm\] Let $X$ be a connected smooth (real analytic) orbifold and let $\alpha$ be a smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$. Then there is a bounded smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$ which is conformal to $\alpha$.
We use the same notation as in the proof of Theorem \[complthm\]. By Theorem \[complthm\], we may assume that $\alpha$ is complete. Let $x_0$ be an arbitrary point in ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ and let ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$ denote the connected component of ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ containing $x_0$. Let $H=\{ h\in {\rm O}(n)\mid h({\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0)
={\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0\}$. (In fact, $H={\rm O}(n)$, or $H={\rm SO}(n)$.) Let $\beta$ be the ${\rm O}(n)$-invariant smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})$ such that the Riemannian metric $\hat{\beta}$ induced on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})
/{\rm O}(n)$ by $\beta$ equals $f^\ast\alpha_{\rm red}$, and let $\beta_0$ denote the restriction of $\beta$ to ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$. Let $d_{\beta_0}$ denote the $H$-invariant metric $\beta_0$ induces on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$. Let $$r_0\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0\to {\mathbb{R}},\,\,\, x
\mapsto \max \{ d_{\beta_0}(hx_0,x)\mid h\in H\}.$$ Then $r_0$ is a continuous $H$-invariant map and $r_0(x)\geq d_{\beta_0}(x_0,x)$, for all $x\in {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$. By Lemmas 2.3 and 5.1 in [@Ka], there is an $H$-invariant smooth (real analytic) map $r\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0\to
{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $r(x)>r_0(x)$, for all $x\in {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$. The Riemannian metric $e^{-2r}\beta_0$ on ${\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0$ is $H$-invariant and, by the proof of Theorem 2 in [@NO], it is bounded. Let $\bar{r}\colon {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})/{\rm O}(n)
\cong {\rm OFr}(X_{\rm red})_0/H\to
{\mathbb{R}}$ denote the map induced by $r$. Then $e^{-2\bar{r}\circ f\circ{\rm id}}\alpha$ is a bounded smooth (real analytic) Riemannian metric on $X$ and it is conformal to $\alpha$.
Assume every Riemannian metric on $X$ is complete. According to Theorem \[boundthm\], $X$ has a bounded complete Riemannian metric. Thus it follows that $X$ must be compact.
[999]{} A. Adem, J. Leida, Y. Ruan, [*Orbifolds and stringy topology,*]{} Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics [**171**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. D. Alekseevsky, A. Kriegl, M. Losik, P. Michor, [*The Riemannian geometry of orbit spaces. The metric, geodesics, and integrable systems,*]{} Publ. Math. Debrecen [**62**]{} (2003), 1–30. J.E. Borzellino, [*Riemannian geometry of orbifolds,*]{} Ph.D. Thesis UCLA, 1992. S. Illman, M. Kankaanrinta, [*Three basic results for real analytic proper $G$-manifolds,*]{} Math. Ann. [**316**]{} (2000), 169–183. M. Kankaanrinta, [*Some basic results concerning $G$-invariant Riemannian metrics,*]{} J. Lie Theory [**18**]{} (2008) no. 1, 243–251. I. Moerdijk, J. Mrčun, [*Introduction to foliations and Lie groupoids,*]{} Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics [**91**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003. I. Moerdijk, D.A. Pronk, [*Orbifolds, sheaves and groupoids,*]{} K-theory [**12**]{} (1997), 3–21. K. Nomizu, H. Ozeki, [*The existence of complete Riemannian metrics,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**12**]{} No. 6 (1961), 889–891. E. Stanhope, A. Uribe, [*The spectral function of a Riemannian orbifold,*]{} Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. [**40**]{} (2011), 47–65.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper investigates the improvement of using maximum ratio combining (MRC) in cooperative vehicular communications (VCs) transmission schemes considering non-orthogonal multiple access scheme (NOMA) at intersections. The transmission occurs between a source and two destination nodes with a help of a relay. The transmission is subject to interference originated from vehicles that are located on the roads. Closed form outage probability expressions are obtained. We compare the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with a classical cooperative NOMA, and show that implementing MRC in cooperative NOMA transmission offers a significant improvement over the classical cooperative NOMA in terms of outage probability. We also compare the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with MRC cooperative orthogonal multiple access (OMA), and we show that NOMA has a better performance than OMA. Finally, we show that the outage probability increases when the nodes come closer to the intersection, and that using MRC considering NOMA improves the performance in this context. The analysis is verified with Monte Carlo simulations.'
author:
- Baha Eddine Youcef Belmekki
- Abdelkrim Hamza
- Benoît Escrig
bibliography:
- 'bibnoma.bib'
title: Outage Analysis of Cooperative NOMA Using Maximum Ratio Combining at Intersections
---
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}
NOMA, interference, outage probability, cooperative, stochastic geometry, MRC, intersections.
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
Road traffic safety is a major issue, and more particularly at intersections since $50\%$ of accidents occurs at intersections [@traficsafety]. Vehicular communications (VCs) offer several applications for accident prevention, or alerting vehicles when accidents happen in their vicinity. Thus, high reliability and low latency communications are required in safety-based vehicular communications. To increase the data rate and spectral efficiency [@ding2017application] in the fifth generation (5G) of communication systems, non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) is an appropriate candidate as a multiple access scheme. Unlike orthogonal multiple access (OMA), NOMA allows multiple users to share the same resource with different power allocation levels.
Related Works
-------------
NOMA is an efficient multiple access technique for spectrum use. It has been shown that NOMA outperforms OMA [@saito2013non; @dai2015non; @islam2017power; @ding2014performance; @mobini2017full]. However, few research investigates the effect of co-channel interference and their impact on the performance considering direct transmission [@ali2018analyzing; @zhang2016stochastic; @tabassum2017modeling], and cooperative transmission [@liu2017non].
Regarding VCs, several works investigate the effect of interference considering OMA in highway scenarios [@tassi2017modeling]. As for intersection scenarios, the performance in terms of success probability are derivated [@steinmetz2015stochastic; @abdulla2016vehicle]. The performance of vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications are evaluated for multiple intersections scheme in [@jeyaraj2017reliability]. In [@kimura2017theoretical], the authors derive the outage probability of a V2V communications with power control strategy. In [@article], the authors investigate the impact of a line of sight and non line of sight transmissions at intersections considering Nakagami-$m$ fading channels. In [@Belm1904:Outage; @belmekki2019ontheoutage; @belmekki2019outage], the authors respectively study the impact of non-orthogonal multiple access, cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access, and cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access considering millimeter waves at intersections.
Following this line of research, we study the performance of vehicular communications at intersections in the presence of interference considering cooperative NOMA transmissions using maximum ratio combining (MRC).
Contributions
-------------
The contributions of this paper are as follows:
- We analyze the performance and the improvement of using MRC in cooperative VCs transmission schemes considering NOMA at intersections in terms of outage probability. Closed form outage probability expressions are obtained.
- We compare the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with a classical cooperative NOMA, and show that implementing MRC in cooperative NOMA transmission offers a significant improvement over the classical cooperative NOMA in terms of outage probability.
- We also compare the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with MRC cooperative OMA, and we show that NOMA has a better performance than OMA.
- Finally, we show that the outage probability increases when the nodes come closer to the intersection, and that using MRC considering NOMA improves significantly the performance in this context.
- All the theoretical results are verified with Monte Carlo simulations.
Organization
------------
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the system model. In Section III, NOMA outage behavior is investigated. The Laplace transform expressions are presented in Section IV. Simulations and discussions are in Section V. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section VI.
System Model
============
![Cooperative NOMA system model for vehicular communications involving two destination nodes and a relay node. For this example, $S$ is a vehicle, $R$ is an infrastructure, $D_1$ is a vehicle, and $D_2$ is an infrastructure. []{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1.pdf)
In this paper, we consider a cooperative NOMA transmission between a source, denoted $S$, and two destinations, denoted $D_1$ and $D_2$, with the help of a relay, denoted $R$. The set $\{S, R, D_1, D_2\}$ denotes the nodes and their locations as depicted in Fig.\[Fig1\].
We consider an intersection scenario involving two perpendicular roads, an horizontal road denoted by $X$, and a vertical road denoted by $Y$. In this paper, we consider both V2V and V2I communications[^1], hence, any node of the set $\lbrace{S, R, D_1, D_2}\rbrace$ can be on the road or outside the roads. We denote by $M$ the receiving node, and by $m$ the distance between the node $M$ and the intersection, where $M \in \{R,D_1,D_2\}$ and $m \in \{r,d_1,d_2\}$, as shown in Fig.\[Fig1\]. Note that the intersection is the point where the $X$ road and the $Y$ road intersect.
The set $\lbrace{S, R, D_1, D_2}\rbrace$ is subject to interference that are originated from vehicles located on the roads. The set of interfering vehicles located on the $X$ road, denoted by $\Phi_{X}$ (resp. on the $Y$ road, denoted by $\Phi_{Y}$) are modeled as a One-Dimensional Homogeneous Poisson Point Process (1D-HPPP), that is, $\Phi_{X}\sim\textrm{1D-HPPP}(\lambda_{X},x)$ (resp.$\Phi_{Y}$ $\sim \textrm{1D-HPPP}(\lambda_{Y},y)$), where $x$ and $\lambda_{X}$ (resp. $y$ and $\lambda_{Y}$) are the position of interferer vehicles and their intensity on the $X$ road (resp. $Y$ road). The notation $x$ and $y$ denotes both the interferer vehicles and their locations. We consider slotted ALOHA protocol with parameter $p$, i.e., every node accesses the medium with a probability $p$. We denote by $l_{ab}$ the path loss between the nodes $a$ and $b$, where $l_{ab}= r_{ab}^{-\alpha}$, $ r_{ab}$ is the Euclidean distance between the node $a$ and $ b$, i.e., $ r_{ab}=\Vert a- b\Vert$, and $\alpha$ is the path loss exponent.
We use a Decode and Forward (DF) decoding strategy, i.e., $R$ decodes the message, re-encodes it, then forwards it to $D_1$ and $D_2$. We also use a half-duplex transmission in which a transmission occurs during two phases. Each phase lasts one time–slot. We consider using MRC at the destination nodes, hence, during the first phase, $S$ broadcasts the message, and the receiving nodes $R$, $D_1$ and $D_2$ try to decode it, that is, ($S \rightarrow R$, $S \rightarrow D_1$, and $S \rightarrow D_2$). During the second phase, $R$ broadcasts the message to $D_1$ and $D_2$ ($R \rightarrow D_1$ and $R \rightarrow D_2$). Then $D_1$ and $D_2$ add the power received in the first phase from $S$ and the power received from $R$ during the second phase to decode the message.
Several works in NOMA order the receiving nodes by their channel states (see [@ding2014performance; @ding2015cooperative] and references therein). However, it has been shown in [@ding2016relay; @ding2016mimo], that it is a more realistic assumption to order the receiving nodes according to their quality of service (QoS) priorities. We consider the case when, node $D_1$ needs a low data rate but has to be served immediately, whereas node $D_2$ require a higher data rate but can be served later. For instance $D_1$ can be a vehicle that needs to receive safety data information about an accident in its surrounding, whereas $D_2$ can be a user that accesses his/her internet connection. We consider an interference limited scenario, that is, the power of noise is neglected. Without loss of generality, we assume that all nodes transmit with a unit power. The signal transmitted by $S$, denoted $ \chi_{S}$ is a mixture of the message intended to $D_1$ and $D_2$. This can be expressed as $$\label{eq.1}
\chi_{S}=\sqrt{a_1}\chi_{D1}+\sqrt{a_2}\chi_{D2}, \nonumber$$ where $a_i$ is the power coefficients allocated to $D_i$, and $\chi_{Di}$ is the message intended to $D_i$, where $i \in \{1,2\}$. Since $D_1$ has higher power than $D_2$, that is $a_1 \ge a_2$, then $D_1$ comes first in the decoding order. Note that, $a_1+a_2=1$.\
The signal received at $R$ and $D_i$ during the first time slot are expressed as $$\mathcal{Y}_{R}=h_{SR}\sqrt{l_{SR}}\:\chi_{S}+
\sum_{x\in \Phi_{X_{R}}}h_{Rx}\sqrt{l_{Rx}}\:\chi_{x}
+\sum_{y\in \Phi_{Y_{R}}}h_{Ry}\sqrt{l_{Ry}}\:\chi_{y}, \nonumber$$ and $$\mathcal{Y}_{D_i}=h_{SD_i}\sqrt{l_{SD_i}}\:\chi_{S}+
\sum_{x\in \Phi_{X_{D_i}}}h_{D_{ix}}\sqrt{l_{D_{ix}}}\:\chi_{x}
+\sum_{y\in \Phi_{Y_{D_i}}}h_{D_{iy}}\sqrt{l_{D_{iy}}}\:\chi_{y}. \nonumber$$ The signal received at $D_i$ during the second time slot is expressed as $$\mathcal{Y}_{D_i}=h_{RD_i}\sqrt{l_{RD_i}}\:\chi_{R}+
\sum_{x\in \Phi_{X_{D_i}}}h_{D_{ix}}\sqrt{l_{D_{ix}}}\:\chi_{x}
+\sum_{y\in \Phi_{Y_{D_i}}}h_{D_{iy}}\sqrt{l_{D_{iy}}}\:\chi_{y}, \nonumber$$ where $\mathcal{Y}_{Di}$ is the signal received by $D_i$. The messages transmitted by the interfere node $x$ and $y$, are denoted respectively by $ \chi_x$ and $\chi_y $, $h_{ab}$ denotes the fading coefficient between node $a$ and $b$, and it is modeled as $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. The power fading coefficient between the node $a$ and $b$, denoted $|h_{ab}|^2$, follows an exponential distribution with unit mean. The aggregate interference is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.5}
I_{X_{M}}=\sum_{x\in \Phi_{X_{M}}}\vert h_{Mx}\vert^{2}l_{Mx} \\
I_{Y_{M}}=\sum_{y\in \Phi_{Y_{M}}}\vert h_{My}\vert^{2}l_{My} , \end{aligned}$$ where $I_{X_{M}} $ denotes the aggregate interference from the $X$ road at $M$, $I_{Y_{M}}$ denotes the aggregate interference from the $Y$ road at $M$, $\Phi_{X_{M}}$ denotes the set of the interferers from the $X$ road at $M$, and $\Phi_{Y_{M}}$ denotes the set of the interferers from the $Y$ road at $M$.
NOMA Outage Behavior
====================
Outage Events
-------------
According to successive interference cancellation (SIC) [@hasna2003performance], $D_1$ is decoded first since it has the higher power allocation, and $D_2$ message is considered as interference. The outage event at $R$ to not decode $D_1$, denoted $\mathcal{A}_{R_1}(\Theta_1)$, is defined as $$\label{eq.6}
\mathcal{A}_{R_1}(\Theta_1)\triangleq \frac{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}\,a_1}{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_2+I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}} < \Theta_1,$$ where $\Theta_1=2^{2\mathcal{R}_1}-1$, and $\mathcal{R}_1$ is the target data rate of $D_1$.
Since $D_2$ has a lower power allocation, $R$ has to decode $D_1$ message, then decode $D_2$ message. The outage event at $R$ to not decode $D_2$ message, denoted $\mathcal{A}_{R_2}(\Theta_2)$, is defined as [^2]
$$\label{eq.7}
\mathcal{A}_{R_2}(\Theta_2)\triangleq\frac{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}\,a_2}{I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}}< \Theta_2,$$
where $\Theta_2=2^{2\mathcal{R}_2}-1$, and $\mathcal{R}_2$ is the target data rate of $D_2$.
Similarly, the outage event at $D_1$ to not decode its intended message in the first phase ($S \rightarrow D_1$), denoted $\mathcal{B}_{D_1}(\Theta_1)$, is given by
$$\label{eq.8}
\mathcal{B}_{D_1}(\Theta_1)\triangleq\frac{\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}\,a_1}{\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}a_2+I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}}} < \Theta_1.$$
Finally, in order for $D_2$ to decode its intended message, it has to decode $D_1$ message. The outage event at $D_2$ to not decode $D_1$ message in the first phase ($S \rightarrow D_2$), denoted $\mathcal{B}_{D_{2-1}}(\Theta_1)$, and the outage event at $D_2$ to not decode its intended message, denoted $\mathcal{B}_{D_{2-2}}(\Theta_2)$, are respectively given by $$\label{eq.9}
\mathcal{B}_{D_{2-1}}(\Theta_1)\triangleq\frac{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}\,a_1}{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}a_2+I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}}< \Theta_1,$$ and $$\label{eq.10}
\mathcal{B}_{D_{2-2}}(\Theta_2)\triangleq\frac{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}\,a_2}{I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}}< \Theta_2.$$ During the second phase, $D_1$ adds the power received from $S$ and from $R$. Hence, the outage event at $D_1$ to not decode its message in the second phase, denoted $\mathcal{C}_{D_1}(\Theta_1)$, is expressed as $$\label{eq.11}
\mathcal{C}_{D_1}(\Theta_1)\triangleq \frac{\mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_1},{RD_1})}\,a_1}{\mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_1},{RD_1})}\,a_2+I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}}} < \Theta_1,$$ where is defined as $$\label{eq.12}
\mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_1},{RD_1})}\triangleq \vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1}$$
In the same way, in the second phase, $D_2$ adds the power received from $S$ and from $R$. Hence, the outage event at $D_2$ to not decode $D_1$ message, denoted $\mathcal{C}_{D_{2-1}}(\Theta_1)$, and the outage event at $D_2$ to not decode its message, denoted $\mathcal{C}_{D_{2-2}}(\Theta_2)$, are respectively expressed as $$\label{eq.13}
\mathcal{C}_{D_{2-1}}(\Theta_1)\triangleq \frac{ \mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_2},{RD_2})}\,a_1}{ \mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_2},{RD_2})}\,a_2+I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}} < \Theta_1,$$ and $$\label{eq.14}
\mathcal{C}_{D_{2-2}}(\Theta_2)\triangleq \frac{ \mathrm{MRC}_{({SD_2},{RD_2})}\,a_2}{I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}} < \Theta_2.$$ The overall outage event related to $D_1$, denoted $\textit{O}_{(1)}$, is given by $$\label{eq.15}
\textit{O}_{(1)}\triangleq \Big[ \mathcal{B}_{D_1}(\Theta_1) \cap \mathcal{A}_{R_1}(\Theta_1) \Big]\cup\Big[\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C(\Theta_1) \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1}(\Theta_1) \Big],$$
Finally, the overall outage event related to $D_2$, denoted $\textit{O}_{(2)}$, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.16}
\textit{O}_{(2)}&\triangleq& \left[\Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\} \cap \Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]
\nonumber\\ &&\bigcup \left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_{i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\} \cap \Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{C}_{D_{2-i}}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]. \end{aligned}$$
Outage Probability Expressions
------------------------------
In the following, we will express the outage probability $\textit{O}_{(1)}$ and $\textit{O}_{(2)}$. The probability $\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(1)})$, when $\Theta_1 < a_1/ a_2$, is given by
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.17}
\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(1)})=1- \mathcal{J}_{(D_1)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SD_1}}\big)-
\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\big)+
\mathcal{J}_{(D_1)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SD_1}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\big)\\
+\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\big)-
\frac{l_{RD_1}\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(D_1)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{RD_1}}\big)-l_{SD_1}\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(D_1)}\big(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SD_1}}\big)}{l_{RD_1}-l_{SD_1}},\end{gathered}$$
where $G_{1}=\Theta_1/(a_1-\Theta_1 a_2)$, and $\mathcal{J}_{(M)}\Big(\frac{A}{B}\Big)$ is expressed as\
$$\label{eq.19}
\mathcal{J}_{(M)}\Big(\frac{A}{B}\Big)=\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{M}}}\Big(\frac{A}{B}\Big)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{M}}}\Big(\frac{A}{B}\Big).$$ The probability $ \mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(2)})$, when $\Theta_1 < a_1/ a_2$, is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.18}
\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(2)})=1- \mathcal{J}_{(D_2)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SD_2}}\big)-
\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\big)+
\mathcal{J}_{(D_2)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SD_2}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\big)\\
+\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\big)-
\frac{l_{RD_2}\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(D_2)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{RD_2}}\big)-l_{SD_2}\mathcal{J}_{(R)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\big)\mathcal{J}_{(D_2)}\big(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SD_2}}\big)}{l_{RD_2}-l_{SD_2}},\end{gathered}$$ where $G_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}(G_1,G_2)$, and $G_2=\Theta_2 /a_2$.\
*Proof*: See Appendix \[App.A\].$ \blacksquare $\
Laplace Transform Expressions
=============================
In this section, we derive the Laplace transform expressions of the interference from the $X$ road and from the $Y$ road. The Laplace transform of the interference originating from the $X$ road at the received node, denoted $M$, is expressed as
$$\label{eq:33}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{M}}}(s)=\exp\Bigg(-\emph{p}\lambda_{X}\int_\mathbb{R}\dfrac{1}{1+\Vert \textit{x}-{M} \Vert^\alpha/s}\textrm{d}x\Bigg),$$
where $$\label{eq:34}
\Vert \textit{x}-{M} \Vert=\sqrt{\big[m\sin(\theta_{{M}})\big]^2+\big[x-m \cos(\theta_{M}) \big]^2 }.$$ The Laplace transform of the interference originating from the $Y$ road at $M$ is given by $$\label{eq:35}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{M}}}(s)=\exp\Bigg(-\emph{p}\lambda_{Y}\int_\mathbb{R}\frac{1}{1+\Vert \textit{y}-{M} \Vert^\alpha/s}\textrm{d}y\Bigg),$$ where $$\label{eq:36}
\Vert \textit{y}-{M} \Vert=\sqrt{\big[m\cos(\theta_{{M}})\big]^2+\big[y-m \sin(\theta_{M}) \big]^2 },$$ *Proof*: See Appendix \[App.B\].$ \blacksquare $\
The expression (\[eq:33\]) and (\[eq:35\]) can be calculated with mathematical tools such as MATLAB. Closed form expressions are obtained for $ \alpha=2 $ and $ \alpha=4 $. We only present the expressions when $ \alpha=2 $ due to lack of space.
The Laplace transform expressions of the interference at the node ${M}$ when $\alpha=2$ are given by $$\label{eq:37}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{M}}}(s)=\exp\Bigg(-\dfrac{\emph{p}\lambda_{X}s\pi}{\sqrt{\big[m\sin(\theta_{{M}})\big]^2+s}}\Bigg),$$ and $$\label{eq:38}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{M}}}(s)=\exp\Bigg(-\dfrac{\emph{p}\lambda_{Y} s\pi}{\sqrt{\big[m\cos(\theta_{{M}})\big]^2+s}}\Bigg).$$ *Proof*: See Appendix \[App.C\]. $\blacksquare $
Simulations and Discussions
===========================
In this section, we evaluate the performance of cooperative NOMA using MRC at road intersections. In order to verify the accuracy of the theoretical results, Monte Carlo simulations are carried out by averaging over 10,000 realizations of the PPPs and fading parameters. In all figures, Monte Carlo simulations are presented by marks, and they match perfectly the theoretical results, which validates the correctness of our analysis. We set, without loss of generality, $\lambda_X = \lambda_Y =\lambda$. Unless stated otherwise, $S=(0,0)$, $R=(50,0)$, $D_1=(100,10)$, and $D_2=(100,-10)$.
![Outage probability as a function of $a_1$, using a relay transmission and MRC transmission, considering NOMA and OMA.[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2.pdf){height="8cm" width="9cm"}
Fig.\[Fig2\] shows the outage probability as a function of $a_1$, using a relay transmission [@belmekki2019ontheoutage] and MRC transmission, considering NOMA and OMA. We can see from Fig.\[Fig2\], that using MRC offers a significant improvement over the relay transmission. We can also see that the improvement that MRC offers compared to the the relay transmission is greater for $D_2$ using NOMA. We can alos see that MRC using NOMA has a decreases in outage of $34\%$ compared to relay using NOMA. Whereas the improvement of MRC using OMA compared to relay OMA is $2\%$. On the other hand, we can notice an improve of $60\%$ when using MRC in NOMA compared to MRC in OMA.
![Outage probability as a function of the distance between the nodes and the intersection, considering NOMA and OMA.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.pdf){height="8cm" width="9cm"}
Fig.\[Fig3\] shows the outage probability as a function of the distance between the nodes and the intersection, considering NOMA and OMA. We can see that the outage probability reaches its maximum value a the intersection, that is, when the distance between the nodes and the intersection equals zero. This because when the nodes are far from the intersection, the aggregate interference of the vehicles that are located on the same road as the nodes interfere is greater than the aggregate interference of the vehicles that are on the other road. However, when the nodes are at the intersection, the interfering vehicles of both roads interfere equally on the nodes. We can also see from Fig.\[Fig3\] that NOMA outperforms OMA for both $D_1$ and $D_2$.
![Outage probability as a function of $\lambda$, considering NOMA and OMA. []{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4.pdf){height="8cm" width="9cm"}
Fig.\[Fig4\] investigates the impact of the vehicles density $\lambda$ on the outage probability, considering NOMA and OMA. We can see from Fig.\[Fig4\] that, as the intensity of the vehicles increases, the outage probability increases. We can also see that, when $a_1=0.6$, NOMA outperforms OMA for both $D_1$ and $D_2$. However, we can see that, when when $a_1=0.8$, NOMA outperforms OMA only for $D_1$, whereas OMA outperforms NOMA for $D_2$. This because, when we allocate more power to $D_1$, less power is allocated to $D_2$, which decreases the performance of NOMA compared to OMA.
Fig.\[Fig5\] depicts the outage probability as a function of the relay position, using a relay transmission and MRC transmission considering NOMA. Without loss of generality, we set $\Vert S-D_1 \Vert = \Vert S-D_2 \Vert=100$m. We can notice from Fig.\[Fig5\] that, the optimal position for the relay using a relay transmission is at the mid distance between the source $S$, and the destinations, $D_1$ and $D_2$. However, we can see that for MRC, the optimal relay position is when the relay is close to the destination nodes. This can be explained as follows: when the relay is close to the destination ($D_1$ or $D_2$), the channel between $S$ and $D_1$ ($S \rightarrow D_1$) and the channel between $R$ and $D_1$ ($R \rightarrow D_1$) will be decorrelated, thus, increasing the diversity gain.
![Outage probability as a function of the relay position, using a relay transmission and MRC transmission considering NOMA.[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Fig6b.pdf){height="8cm" width="9cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we studied the improvement of using MRC in cooperative VCs transmission schemes considering NOMA at intersections. Closed form outage probability expressions were obtained. We compared the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with a classical cooperative NOMA, and showed that MRC in cooperative NOMA transmission offers a significant improvement over the classical cooperative NOMA in terms of outage probability. We also compared the performance of MRC cooperative NOMA with MRC cooperative orthogonal multiple access (OMA), and we showed that NOMA has a better performance than OMA. Finally, we showed that the outage probability increases when the nodes come closer to the intersection, and that using MRC considering NOMA improves the performance in this context.
{#App.A}
The outage probability related to $D_1$, denoted $\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(1)})$, is expressed as $$\label{eq.26}
\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(1)})=\mathbb{P}\Big( \mathcal{B}_{D_1} \cap \mathcal{A}_{D_1} \Big)+\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{D_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)$$ First, we calculate the probability $\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.20}
\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)&=& \mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\ \frac{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_1}{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_2+I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}} \ge \Theta_1\nonumber\\
&& \bigcap \frac{\left(\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1}\right)\,a_1}{\left(\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1}\right)\,a_2+I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}}} < \Theta_1\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg] \\
&=& \mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\ \vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}(a_1-\Theta_1 a_2)\ge\Theta_1\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\nonumber\\
&&\bigcap\left(\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1}\right)\,(a_1-\Theta_1 a_2) < \Theta_1\big[I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg]. \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ When $\Theta_1 < a_1/ a_2$, and setting $G_{1}= \Theta_1 /(a_1- \Theta_1 a_2)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.30}
\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)&=& \mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\ \vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{G_1}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace
\nonumber\\&&\times \Bigg\lbrace 1-\mathbb{P}\left(\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1} \ge G_1\big[I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}}\big]\right)\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg]. \end{aligned}$$ Since $|h_{SR}|^2$ follows an exponential distribution with unit mean, and the second probability in (\[eq.30\]) can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.21}
\mathbb{P}\big[\vert h_{SD_1}\vert^{2}l_{SD_1}+\vert h_{RD_1}\vert^{2}l_{RD_1} \ge G_1 (I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\big]=\\
\dfrac{l_{RD_1} \exp\Big[- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{RD_1}}(I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]- l_{SD_1}\exp\Big(- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{SD_1}}[I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]}{l_{RD_1}-l_{SD_1}}.\end{gathered}$$
Then, the equation (\[eq.30\]) becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.22}
\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)= \mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[ \exp\left( \frac{G_1}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\right)\\ \times 1-\dfrac{l_{RD_1} \exp\Big[- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{RD_1}}(I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]- l_{SD_1}\exp\Big(- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{SD_1}}[I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]}{l_{RD_1}-l_{SD_1}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg] \\
= \mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[ \exp\left( \frac{G_1}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\right) - \exp\left( \frac{G_1}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\right) \\
\times \dfrac{l_{RD_1} \exp\Big[- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{RD_1}}(I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]- l_{SD_1}\exp\Big(- \dfrac{G_1}{l_{SD_1}}[I_{X_{D_1}}+I_{Y_{D_1}})\Big]}{l_{RD_1}-l_{SD_1}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg] .\end{gathered}$$ Using the independence of the PPP on the road $X$ and $Y$, and given that $\mathbb{E}[e^{sI}]=\mathcal{L}_I(s)$, we finally get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.23}
\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{R_1}^C \cap \mathcal{C}_{D_1} \Big)= \mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\bigg)\\-\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SR}}\bigg)\frac{l_{RD_1}\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{D_1}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{RD_1}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{D_1}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{RD_1}}\bigg)-l_{SD_1}\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{D_1}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SD_1}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{D_1}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{1}}{l_{SD_1}}\bigg)}{l_{RD_1}-l_{SD_1}}.\end{gathered}$$
The probability $\mathbb{P}\Big( \mathcal{B}_{D_1} \cap \mathcal{A}_{D_1} \Big)$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.32}
\mathbb{P}\Big( \mathcal{B}_{D_1} \cap \mathcal{A}_{D_1} \Big)&=&1-\mathbb{P}\Big( \mathcal{B}_{D_1}^C \cup \mathcal{A}_{D_1}^C \Big)\nonumber\\&=&1-\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{B}_{D_1}^C\Big)-\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{A}_{D_1}^C\Big)+\mathbb{P}\Big(\mathcal{B}_{D_1}^C \cap \mathcal{A}_{D_1}^C\Big)\end{aligned}$$ The final expression can acquired following the same steps above.
The outage probability related to $D_2$, denoted $\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(2)})$, is expressed as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.34}
\mathbb{P}(\textit{O}_{(2)})&=& \mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap\Bigg\{\ \bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]
\nonumber\\&& + \mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_{i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\} \cap \Bigg\{ \bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{C}_{D_{2-i}}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]. \end{aligned}$$
To calculate the first probability in (\[eq.34\]), we proceed as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.35}
\mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap \Bigg\{\bigcup_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]\nonumber&=&1- \mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cup \Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&1- \mathbb{P}\left[\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\right]- \mathbb{P}\left[\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_{i}}^C(\Theta_i)\right]\nonumber\\
&&+\mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap \Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right].\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Since the computation of first and the second probability in (\[eq.35\]) follow the same steps above, we only calculate the last probability in (\[eq.35\]), hence, proceed as follows $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.24}
\mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap \Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right] =\\
\mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\frac{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}a_1}{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}a_2+I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}} \ge \Theta_1,
\frac{\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}l_{SD_2}a_2}{I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}} \ge \Theta_2,\\ \frac{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_1}{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_2+I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}} \ge \Theta_1,
\frac{\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}l_{SR}a_2}{I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}} \ge \Theta_2\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg].\end{gathered}$$
When $\Theta_1 < a_1/ a_2$, and setting $G_{2}= \theta_2 /a_2$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq.25}
\mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap \Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right] =\\
\mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{G_1}{l_{SD_2}}\big[I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}\big],
\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{G_2}{l_{SD_2}}\big[I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}\big],\\ \vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{G_1}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big],
\vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{G_2}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg]\\
=\mathbb{E}_{I_{X},I_Y}\Bigg[\mathbb{P}\Bigg\lbrace\vert h_{SD_2}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{\max(G_1,G_2)}{l_{SD_2}}\big[I_{X_{D_2}}+I_{Y_{D_2}}\big], \vert h_{SR}\vert^{2}\ge \frac{\max(G_1,G_2)}{l_{SR}}\big[I_{X_{R}}+I_{Y_{R}}\big]\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg].\end{gathered}$$ Finally, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.36}
\mathbb{P}\left[\Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{B}_{D_{2-i}}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\cap \Bigg\{\bigcap_{i=1}^{2} \mathcal{A}_{R_i}^C(\Theta_i)\Bigg\}\right]&=&
\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{D_2}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SD_2}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{D_2}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SD_2}}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&\times\:\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\bigg)\mathcal{L}_{I_{Y_{R}}}\bigg(\frac{G_{\mathrm{max}}}{l_{SR}}\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}(G_1,G_2)$.
{#App.B}
The Laplace transform of the interference originating from the X road at $M$ is expressed as $$\label{eq:63}
\mathcal{L}_{{I_{X_{M}}}}(s)=\mathbb{E}\big[{\\\exp(-sI_{X_{M}})}\big].$$ Plugging (\[eq.5\]) into (\[eq:63\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:64}
\mathcal{L}_{{I_{X_{M}}}}(s)&=&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[{\exp\Bigg(-\sum_{x\in\Phi_{X_{M}}}s\vert h_{{M}x}\vert^2 l_{{M}x} \Bigg)}\Bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& \mathbb{E}\Bigg[\prod_{x\in\Phi_{X_{M}}} \exp\Bigg(-s\vert h_{{M}x}\vert^2l_{{M}x}\Bigg)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&\overset{(a)}{=}&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\prod_{x\in\Phi_{X_{M}}}\mathbb{E}_{\vert h_{{M}x}\vert^2, p}\Bigg\lbrace \exp\Bigg(-s\vert h_{{M}x}\vert^2l_{Mx}\Bigg)\Bigg\rbrace\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&\overset{(b)}{=}&\mathbb{E}\Bigg[\prod_{x\in\Phi_{X_{M}}}\dfrac{p}{1+s l_{{M}x}}+1-p\Bigg]\nonumber \\
&\overset{(c)}{=}&\exp\Bigg(-\lambda_{X}\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Bigg[1-\bigg(\dfrac{p}{1+sl_{{M}x}}+1-p\bigg)\Bigg]\textrm{d}x\Bigg)\nonumber \\
&=&\exp\Bigg(-p\lambda_{X}\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}}\dfrac{1}{1+1/sl_{{M}x}}\textrm{d}x\Bigg), \end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the independence of the fading coefficients; (b) follows from performing the expectation over $|h_{{M}x}|^2$ which follows an exponential distribution with unit mean, and performing the expectation over the set of interferes; (c) follows from the probability generating functional (PGFL) of a PPP [@haenggi2012stochastic]. Then, substituting $l_{{M}x}=\Vert \textit{x}-M \Vert^{-\alpha}$ in (\[eq:64\]) yields (\[eq:33\]). The equation (\[eq:35\]) can be acquired by following the same steps.
{#App.C}
In order to calculate the Laplace transform of interference originated from the $X$ road at the node $M$, we have to calculate the integral in (\[eq:33\]). We calculate the integral in (\[eq:33\]) when $\alpha=2$. Let us take $m_{x}=m \cos(\theta_{M})$, and $m_{y}=m \sin(\theta_{M}$), then (\[eq:33\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:65}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_{M}}}(s)&=&\exp\Bigg(-\emph{p}\lambda_{X}\int_\mathbb{R}\dfrac{1}{1+m_{y}^2+(x-m_{x})^2/s }\textrm{d}x\Bigg)\nonumber\\
&=&\exp\Bigg(-\emph{p}\lambda_{X}s\int_\mathbb{R}\dfrac{1}{s+m_{y}^2+(x-m_{x})^2 }\textrm{d}x\Bigg).\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ The integral inside the exponential in (\[eq:65\]) equals $$\label{eq:66}
\int_\mathbb{R}\dfrac{1}{s+m_{y}^2+(x-m_{x})^2}\textrm{d}x=\dfrac{\pi}{\sqrt{m_{y}^2+s}}.$$ Then, plugging (\[eq:66\]) into (\[eq:65\]), we obtain $$\label{eq:67}
\mathcal{L}_{I_{X_M}}(s)=\exp\Bigg(-\emph{p}\lambda_{X}\dfrac{s\,\pi}{\sqrt{m_{y}^2+s}}\Bigg).$$ Finally, substituting $m_{y}$ by $m\sin(\theta_{{M}})$ into (\[eq:67\]) yields (\[eq:37\]). Following the same steps above, and without details for the derivation, we obtain (\[eq:38\]).
[^1]: The Doppler shift and time-varying effect of V2V and V2I channel is beyond the scope of this paper
[^2]: Perfect SIC is considered in this work, that is, no fraction of power remains after the SIC process.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In our previous work we have found a lower bound for the multipartite uncertainty product of the position and momentum observables over all separable states. In this work we are trying to minimize this uncertainty product over a broader class of states to find the fundamental limits imposed by nature on the observable quantites. We show that it is necessary to consider pure states only and find the infimum of the uncertainty product over a special class of pure states (states with spherically symmetric wave functions). It is shown that this infimum is not attained. We also explicitly construct a parametrized family of states that approaches the infimum by varying the parameter. Since the constructed states beat the lower bound for separable states, they are entangled. We thus show that there is a gap that separates the values of a simple measurable quantity for separable states from entangled ones and we also try to find the size of this gap.'
author:
- 'E. Shchukin'
title: Multipartite minimum uncertainty products
---
Introduction
============
The famous Heisenberg uncertainty relation states that the standard deviation of position and momentum observables of any quantum states cannot be simultaneously small or, more precisely, that (in appropriate units) $$\label{eq:hei}
\sigma_x \sigma_p \geqslant \frac{1}{2}.$$ This inequality is tight and becomes equality for the vacuum state whose wave function in the position representation is $$\label{eq:vac}
\psi_0(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi}} e^{-x^2/2}.$$ In [@PhysRevA.84.052325] we have shown that the inequalities for different degrees of freedom can be “multiplied” side-by-side to produce inequalities valid for all completely separable states. For example, the inequalities $$\label{eq:sxp}
\sigma_{xx} \sigma_{pp} \geqslant \frac{1}{4} \quad \text{and} \quad
\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} \geqslant \frac{1}{4}$$ are valid for all bipartite separable states. These inequalities for separable states are also tight since for the two-dimensional vacuum they become equality. We have also shown that these inequalities can be violated. A question of fundamental interest is what is infimum of the products on left hand side of the inequalities over the set of all quantum states?
For any physical quantum state these products are strictly positive, but this does not mean that the infimum is also positive. The problem of determining this infimum is surprisingly more complicated than in a single partite case. In this work we do not completely solve this problem, we restrict it to the class of states with real spherically symmetric wave functions and find the infimum over this class of states. This infimum is not attained, so we construct family of states parametrized by a real parameter $0 < \xi < 1$ such that when $\xi \to 1$ the uncertainty product approaches the infimum. More precisely, we construct a family of states such that $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} < 1/4$ for all $0 < \xi < 1$ and $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} \to 1/8$ when $\xi \to 1$. We also generalize our construction to a larger number of parties. As the number of parties growth, the problem becomes more and more complicated, so we obtain explicit results only for four-partite and six-partite cases and outline the general approach.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[sec:up\] we set up the environment in which we work in this paper and prove that to minimize the uncertainty product under consideration pure states are sufficient. In section \[sec:simple-state\] we derive an analytical expression for the state obtained numerically in our previous work and introduce the technique that is used to obtain the main result of this paper. In section \[sec:s\] we obtain our main result, i.e. we derive family of bipartite states that minimize the uncertainty product in the special class of pure states with real spherically symmetric wave functions. The derivation is not difficult but lengthy, so it is divided into several steps to make it easier to follow. In section \[sec:p\] we analyze some properties of these states. In section \[sec:g\] we generalize our construction to a more general case of a larger number of parties. The conclusion is in section VII. Proofs of the auxiliary results are given in the appendices at the end of the paper. We make an intensive use of the book [@gr], which we refer to simply as GR. It is rather a large book with a lot of results, so we give the page and formula numbers to easily locate the results we refer to.
Multipartite uncertainty product {#sec:up}
================================
The general form of the uncertainty relation states that for arbitrary observables $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{A}'$ and for all quantum states the inequality $\sigma_A \sigma_{A'} \geqslant 1/2|\langle[\hat{A}, \hat{A}']\rangle|$ is valid, where $\sigma_A = \sqrt{\langle\hat{A}^2\rangle - \langle\hat{A}\rangle^2}$ is the standard deviation of the observable $\hat{A}$. It has been shown in [@PhysRevA.84.052325] that all completely separable $N$-partite states satisfy the inequality $$\sigma_{A_1 \ldots A_N} \sigma_{A'_1 \ldots A'_N} \geqslant \frac{1}{2^N} |\langle[\hat{A}_1, \hat{A}'_1] \ldots [\hat{A}_N, \hat{A}'_N]\rangle|$$ for arbitrary observables $\hat{A}_i$ and $\hat{A}'_i$ acting on the $i$th part, $i = 1, \ldots, N$. If we take $\hat{A}_i = \hat{x}_i$, $\hat{A}'_i=\hat{p}_i$ for all $i$, we then get the inequality $$\label{eq:xp}
\sigma_{x \ldots x} \sigma_{p \ldots p} \geqslant \frac{1}{2^N}.$$ This inequality is tight — it is easy to verify that for the $N$-partite vacuum state with the wave-function $$\psi_0(x_1, \ldots, x_N) = \frac{1}{\sqrt[4]{\pi^N}} e^{-(x^2_1 + \ldots + x^2_N)/2}$$ the left-hand side of the inequality is exactly $2^{-N}$. The natural question is — how strong can the inequality be violated?
First of all note that by analogy with the inequality the following $2^{N-1}$ inequalities are also valid: $$\label{eq:xpxp}
\sigma_{x p \ldots} \sigma_{p x \ldots} \geqslant \frac{1}{2^N},$$ where the two sequences of $x$ and $p$ complement each other — if one of them has $x$ in some position then the other has $p$ in the same position. There are $2^N$ sequences of $x$ and $p$ of length $N$, but the number of different inequalities is only half of this number, i.e. $2^{N-1}$. If we can find a state that violates one inequality of this kind then we can find states that violate any such inequality. To do it we need the phase-shifting operator [@leonhardt] $$\hat{U}_\varphi = e^{-i\varphi\hat{n}} = \exp\left(-\frac{i\varphi}{2}\left(x^2 - \frac{d^2}{dx^2}-1\right)\right).$$ The action of this operator on wave functions is simply the fractional Fourier transform [@ff] $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{F}_\varphi[\psi(x)](p) &= \frac{e^{i(\varphi/2-\pi/4)}}{\sqrt{2\pi\sin\varphi}}e^{i\cot\varphi\frac{p^2}{2}} \times \\
&\int_{\mathbf{R}}\exp\left(i \cot\varphi\frac{x^2}{2} - i \frac{px}{\sin\varphi}\right) \psi(x) \, dx.
\end{split}$$ As one can easily see, if $\varphi = \pi/2$ then $$\mathcal{F}_{\pi/2}[\psi(x)](p) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{\mathbf{R}} \psi(x) e^{-ipx} \, dx \equiv \psi(p)$$ is the momentum representation of the state $|\psi\rangle$ with the wave function $\psi(x)$ in the coordinate representation. Let us take a pure bipartite ($N = 2$) state with the wave function $\psi(x, y)$ and apply partial fractional Fourier transform $\mathcal{F}_{\pi/2}$ to this wave function with respect to the second argument. Denote this new wave function $\tilde{\psi}$. Then for the new state we have the relations $$\tilde{\sigma}_{xp} = \sigma_{xx}, \quad \tilde{\sigma}_{px} = \sigma_{pp}.$$ This means that if the original state violates the inequality for $N=2$ then the new state violates the inequality $$\label{eq:xppx}
\sigma_{xp}\sigma_{px} \geqslant 1/4.$$ The similar conclusion is also valid in the general multipartite case — from a state that violates one of the inequalities we can construct $2^{N-1}-1$ states that violate the other $2^{N-1}-1$ inequalities of this form.
If we want to minimize the inequalities then we can restrict our attention to pure states only due to the
If the inequality $$\label{eq:AB}
\sigma_{AB}\sigma_{A'B'} \geqslant \delta > 0$$ is valid for all bipartite pure quantum states of some quantum system, where operators $\hat{A}$, $\hat{A}'$ act on one degree of freedom and $\hat{B}$, $\hat{B}'$ act on the other one, then this inequality is also valid for all states (i.e. including mixed states). The similar statement can be extended to multipartite case.
The statement of this theorem is intuitively clear because by mixturing quantum states we can only increase the dispersion. Equivalently it can be formulated as follows: $$\inf_{\text{all}} \sigma_{AB}\sigma_{A'B'} = \inf_{\text{pure}} \sigma_{AB}\sigma_{A'B'},$$ where *all* means all bipartite quantum states and *pure* means bipartite pure states only. So, if we want to minimize the inequalities then we should focus our efforts on pure states. It is a very useful result since a wave function is a much simpler object than a density operator (it is not necessary to care about positivity).
The proof follows the idea of [@PhysRevA.84.052325]. We have the inequality $$\sigma^2_{AB} + \lambda^2\sigma^2_{A'B'} \geqslant 2 \lambda \sigma_{AB}\sigma_{A'B'} \geqslant 2\lambda \delta,$$ which is valid for all bipartite pure states and for all non-negative $\lambda$ by assumption. Now let us take a general mixed state $\varrho$. It can be written as a mixture of pure states $$\varrho = \sum_k p_k |\psi_k\rangle\langle\psi_k|,$$ where $p_k$ are non-negative numbers such that $\sum_k p_k = 1$ and $|\psi_k\rangle$ are some bipartite (pure) states. Due to the concavity of the dispersion, we have $$\begin{split}
\sigma^2_{AB}(\varrho) &+ \lambda^2\sigma^2_{A'B'}(\varrho) \\
&\geqslant \sum_k p_k(\sigma^2_{AB}(|\psi_k\rangle) + \lambda^2\sigma^2_{A'B'}(|\psi_k\rangle)) \\
& \geqslant 2\lambda \delta \sum_k p_k = 2\lambda \delta.
\end{split}$$ From Lemma 3 of [@PhysRevA.84.052325] we conclude that $$4\delta^2 \leqslant 4 \sigma^2_{AB}(\varrho)\sigma^2_{A'B'}(\varrho),$$ which is equivalent to the inequality for the mixed state $\varrho$.
As a measure of violation of the inequalities we take the ratio of the right-hand to the left-hand side. In [@PhysRevA.84.052325] a state violating the inequality has been constructed. The violation of this inequality for that state is $\approx 1.2192$. In this work we try to do better and find the minimal value of the product $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px}$ for a special class of states, thus constructing highly entangled (with respect to this inequality) states and generalize our construction for larger numbers of parties.
Simple state {#sec:simple-state}
============
We start our discussion of states that violate the inequality with the derivation of an analytically expression for the coefficients of the state $$\label{eq:psi}
|\psi\rangle = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} c_n |2n,2n\rangle$$ that has been used in [@PhysRevA.84.052325] and get an exact analytical expression for the violation value of $1.2192$ that has been previously obtained numerically. It has been shown that the difference $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} - 1/4$ for this state is given by the following quadratic form of the coefficients $c_n$: $$\label{eq:Q}
Q = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} \bigl(2n(2n+1)c^2_n -(n+1)(2n+1)c_n c_{n+1}\bigr).$$ This quadratic form has been minimized by numerically computing the minimal eigenvalue $\lambda_{\mathrm{min}} \approx -0.04495$ of the truncated matrix corresponding to this form. The components of the normalized eigenvector corresponding to the minimal eigenvalue are the coefficients of the state and for this state we have $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} = (1/4) + \lambda_{\mathrm{min}} \approx 0.20505$. We now derive an analytical expression for these coefficients. The method presented here for this simpler case will be useful later when we present technique to solve more complicated and more general problems.
Factoring out the common terms under the summation sign in the form , we arrive to a simpler expression $$Q = -c_0 c_1 + \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\left(2+\frac{1}{n}\right)\tilde{c}_n(2\tilde{c}_n - \tilde{c}_{n+1}),$$ where we use the coefficient transformation $\tilde{c}_n = n c_n$, $n \geqslant 1$. We do not transform the coefficient $c_0$ and the coefficient $c_1$ is left unchanged: $\tilde{c}_1 = c_1$. Let us assume that the transformed coefficients satisfy the simple relation $\tilde{c}_{n+1} = \xi \tilde{c}_n$, $n \geqslant 1$, where $|\xi| < 1$ is a real parameter to be determined, i.e. that they form a geometrical progression. From this relation we can easily derive that $\tilde{c}_n = \xi^{n-1}c_1$, $n \geqslant 1$ and then express the quadratic form $Q$ as a function of $c_0$ and $c_1$ only $$\label{eq:Q2}
\begin{split}
Q &= -c_0 c_1 + c^2_1 (2-\xi) \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\left(2+\frac{1}{n}\right)\xi^{2n-2} \\
&= -c_0 c_1 + (2-\xi)\left(\frac{2}{1-\xi^2} - \frac{\ln(1-\xi^2)}{\xi^2}\right) c^2_1.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, from the relation for the transformed coefficients we immediately obtain the expression for the original coefficients $c_n$ $$\label{eq:cn}
c_n = \frac{\xi^{n-1}}{n}c_1, \quad n \geqslant 1.$$ The first two coefficients $c_0$ and $c_1$ are not independent, from the normalization condition of the state we obtain the following relation between them: $$\label{eq:c0c1}
c^2_0 + c^2_1 \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1} \frac{\xi^{2n-2}}{n^2} = c^2_0 + \frac{\operatorname{Li}_2(\xi^2)}{\xi^2} c^2_1 = 1,$$ where $\operatorname{Li}_s(z)$ is the polylogarithm special function defined by the infinite power series as [@prudnikov] $$\operatorname{Li}_s(z) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1} \frac{z^n}{n^s}.$$ The equation describes an ellipse and this ellipse can be parametrized as follows: $$\label{eq:c01}
c_0 = \cos \varphi, \quad c_1 = \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Li}_2(\xi^2)}} \sin\varphi.$$ Substituting these expressions into the equation , we obtain the following expression for our quadratic form: $$\label{eq:Q3}
Q = -C_1(\xi) \sin(2\varphi)+C_2(\xi)(1-\cos(2\varphi)),$$ where the coefficients $C_1(\xi)$ and $C_2(\xi)$ are given by $$\begin{split}
C_1(\xi) &= \frac{1}{2}\frac{\xi}{\sqrt{\operatorname{Li}_2(\xi^2)}}, \\
C_2(\xi) &= \frac{(2-\xi)}{2}\left(\frac{2}{1-\xi^2} - \frac{\ln(1-\xi^2)}{\xi^2}\right)\frac{\xi^2}{\operatorname{Li}_2(\xi^2)}.
\end{split}$$ The minimal value of the expression when $\xi$ is fixed and $\varphi$ varies is $$\label{eq:Q0}
Q_0(\xi) = C_2(\xi) - \sqrt{C^2_1(\xi)+C^2_2(\xi)},$$ and the value of the angle $\varphi$ for which this minimal value is attained is determined from the equation $$\label{eq:phi}
\tan(2\varphi) = \frac{C_1(\xi)}{C_2(\xi)}.$$ The plot of the function is shown in Fig. \[fig:psi1\]. One can numerically minimize this function (for example, with *Mathematica*) and get that the minimal value is $\approx -0.04495$ for $\xi_{\mathrm{min}} \approx 0.318674$. This result is in perfect agreement with the previous result obtained numerically by computing the eigenvalues of the quadratic form . To obtain the coefficients $c_n$, we take the parameter $\xi_{\mathrm{min}}$ and find the corresponding angle $\varphi_{\mathrm{min}}$ from the equation . Then, we compute the coefficients $c_0$ and $c_1$ according to the equation . The rest of the coefficients are obtained from the equation . Though we have not strictly proved that $-0.04495$ is the minimal eigenvalue of the quadratic form , we have analytically constructed a state on which this value is attained and shown that this result agrees with the numerical computations.
![The function $Q_0(\xi)$, defined by the equation .[]{data-label="fig:psi1"}](psi1.pdf)
Construction of spherically symmetric states {#sec:s}
============================================
The state has a very special form, so one can ask whether it possible to stronger violate the inequality with a more general state. Here, we construct such a family of states that violate this inequality. The construction is lengthy and thus divided into several steps.
*First step.* At this step we analyze the product $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px}$ and transform it into a more manageable form. The variances $\sigma^2_{xp}$ and $\sigma^2_{px}$ read as $$\sigma^2_{xp} = \langle\hat{x}^2_a \hat{p}^2_b\rangle - \langle\hat{x}_a \hat{p}_b\rangle^2, \quad
\sigma^2_{px} = \langle\hat{p}^2_a \hat{x}^2_b\rangle - \langle\hat{p}_a \hat{x}_b\rangle^2.$$ Their product would be easier to deal with if the averages $\langle\hat{x}_a \hat{p}_b\rangle$ and $\langle\hat{p}_a \hat{x}_b\rangle$ were zero. This is the case when, for example, the wave function $\psi(x, y)$ of the state under study is real. In fact, for a real wave function we have $$\langle\hat{x}_a \hat{p}_b\rangle = -i\iint_{\mathbf{R}^2} \psi(x,y) x \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y}(x,y) \, dx \, dy = 0,$$ since for any fixed $x$ the integral over $y$ can be taken explicitly $$\int \psi \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial y} \, dy = \frac{1}{2}(\psi^2(x,+\infty)-\psi^2(x,-\infty)) = 0,$$ and is equal to zero due to the normalization property of $\psi$. In the same way we obtain the equality $\langle\hat{p}_a \hat{x}_b\rangle = 0$. We have that for a real wave function we can write $$\label{eq:s2}
\begin{split}
\sigma^2_{xp} \sigma^2_{px} &= \langle\hat{x}^2_a \hat{p}^2_b\rangle \langle\hat{p}^2_a \hat{x}^2_b\rangle \\
& = \frac{1}{4}\bigl(\langle\hat{x}^2_a\hat{p}^2_b + \hat{p}^2_a\hat{x}^2_b\rangle^2 - \langle\hat{x}^2_a\hat{p}^2_b - \hat{p}^2_a\hat{x}^2_b\rangle^2\bigr)
\end{split}$$ and conclude that the product $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px}$ can be bounded from above by the square root of the first term on the right-hand side of this expression, i.e. the following inequality is valid: $$\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} \leqslant \frac{1}{2}\langle\hat{x}^2_a\hat{p}^2_b + \hat{p}^2_a\hat{x}^2_b\rangle \equiv \langle\hat{Z}\rangle.$$ So, at this step, we have reduced our minimization problem to the study of the operator $\hat{Z}$ on the set of real wave functions.
*Second step.* In the standard position representation, the operator $\hat{Z}$ is given by the following differential operator: $$\hat{Z} = \frac{1}{2}(\hat{x}^2_a\hat{p}^2_b + \hat{p}^2_a\hat{x}^2_b) = -\frac{1}{2}\left(x^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + y^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}\right).$$ The average value of this operator on a real wave function $\psi(x,y)$ can be computed as $$\label{eq:Zpsi}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle = -\frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbf{R}^2}
\psi \left(x^2\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial y^2} + y^2\frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2}\right)\,dx\,dy.$$ Integrating by parts, this expression can be transformed as follows: $$\int_{\mathbf{R}} \psi \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2} \, dx = \left.\psi \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x} \right|^{+\infty}_{-\infty} -
\int_{\mathbf{R}} \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}\right)^2 \, dx.$$ For a normalizable wave function the first term on the right-hand side is zero and, transforming the other term under the integral in Eq. , we can conclude that for the average $\langle\hat{Z}\rangle$ we have $$\label{eq:Z}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle = \frac{1}{2} \iint_{\mathbf{R}^2} \left(x^2 \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y}\right)^2 +
y^2 \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}\right)^2\right) \, dx \, dy.$$ Looking at this expression, it seems natural to write it in polar coordinates. The derivatives with respect to the Cartesian coordinates $x$ and $y$ can be expressed in terms of the derivatives with respect to polar coordinates $r$ and $\theta$ as follows: $$\label{eq:xy}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} &= \cos\theta \frac{\partial}{\partial r} - \sin\theta \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}, \\
\frac{\partial}{\partial y} &= \sin\theta \frac{\partial}{\partial r} + \cos\theta \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}.
\end{split}$$ If we substitute these derivatives into the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. , the resulting expression will not look any simpler, so we will consider only real spherically symmetric wave function $\psi(x, y)$, i.e. functions that do not depend on the angle $\theta$ when written in polar coordinates as $\Psi(r, \theta) = \psi(r \cos\theta, r \sin\theta)$. Then $\Psi(r, \theta) \equiv \Psi(r)$, so $\partial \Psi/\partial \theta = 0$ and Eq. takes a simpler form $$\label{eq:Z2}
\begin{split}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle &= \frac{1}{4} \int^{+\infty}_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 r^2 \sin^2(2\theta) \left(\frac{d \Psi}{d r}\right)^2 r \,dr \, d\theta \\
&= \frac{\pi}{4} \int^{+\infty}_0 r^3 \left(\frac{d \Psi}{d r}\right)^2 \, dr.
\end{split}$$ The normalization of the real wave function $\psi(x, y)$ can be written as follows: $$\label{eq:psip}
\begin{split}
\iint_{\mathbf{R}^2} \psi^2(x, y) \, dx \, dy &= \int^{+\infty}_0 \int^{2\pi}_0 \Psi^2(r)r \, dr \, d\theta \\
&= 2\pi \int^{+\infty}_0 \Psi^2(r) r \, dr = 1.
\end{split}$$ Here we note that the second term on right-hand side of the equation is $$\hat{x}^2_a\hat{p}^2_b - \hat{p}^2_a\hat{x}^2_b = -x^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + y^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2},$$ and for our spherically symmetric wave function $\psi(x, y)$ we have $$\begin{split}
&\iint_{\mathbf{R}^2}\psi\left(-x^2 \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial y^2} + y^2 \frac{\partial^2 \psi}{\partial x^2}\right) \, dx \, dy \\
&= \iint_{\mathbf{R}^2}\psi\left(x^2 \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial y}\right)^2 - y^2 \left(\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x}\right)^2\right) \, dx \, dy = 0,
\end{split}$$ which can be easily obtained with the help of Eqs. . This means that in the case of a real spherically symmetric wave function we simply have $$\label{eq:sZ}
\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} = \langle\hat{Z}\rangle.$$ In this step, our original problem has been further reduced to the problem of minimizing the integral provided that the function $\Psi(r)$ satisfies the normalization condition .
*Third step.* To simplify the integral and the normalization condition let us introduce the function $f(r)$ via the relation $$\label{eq:psip2}
\Psi(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} f(r^2).$$ The normalization condition in terms of this function reads as $$\begin{split}
2\pi &\int^{+\infty}_0 \Psi^2(r) r \, dr = 2\pi \int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{1}{\pi} f^2(r^2) r \, dr \\
&= \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r^2) \, dr^2 = \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr = 1.
\end{split}$$ We see that the function $f(r)$ is normalized in the ordinary sense. Now let us write the last integral of Eq. in terms of the function $f(r)$. For the derivative we have $$\label{eq:psipd}
\frac{d \Psi}{dr} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} r f'(r^2),$$ and, substituting this expression into Eq. , we get $$\label{eq:Z3}
\begin{split}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle &= \frac{\pi}{4} \int^{+\infty}_0 r^3 \left(\frac{d \Psi}{d r}\right)^2 \, dr = \int^{+\infty}_0 r^5 f^{\prime 2}(r^2) \, dr \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 r^4 f^{\prime 2}(r^2) \, dr^2 = \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr.
\end{split}$$ In this step, we have formulated our problem as follows: find the minimum of the integral $$\label{eq:rf}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr$$ provided that the function $f(r)$ is normalized $$\label{eq:f}
\int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr = 1.$$ In other words, we need to minimize the functional over the set of normalized functions. Intuitively it seems to be clear that the minimum is not attained because function for which the integral is small should have the shape of a peak located near the origin $r=0$. Outside the peak the function should be small so that it is nearly constant and thus the derivative is almost zero, and the more narrow the peak, the smaller the region where $f'(r)$ is nonzero. On the other hand, the function $f$ must be normalized, and the more narrow the peak the higher it must be, and then one can expect the the derivative inside the peak is large. The range of $r$ where $f'(r)$ is nonzero is small but the value of the derivative is large, so that the function must have a special shape for the combination of these two competing features to give the smallest value of the integral . So, we expect to find a parametrized family of functions which represent infinitesimally narrow and infinitely high peaks of some special form when the parameter varies.
*Fourth step.* Let us show that the value of the right-hand side of Eq. cannot be smaller than $1/8$. To prove this, we first compute the integral $$\begin{split}
\int^{+\infty}_0 &r f(r) f'(r) \, dr = \frac{1}{2} \left. r f(r)^2 \right|^{+\infty}_0 \\
&- \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr = -\frac{1}{2}.
\end{split}$$ If we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\label{eq:cs}
\left(\int^b_a f(r) g(r) \, dr\right)^2 \leqslant \int^b_a f^2(r) \, dr \int ^b_a g^2(r) \, dr,$$ which is valid for all real integrable functions $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ on an interval $[a, b]$, $-\infty \leqslant a < b \leqslant +\infty$, to the functions $f(r)$ and $g(r) = r f'(r)$ on the interval $[0, +\infty)$, we get $$\frac{1}{4} \leqslant \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr \int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr,$$ and the normalization condition gives us the desired inequality $$\label{eq:rf2}
\langle\hat{Z}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr \geqslant \frac{1}{8}.$$ Note that, in fact, we have just proved the inequality $$\label{eq:rff}
\|r f'\|^2 \geqslant \frac{1}{4} \|f\|^2,$$ where we use the standard notation for the norm and scalar product of two square-integrable functions $f, g \in L(0, +\infty)$ $$\begin{split}
(f, g) &= \int^{+\infty}_0 f(r) g(r) \, dr, \\
\|f\|^2 &= (f, f) = \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr.
\end{split}$$ This notation and the inequality will be used for the multipartite generalizations of the results obtained here.
The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality becomes equality if and only if the functions $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ are linearly dependent on the interval $[a, b]$. In our case this condition reads as $r f'(r) + \lambda f(r) = 0$ for all $r \geqslant 0$. The general solution of this equation is $f(r) = C r^{-\lambda}$. One can easily see that such a function is not normalizable on the interval $[0, +\infty)$. This means that there is no normalized functions $f(r)$ that minimize the inequality . The problem now is to construct such functions $f(r)$ that approach to the lower bound $1/8$ as close as possible. As a hint in this construction we look for functions for which there is a linear combination of $r f'(r)$ and $f(r)$ that is small in some sense.
*Fifth step.* Using the Laguerre functions $$l_n(r) = L_n(r) e^{-r/2}, \quad n = 0, 1, \ldots,$$ which are complete and orthonormal on the interval $[0, +\infty)$ [@szego], where $L_n(r)$ are Laguerre polynomials [@gr-L] $$L_n(r) = \frac{e^r}{n!} \frac{d^n}{dr^n} (r^n e^{-r}),$$ we can write any function $f(r)$, normalizable on $[0, +\infty)$, as a linear combination of the Laguerre functions $$\label{eq:f2}
f(r) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} d_n l_n(r).$$ The normalization of $f(r)$ and orthonormality of $\{l_n(r)\}$ give us the condition $$\label{eq:d}
\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} d^2_n = 1.$$ From the relations for Laguerre polynomials [@gr-laguerre] one can derive the following equality: $$r l'_n(r) = -\frac{1}{2}(n l_{n-1}(r) + l_n(r) - (n+1)l_{n+1}(r)),$$ which is valid for $n \geqslant 0$ (for $n=0$ assume that $l_{-1}(r) = 0$). From this equality, for a general function one can easily obtain the relation $$\label{eq:rfp}
r f'(r) = -\frac{1}{2} \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} (-n d_{n-1} + d_n + (n+1)d_{n+1}) l_n(r).$$ Using the orthonormality of $\{l_n(r)\}$ one can get $$\begin{split}
\int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr &= \frac{1}{4}\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} (d_n + (n+1)d_{n+1}-n d_{n-1})^2 \\
&= \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2}R(d_0, d_1, d_2, \ldots),
\end{split}$$ where $R = R(d_0, d_1, d_2, \ldots)$ is the quadratic form $$\label{eq:R}
R = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}\bigl(n(n+1)d^2_n - (n+1)(n+2)d_n d_{n+2}\bigr).$$ From the inequality we can conclude that $R \geqslant -1/2$ provided that the equality is satisfied. Going back to Eqs. and , we have $$\label{eq:sigmaR}
\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} = \langle\hat{Z}\rangle = \frac{1}{2}\int^{+\infty}_0 r^2 f^{\prime 2}(r) \, dr = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4}R.$$ We thus reduced our minimization problem to the minimization problem of the quadratic form .
*Sixth step.* In this step we construct a parametrized family of states for which $R$ tends to $-1/2$, and thus $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px}$ tends to $1/8$, but this minimum is not attained. Computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the minimal eigenvalue of the truncated matrices of the quadratic $R$ one can observe that the components with odd indices are zero, so let us set $d_{2n+1} = 0$, $d_{2n} = c_n$, $n \geqslant 0$. Then the form becomes $$\label{eq:R2}
R = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}\bigl(2n(2n+1)c^2_n - 2(n+1)(2n+1)c_n c_{n+1}\bigr).$$ This is very similar to the quadratic form $Q$ defined by Eq. , except for the additional factor 2 in the second term under the summation sign. One can try the same approach we used for the form $Q$, but in this case it does not give us the optimal state, so another idea is needed.
From Eq. we can obtain $$\label{eq:rfp2}
\begin{split}
r f'(r) &+ \frac{1}{2}f(r) = \frac{1}{2} \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} (n d_{n-1} - (n+1)d_{n+1}) l_n(r) \\
&= \frac{1}{2} \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} ((2n+1) c_n - (2n+2)c_{n+1}) l_{2n+1}(r).
\end{split}$$ If the relation $c_{n+1}/c_n = (2n+1)/(2n+2)$ were valid for all $n \geqslant 0$, then we would have linear dependence of $r f'(r)$ and $f(r)$ but, as we know, it is impossible for a normalized function $f(r)$. And, in fact, one can easily check that the sequence $c_n$, defined by this ratio, cannot be normalized. But we can try to define the coefficients via $$\label{eq:cn2}
c_{n+1} = \frac{2n+1}{2n+2}\xi c_n,$$ where $0 < \xi < 1$. From this relation one can derive an explicit expression for the coefficient $c_n$ $$\label{eq:cn3}
c_n = \binom{2n}{n} \left(\frac{\xi}{4}\right)^n c_0 = \frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\xi^n c_0$$ for $n \geqslant 1$. The normalization reads as $$\left(1+\sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\left(\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\xi^{2n}\right)c^2_0 =
\frac{2}{\pi}K(\xi)c^2_0 = 1,$$ where $K(\xi)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind [@gr-K] $$\label{eq:Kxi}
\begin{split}
K(\xi) &= \int^{\pi/2}_0 \frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{1-\xi^2\sin^2\theta}} = \frac{\pi}{2}\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} \binom{2n}{n}^2\left(\frac{\xi^2}{16}\right)^n\\
&= \frac{\pi}{2}\left(1+\sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\left(\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\xi^{2n}\right).
\end{split}$$ We thus obtain the coefficient $c_0$ $$\label{eq:c0}
c_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2K(\xi)}}.$$ From Eq. we get $$r f'(r) + \frac{1}{2} f(r) = \frac{1-\xi}{2}\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}(2n+1)c_n l_{2n+1}(r),$$ and using orthonormality of $\{l_n(r)\}$ again we derive $$\label{eq:rfp3}
\begin{split}
\int^{+\infty}_0 &\left(r f'(r) + \frac{1}{2} f(r)\right)^2 \, dr = \frac{(1-\xi)^2}{4}
\sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}(2n+1)^2 c^2_n \\
&= \frac{2E(\xi)-(1-\xi^2)K(\xi)}{4(1+\xi^2)K(\xi)},
\end{split}$$ where $E(\xi)$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind [@gr-E] $$\begin{split}
E(\xi) &= \int^{\pi/2}_0\sqrt{1-\xi^2 \sin^2\theta} \, d\theta \\
&= \frac{\pi}{2}\left(1-\sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\left(\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\frac{\xi^{2n}}{2n-1}\right).
\end{split}$$ Since $\lim_{\xi \to 1} E(\xi) = 1$ and $\lim_{\xi \to 1} K(\xi) = +\infty$, we can conclude that the integral on the left-hand side of the equality tends to zero when $\xi \to 1$. One can say that the linear combination $r f'(r) + (1/2) f(r)$ becomes smaller and tends to zero when $\xi \to 1$. This means that our choice of coefficients is a good candidate for the minimizing function.
Now we can write the function $f(r)$ defined by Eq. as (remember that $d_{2n+1} = 0$ and $d_{2n} = c_n$) $$\label{eq:ff}
\begin{split}
f(&r) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} c_n L_{2n}(r) e^{-r/2} \\
&= c_0 \left(1+\sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\frac{\xi^n}{2^{2n-1}}\binom{2n-1}{n}L_{2n}(r)\right)e^{-r/2},
\end{split}$$ where $c_0$ is given by Eq. . To simplify the sum in this expression, note that the Laguerre polynomial $L_n(r)$ can be represented as follows [@gr-laguerre2]: $$\label{eq:Lint}
L_n(r) = e^r \int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{t^n}{n!}J_0(2\sqrt{rt}) e^{-t} \, dt,$$ where $J_0(z)$ is the Bessel function of the first kind [@gr-J] $$J_0(z) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} (-1)^n \frac{z^{2n}}{2^{2n}(n!)^2}.$$ Substituting the integral representation into Eq. we get $$f(r) = c_0 e^{r/2} \int^{+\infty}_0 S(\xi, t) J_0(2\sqrt{rt})e^{-t}\, dt,$$ where $S(\xi, t)$ is the sum $$S(\xi, t) = 1 + \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1} \frac{\xi^n}{2^{2n-1}}\binom{2n-1}{2n}\frac{t^{2n}}{(2n)!}.$$ Note that we can simplify this sum as follows: $$\label{eq:S}
\begin{split}
S(\xi, t) &= 1 + \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1} \frac{1}{2^{2n-1}}\frac{(2n-1)!}{n!(n-1)!}\frac{(t\sqrt{\xi})^{2n}}{(2n)!} \\
&= \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} \frac{(t\sqrt{\xi})^{2n}}{2^{2n}(n!)^2} = I_0(t\sqrt{\xi}),
\end{split}$$ where $I_0(z) = J_0(iz)$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind. Finally, we arrive at the following expression: $$\label{eq:fr}
f(r) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2K(\xi)}}e^{r/2} \int^{+\infty}_0 I_0(t\sqrt{\xi})J_0(2\sqrt{rt})e^{-t}\,dt.$$ In Appendix X we prove that the exchange summation and integration in Eq. is legal. In this step, we have constructed a family of the functions , parametrized by the real parameter $0 < \xi < 1$, that are good candidates for the functions that approach the equality in Eq. as $\xi \to 1$.
*Seventh step.* Now let us compute the quadratic form . Substituting the coefficients into the expression , we get $R = (R_1 - R_2) c^2_0$, where $R_1$ and $R_2$ are defined via $$\begin{split}
R_1 &= \sum^{+\infty}_{n=1}\frac{(2n+1)!!}{(2n)!!}\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n-2)!!}\xi^{2n}, \\
R_2 &= \xi \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}\left(\frac{(2n+1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\xi^{2n}.
\end{split}$$ The first sum can be simplified as follows: $$\begin{split}
R_1 &= \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} 2n(2n+1) \left(\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\xi^{2n} \\
&= \frac{2}{\pi}\xi \frac{d}{d\xi}\left(K(\xi) + \xi \frac{dK(\xi)}{d\xi}\right) \\
&= \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{(1+\xi^2) E(\xi) -(1-\xi^2)K(\xi)}{(1-\xi^2)^2}.
\end{split}$$ The second sum can be computed analogously $$\begin{split}
R_2 &= \xi \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0}(2n+1)^2\left(\frac{(2n-1)!!}{(2n)!!}\right)^2\xi^{2n} \\
&= \frac{2}{\pi}\xi \left(\xi \frac{d}{d\xi}+1\right)\left(K(\xi)+\xi\frac{dK(\xi)}{d\xi}\right) \\
&= \frac{2}{\pi}\frac{\xi (2E(\xi)-(1-\xi^2)K(\xi))}{(1-\xi^2)^2}.
\end{split}$$ We finally obtain $$\label{eq:R3}
R = -\frac{1}{1+\xi} + \frac{1}{(1+\xi)^2}\frac{E(\xi)}{K(\xi)}.$$ As Fig. \[fig:R\] illustrates, $R < 0$ for all $0 < \xi < 1$. From the expression we also see that $R \to -1/2$ when $\xi \to 1$. In this step we have proved that with the choice of the coefficients the form tends to its minimal value $-1/2$, but does not attain it.
![The quantity $R$ defined by Eq. .[]{data-label="fig:R"}](psi3.pdf)
*Eighth step.* Having proved that the expression gives us the desired family of functions, we now simplify this expression and transform it into a proper integral. To do it, we need the following standard theorem that can be found, for example, in [@budak].
Let $F(t,\theta)$ be a continuous function of two arguments on the set $[t_0, +\infty) \times [\theta_0, \theta_1]$. If the integral $$\label{eq:Fu}
\tilde{F}(\theta) = \int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F(t, \theta) \, dt$$ converges uniformly on the interval $[\theta_0, \theta_1]$, then the function $\tilde{F}(\theta)$ is integrable on this interval and the following equality is valid: $$\begin{split}
\int^{\theta_1}_{\theta_0} \tilde{F}(\theta) \, d\theta &\equiv \int^{\theta_1}_{\theta_0} d\theta
\int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F(t, \theta) \, dt\\
&= \int^{+\infty}_{t_0}dt\int^{\theta_1}_{\theta_0} F(t, \theta) \, d\theta.
\end{split}$$ In other words, under these conditions one can change the order of integration.
Note that the Bessel function $I_0(z)$ can be represented as follows [@gr-I]: $$I_0(z) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int^{\pi}_0 e^{-z \cos\theta} \, d\theta.$$ The Theorem 2 can be used to substitute this expression into the equation and exchange the order of integration. In fact, we have $$f(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} e^{r/2} \int^{+\infty}_0 dt \int^{\pi}_0 F(t, \theta) \, d\theta,$$ where $$F(t, \theta) = e^{-(1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta)t}J_0(2\sqrt{rt}).$$ To show that the integral converges uniformly on the interval $[0, \pi]$ for any fixed $0 < \xi < 1$ note that $$F(t, \theta) = e^{-(1+\cos\theta)\sqrt{\xi}t} e^{-(1-\sqrt{\xi})t} J_0(2\sqrt{rt}).$$ The function $e^{-(1-\sqrt{\xi})t} J_0(2\sqrt{rt})$ is integrable on $[0, +\infty)$ due to the equality [@gr-J0] $$\int^{+\infty}_0 e^{-at} J_0(b\sqrt{t}) \, dt = \frac{e^{-b^2/(4a)}}{a},$$ valid for $a>0$. For $a=0$ this function is not integrable. We have that the integral $$\int^{+\infty}_0 e^{-(1-\sqrt{\xi})t} J_0(2\sqrt{rt}) \, dt$$ converges uniformly with respect to $\theta$, since it does not depend on $\theta$, and the function $e^{-(1+\cos\theta)\sqrt{\xi}t}$ is uniformly bounded by 1. We conclude that the integral converges uniformly and exchanging the order of integration is legal. We then obtain the following expression for the function $f(r) \equiv f_\xi(r)$: $$\label{eq:fe}
\begin{split}
f_\xi(r) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} e^{r/2} \int^{\pi}_0 d\theta \int^{+\infty}_0 F(t, \theta) \, dt \\
&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} \int^{\pi}_0
\frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}\frac{r}{2}\right)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta.
\end{split}$$ This integral (in fact, even more general one) can be found in tables [@gr-exp], and we have $$\label{eq:fxi}
\begin{split}
f_\xi(r) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2K(\xi)(1-\xi)}} I_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{\xi}}{1-\xi}r\right) e^{-\frac{1+\xi}{1-\xi}\frac{r}{2}}.
\end{split}$$ Let us show that the this function has finite right derivative at the origin. We differentiate the expression with respect to $r$ and take the limit of this derivative for $r \to 0$. This limit is then the right derivative $f'_+(0)$. We have $$f'_+(0) = -\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{8K(\xi)}} \frac{1+\xi}{\sqrt{(1-\xi)^3}},$$ and this expression is finite for all $0 < \xi < 1$.
In this step we finally obtain the expression for the family of wave functions: $$\label{eq:psixi}
\begin{split}
&\psi(x, y) = \Psi(\sqrt{x^2+y^2}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} f(x^2+y^2) \\
&= \frac{1}{\pi \sqrt{2K(\xi)}}
\int^{\pi}_0 \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}\frac{x^2+y^2}{2}\right)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}\, d\theta \\
&= \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1+\xi}{1-\xi}\frac{x^2+y^2}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{2K(\xi)(1-\xi)}} I_0\left(\frac{\sqrt{\xi}}{1-\xi}(x^2+y^2)\right).
\end{split}$$ From the finiteness of the right derivative $f'_+(0)$ we can conclude that this wave function is smooth at the origin, since the derivative $df(r^2)/dr = 2r f'(r^2)$ is equal to zero for $r = 0$. The function $\Psi(r)$, defined by Eq. , is shown in Fig. \[fig:psi\]. In fact, it has meaning only for $0 \leqslant r < +\infty$, but here it is illustrated for the whole real line. Note that the shape of these functions is as we have expected.
![The wave function $\Psi(r)$, defined by Eqs. and , for a few different values of $\xi$.[]{data-label="fig:psi"}](psi2.pdf)
Using the integral representation of the wave function , we can compute the product $\sigma_{xp}\sigma_{px}$ according to the first equality of Eq. . Exchanging the orders of integration as we did before, we can arrive to the following expression for this product: $$\frac{1}{8\pi K(\xi)} \int^\pi_0 \int^\pi_0 \frac{(1-\xi \cos^2\theta)(1-\xi \cos^2\theta')}{(1-\xi \cos\theta \cos\theta')^3}
\, d\theta \, d\theta'.$$ This expression can be shown to agree with Eqs. and . In this way we get directly from the definition the desired property of this wave function. The bipartite state with the wave function we denote as $|\Psi_\xi\rangle$. For all $0 < \xi < 1$ these states violate the inequality and when $\xi \to 1$, we have $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} \to 1/8$, so the violation tends to 2. In next sections, we study some simple properties of the states constructed and then extend this approach to a more general multipartite case.
Properties {#sec:p}
==========
In this section we compute the scalar product of the states $|\Psi_\xi\rangle$ with different values of the parameters $\xi$ and find the decomposition of these states in the Fock basis.
Scalar product of states with different parameters
--------------------------------------------------
On can easily verify that the scalar product $\langle\Psi_\xi|\Psi_{\xi'}\rangle$ of the states $|\Psi_{\xi}\rangle$ and $|\Psi_{\xi'}\rangle$ can be computed as the scalar product of their corresponding functions $f_\xi(r)$ and $f_{\xi'}(r)$ $$\langle\Psi_\xi|\Psi_{\xi'}\rangle = \int^{+\infty}_0 f_\xi(r) f_{\xi'}(r) \, dr.$$
For the latter we have $$\label{eq:norm2}
\begin{split}
&\int^{+\infty}_0 f_\xi(r) f_{\xi'}(r) \, dr = \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{K(\xi)K(\xi')}}
\int^{+\infty}_0 dr \\
&\int^{\pi}_0 d\theta \int^{\pi}_0 \frac{\exp\left(-\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}\frac{r}{2}
-\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta'}{1+\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta'}\frac{r}{2}\right)}
{(1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta)(1+\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta')}
\, d\theta'.
\end{split}$$ In this expression the integrations over the angles $\theta$ and $\theta'$ are performed first and then the integration over $r$. Note that $$\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}
+ \frac{1-\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta'}{1+\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta'}\right) \\
&= \frac{1-\sqrt{\xi\xi'}\cos\theta\cos\theta'}{(1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta)(1+\sqrt{\xi'}\cos\theta')} \\
&\geqslant \frac{1-\sqrt{\xi\xi'}}{(1+\sqrt{\xi})(1+\sqrt{\xi'})} > 0.
\end{split}$$ From this we can we can conclude that the order of the integrations can be changed and the integration over $r$ can be performed first and we get the equality $$\begin{split}
\int^{+\infty}_0 &f_\xi(r)f_{\xi'}(r) \, dr = \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{K(\xi)K(\xi')}} \\
&\int^{\pi}_0 \int^{\pi}_0 \frac{d\theta \, d\theta'}{1 - \sqrt{\xi\xi'} \cos\theta \cos\theta'}.
\end{split}$$ After the integration over $\theta$ we get $$\begin{split}
\int^{+\infty}_0 &f_\xi(r)f_{\xi'}(r) \, dr = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{K(\xi)K(\xi')}} \\
&\int^{\pi}_0 \frac{d\theta'}{\sqrt{1-\xi\xi' \cos^2\theta'}}.
\end{split}$$ Making substitution $z = \cos\theta'$, the last integral is transformed to the following one: $$\label{eq:norm3}
\int^1_{-1} \frac{dz}{\sqrt{(1-\xi\xi' z^2)(1-z^2)}} = 2\int^1_0 \frac{dz}{\sqrt{(1-\xi\xi' z^2)(1-z^2)}},$$ which, in turn, is transformed to $2K(\sqrt{\xi\xi'})$ by the substitution $z = \sin\theta$. We then obtain the desired scalar product $$\langle\Psi_\xi|\Psi_{\xi'}\rangle = \frac{K(\sqrt{\xi \xi'})}{\sqrt{K(\xi)K(\xi')}}.$$ Note that for $\xi=\xi'$ we get the normalization condition $\langle\Psi_\xi|\Psi_\xi\rangle = 1$, as it must be.
Fock states representation
--------------------------
Now we derive the coefficients $c_{nm}$, $n,m \geqslant 0$, of the state $|\Psi_\xi\rangle$ in the Fock basis. To do this, we need to find the scalar product of the state $|\Psi_\xi\rangle$ with the Fock state $|nm\rangle$, $c_{nm} =
\langle nm|\Psi_\xi\rangle$ or, in other words, we need to compute the integral $$\label{eq:cnm}
c_{nm} = \iint_{\mathbf{R}^2} \psi_n(x) \psi_m(y) \psi(x,y) \, dx \, dy,$$ where $$\psi_n(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\sqrt{\pi}2^nn!}} H_n(x) e^{-x^2/2}$$ is the wave function of the Fock state $|n\rangle$. To compute this integral, we introduce the generating function $$\label{eq:F}
\begin{split}
&F(x, y, u, v) = \psi_n(x) \psi_m(y) \frac{u^n v^m}{\sqrt{n! m!}} \\
&= \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}} \exp\left(-\frac{x^2+y^2 + u^2 + v^2}{2} + \sqrt{2}(xu+yv)\right).
\end{split}$$ This generating function is useful because it is much easier to compute the integral $$\label{eq:I2}
I(u, v) = \iint_{\mathbf{R}^2} F(x, y, u, v) \psi(x, y) \, dx \, dy,$$ and then expand it in $u$ and $v$ to find the coefficients $c_{nm}$. We have $$\begin{split}
I(u,v) &= \frac{e^{-\frac{u^2+v^2}{2}}}{\pi} \int^{+\infty}_0 r dr \\
&\int^{2\pi}_0 f(r^2) e^{-r^2/2} e^{\sqrt{2}r(u \cos\theta + v \sin\theta)} \, d\theta.
\end{split}$$ The inner integral (over $\theta$) can be easily taken by noting that $u \cos\theta + v \sin\theta = \sqrt{u^2+v^2}\cos(\theta+\theta_{u,v})$ and that due to periodicity of cosines function the shift $\theta_{u,v}$ plays no role in the integration over the period: $$\begin{split}
I(u,&v) = 2 e^{-\frac{u^2+v^2}{2}} \\
&\int^{+\infty}_0 f(r^2) e^{-r^2/2} I_0(r\sqrt{2(u^2+v^2)})r \, dr = \\
&e^{-\frac{u^2+v^2}{2}} \int^{+\infty}_0 f(r) e^{-r/2} I_0(\sqrt{2r(u^2+v^2)}) \, dr.
\end{split}$$ We can substitute the expression for the function $f(r)$ and get a repeated integral for $I(u, v)$. One can easily check, as it has been done before, that the order of integration can be changed and at the end we get the following result: $$\label{eq:I}
I(u,v) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} \int^{\pi}_0 e^{\frac{u^2+v^2}{2}\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta.$$ The integral can be taken explicitly and expressed in terms of the Bessel function $I_0$, but the expression is more convenient for our purpose. The exponent under the integral is the product of two exponents, one containing $u$ and the other containing $v$. We can expand them in $u$ and $v$ respectively, multiply and integrate over $\theta$. As one can see, we have to integrate powers of the cosines function. For these powers we have (see Eq. below) $$\int^{\pi}_0 \cos^n \theta \, d\theta = \frac{\pi}{2^n} \binom{n}{n/2}$$ if $n$ is even and the integral of odd powers are zero. From this, one can obtain $$\label{eq:I3}
I(u,v) = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 K(\xi)}} \sideset{}{'}\sum^{+\infty}_{n,m=0} \left(\frac{\sqrt{\xi}}{4}\right)^{n+m}
\binom{n+m}{\frac{n+m}{2}} \frac{u^{2n} v^{2m}}{n!m!},$$ where the sum runs over all $n$ and $m$ with $n+m$ even. On the other hand, from Eqs. , and we have $$I(u, v) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n,m=0} c_{nm} \frac{u^n v^m}{\sqrt{n!m!}}.$$ Comparing this with the expansion , we obtain the coefficients $c_{nm}$ $$\label{eq:cnm2}
c_{nm} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 K(\xi)}} \sqrt{\binom{n}{\frac{n}{2}}\binom{m}{\frac{m}{2}}} \binom{\frac{n+m}{2}}{\frac{n+m}{4}} \left(\frac{\xi}{16}\right)^{\frac{n+m}{4}},$$ where either $n = 4n'$, $m = 4m'$ or $n = 4n'+2$, $m = 4m'+2$, all other coefficients are zero. As an additional check, in Appendix \[app:cnm\] we derive directly from the expression that the coefficients $c_{nm}$ satisfy the normalization condition.
Generalization {#sec:g}
==============
In this section we generalize our construction to an arbitrary even number $N = 2n$ of subsystems. We use the notation $\sigma^{(N)}_{xp} = \sigma_{x \ldots xp \ldots p}$ for the standard deviation of the operator $\hat{x}_1 \ldots \hat{x}_n\hat{p}_{n+1} \ldots \hat{p}_{2n}$ and, similarly, $\sigma^{(N)}_{px} = \sigma_{p \ldots px \ldots x}$ stands for the standard deviation of the operator $\hat{p}_1 \ldots \hat{p}_n\hat{x}_{n+1} \ldots \hat{x}_{2n}$. The following equalities take place:
$$\begin{split}
\sigma^{(N)2}_{xp} &= \int_{\mathbf{R}^N} x^2_1 \ldots x^2_n \left(\frac{\partial^n \psi}{\partial x_{n+1} \ldots \partial x_N}\right)^2 \, d{\mathbf{x}}, \\
\sigma^{(N)2}_{px} &= \int_{\mathbf{R}^N} x^2_{n+1} \ldots x^2_N \left(\frac{\partial^n \psi}{\partial x_1 \ldots \partial x_n}\right)^2 \, d{\mathbf{x}}.
\end{split}$$
Here we again consider only spherically symmetric wave functions $\psi(x_1, \ldots, x_N) = \Psi(r)$, where, as before, we define $r = \|{\mathbf{x}}\| = \sqrt{x^2_1 + \ldots + x^2_N}$. For the partial derivatives we have $$\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial x_i} = x_i \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right) \Psi,$$ and, in general, for distinct indices $i_1$, …, $i_k$ we have $$\frac{\partial^k \psi}{\partial x_{i_1} \ldots \partial x_{i_k}} = x_{i_1} \ldots x_{i_k} \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^k \Psi.$$ For a spherically symmetric wave function Eq. can be generalized as follows: $$\sigma^{(N)}_{xp}\sigma^{(N)}_{px} = \langle\hat{Z}^{(N)}\rangle,$$ where the right-hand side is given by the integral $$\langle\hat{Z}^{(N)}\rangle = \int_{\mathbf{R}^N} x^2_1 \ldots x^2_N \left(\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n \Psi(r)\right)^2 \, d{\mathbf{x}}.$$ To evaluate this integral we the spherical coordinates given by $$\begin{split}
x_1 &= r \cos\varphi_1, \\
x_2 &= r \sin\varphi_1 \cos\varphi_2, \\
x_3 &= r \sin\varphi_1 \cos\varphi_2 \cos\varphi_3, \\
& \ldots \\
x_{N-1} &= r \sin\varphi_1 \sin\varphi_2 \ldots \sin\varphi_{N-2} \cos\varphi_{N-1}, \\
x_N &= r \sin\varphi_1 \sin\varphi_2 \ldots \sin\varphi_{N-2} \sin\varphi_{N-1},
\end{split}$$ where $\varphi_1, \ldots, \varphi_{N-2} \in [0, \pi)$ and $\varphi_{N-1} \in [0, 2\pi)$. The Jacobian of this variable transformation is $$J = r^{N-1} \sin^{N-2}\varphi_1 \sin^{N-3}\varphi_2 \ldots \sin^2\varphi_{N-3} \sin\varphi_{N-2}.$$ We then have the following equality: $$\begin{split}
&x^2_1 \ldots x^2_N J = r^{3N-1} \cos^2\varphi_1 \sin^{2(N-1)+N-2}\varphi_1 \\
& \cos^2\varphi_2 \sin^{2(N-2)+N-3}\varphi_2 \ldots \cos^2\varphi_{N-1}\sin^2\varphi_{N-1}.
\end{split}$$ The integrals over the angles can be easily taken explicitly [@gr-B] $$\label{eq:sincos}
\int^\pi_0 \sin^n\varphi \cos^m\varphi \, d\varphi = B\left(\frac{n+1}{2}, \frac{m+1}{2}\right),$$ where $B(x, y)$ is the Euler beta-function. We can write $$\label{eq:b}
\begin{split}
\int_\Omega x^2_1 &\ldots x^2_N J \, d\pmb{\varphi} = B\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3(N-1)}{2}\right) \\
&B\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3(N-2)}{2}\right) \ldots B\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{3 \cdot 2}{2}\right) \frac{\pi}{4},
\end{split}$$ where $\Omega = [0, \pi)^{N-2} \times [0, 2\pi)$. Using the well-known relation for the beta-function $$B(x, y) = \frac{\Gamma(x)\Gamma(y)}{\Gamma(x+y)},$$ the right-hand side of Eq. can be simplified as follows: $$\int_\Omega x^2_1 \ldots x^2_N J \, d\pmb{\varphi} = \frac{\sqrt{\pi^N}}{2^{N-1}\Gamma\left(\frac{3N}{2}\right)}.$$ This expression is valid for all $N \geqslant 1$, including odd values. In our case $N = 2n$ is even and this expression can be further simplified: $$\int_\Omega x^2_1 \ldots x^2_{2n} J \, d\pmb{\varphi} = \frac{\pi^n}{2^{2n-1}(3n-1)!}.$$ Finally, for the averaged value $\langle\hat{Z}^{(N)}\rangle$ we have $$\label{eq:Zn}
\begin{split}
\langle\hat{Z}^{(N)}\rangle &= \frac{\pi^n}{2^{2n-1}(3n-1)!} \\
&\int^{+\infty}_0 r^{6n-1} \left(\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n \Psi(r)\right)^2 \, dr.
\end{split}$$ For $n = 1$ this expression coincides with Eq. . From the normalization condition $$\int_{\mathbf{R}^N} \psi^2(x_1, \ldots, x_N) \, d{\mathbf{x}} = 1$$ in the same way we can obtain the following equality: $$\label{eq:fn}
\frac{2\pi^n}{(n-1)!} \int^{+\infty}_0 r^{2n-1} \Psi^2(r) \, dr = 1.$$ For $n=1$ it coincides with Eq. . Let us introduce the function $f(r)$ via the relation $$\label{eq:fn2}
\Psi(r) = \sqrt{\frac{n!}{\pi^n}} f(r^{2n}),$$ which generalizes Eq. . From Eq. we have $$\begin{split}
&\frac{2\pi^n}{(n-1)!}\frac{n!}{\pi^n} \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r^{2n}) r^{2n-1} \, dr \\
&= \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r^{2n}) \, dr^{2n} = \int^{+\infty}_0 f^2(r) \, dr = 1.
\end{split}$$ We see that the function $f(r)$ is normalized in the ordinary sense. Computation of the integral requires more work. As one can easily check, we have $$\label{eq:a}
\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n f(r^{2n}) = \sum^n_{k=1} a_k r^{2n(k-1)} f^{(k)}(r^{2n}),$$ where the coefficients $a_k$ are to be determined. We can write the Taylor expansion of the function $f(r^{2n})$ as $$f(r^{2n}) = \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} r^{2nk},$$ and apply the differential operator to this expansion $$\label{eq:a1}
\begin{split}
\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n f(r^{2n}) &= \sum^{+\infty}_{k=1} \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} \frac{2^n (nk)!}{(n(k-1))!} r^{2n(k-1)} \\
&= 2^n \sum^{+\infty}_{k=0} \frac{f^{(k+1)}(0)}{(k+1)!} \frac{n(k+1)!}{(nk)!}r^{2nk}.
\end{split}$$ On the other hand, each of the $n$ derivatives on the right-hand side of Eq. can also be expanded into its Taylor series and when these expansions are substituted into Eq. we get $$\label{eq:a2}
\sum^n_{k=1} \sum^{+\infty}_{j=0} a_k \frac{f^{k+j}(0)}{j!} r^{2n(k+j-1)}.$$ The two expressions and must agree, so the coefficients of the powers $r^{2nk}$ must be equal for all $k = 0, 1, \ldots$. When we equate these coefficients for $k = 0, 1, \ldots, n-1$ we get the following system of equations: $$\sum^m_{k=1} \frac{a_k}{(m-k)!} = 2^n \frac{(nm)!}{m!(n(m-1))!} = \frac{2^n n!}{m!}\binom{nm}{n},$$ for $m = 1, \ldots, n$. This system has the following matrix: $$\label{eq:A}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{0!} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
\frac{1}{1!} & \frac{1}{0!} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2!} & \frac{1}{1!} & \frac{1}{0!} & \ldots & 0 \\
\hdotsfor{5} \\
\frac{1}{(n-1)!} & \frac{1}{(n-2)!} & \frac{1}{(n-3)!} & \ldots & \frac{1}{0!}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ One can easily verify that the inverse matrix $A^{-1}$ is given by a similar expression $$\label{eq:A-1}
A^{-1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{0!} & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
-\frac{1}{1!} & \frac{1}{0!} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\
\frac{1}{2!} & -\frac{1}{1!} & \frac{1}{0!} & \ldots & 0 \\
\hdotsfor{5} \\
\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{(n-1)!} & \frac{(-1)^{n-2}}{(n-2)!} & \frac{(-1)^{n-3}}{(n-3)!} & \ldots & \frac{1}{0!}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ In fact, the elements of these matrices are $$A_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0 & i < j \\
\frac{1}{(i-j)!} & i \geqslant j
\end{cases}, \quad
(A^{-1})_{ij} =
\begin{cases}
0 & i < j \\
\frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{(i-j)!} & i \geqslant j
\end{cases}.$$ The matrix element of the product is $$(A \cdot A^{-1})_{ij} = \sum^{n-1}_{k=0} A_{ik} (A^{-1})_{kj}.$$ Only the terms with $i \geqslant k$ and $k \geqslant j$ are nonzero in this sum, so all terms above the main diagonal, i.e. the terms with $i < j$, are zero (the product of two lower triangular matrices is also lower triangular). For $i \geqslant j$ we have $$\begin{split}
(A \cdot A^{-1})_{ij} &= \sum^i_{k=j} \frac{1}{(i-k)!}\frac{(-1)^{k+j}}{(k-j)!} \\
&= \frac{1}{(i-j)!} \sum^{i-j}_{k=0} (-1)^k \binom{i-j}{k} = \delta_{ij},
\end{split}$$ where the last equality is due to the well-known identity for the binomial coefficients [@gr-bin1]. We see that the product of these two matrices is the identity matrix, $A \cdot A^{-1} = E_n$, so the matrix $A^{-1}$ defined by Eq. is indeed the inverse of the matrix .
We now can express the coefficients $a_k$ explicitly $$\begin{split}
a_k &= \sum^k_{j=1} \frac{(-1)^{j+k}}{(k-j)!} 2^n n! \frac{1}{j!} \binom{jn}{n} \\
&= 2^n n! \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \sum^k_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{k}{j} \binom{j n}{n}.
\end{split}$$ Now one can verify that coefficients of the powers $r^{2nk}$ in the expression and agree not only for $k = 0, 1, \ldots, n-1$, but for all $k$. When we substitute Eqs. , into Eq. we get an explicit expression for $\langle\hat{Z}^{(n)}\rangle$ in the form of the following functional: $$\label{eq:Zn2}
\langle\hat{Z}^{(n)}\rangle = 3\frac{(n!)^3}{(3n)!} \int^{+\infty}_0 \left(\sum^n_{k=1}b_k r^k f^{(k)}(r)\right)^2 \, dr,$$ where the coefficients $b_k$ read as $$\label{eq:b2}
b_k = \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \sum^k_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{k}{j} \binom{j n}{n}.$$ For $n=1$ Eq. coincides with Eq. .
First, we show that the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. is never zero for a square-integrable function $f(r)$. In fact, if this integral is zero then $f(r)$ satisfies the following differential equation of the $n$th order on the interval $(0, +\infty)$: $$\label{eq:df}
\sum^n_{k=1}b_k r^k f^{(k)}(r) = 0.$$ This equation has $n$ linearly independent solutions. We can try to find them in the form $f(r) = r^\alpha$, where $\alpha$ must satisfy the equation $$\label{eq:alpha-eq}
\sum^n_{k=1}b_k (\alpha)_k = 0,$$ where $(\alpha)_k = \alpha(\alpha-1)\ldots(\alpha-k+1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol. One can easily verify that this equation has $n$ different roots $$\label{eq:alpha}
\alpha = \frac{0}{n}, \frac{1}{n}, \ldots, \frac{n-1}{n}.$$ This follows from the fact that if we take $f(r) = r^{j/n}$, then $f(r^{2n}) = r^{2k}$ and $$\left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n f(r^{2n}) = \left(\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)^n r^{2k} = 0$$ for $k = 0, 1, \ldots, n-1$. In Appendix \[app:roots\] we prove directly from the expression for the coefficients $b_k$, Eq. , that the numbers satisfy the equation . We see that any solution of the equation has the form $$f(r) = C_{n-1} \sqrt[n]{r^{n-1}} + \ldots + C_1 \sqrt[n]{r} + C_0.$$ None of these functions is normalizable on the interval $(0, +\infty)$.
Now we find the infimum of the operators $\langle\hat{Z}^{(n)}\rangle$ over the set of all normalized functions $f(r)$. It is rather a challenging task to do it in general so we find the minimum for $n = 2, 3$ and develop a method which allows to do it in general. In both cases the functions obtained in the previous step are used. In contrast to the bipartite case, here we could not find explicit analytical expressions for the solutions we obtain, but we developed a technique to prove that these solution are indeed optimal without having explicit expressions for them.
Four-partite case
-----------------
For $N = 4$ we need to minimize the integral $$\langle\hat{Z}^{(4)}\rangle = \frac{1}{30} \int^{+\infty}_0 (r f'(r) + 2r^2 f^{\prime\prime}(r))^2 \, dr.$$ We prove a more general
\[thm:n2\] The equality $$\label{eq:fa2}
\inf_{\|f\| = 1} \|r f'+a r^2 f^{\prime\prime}\|^2 = \frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^2,$$ is valid provided that $a \geqslant 1$.
Another formulation of this theorem is the statement that for an arbitrary non-normalized (but normalizable) function $f$ we have the inequality $$\label{eq:fa2a}
\|r f'+a r^2 f^{\prime\prime}\| > \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right) \|f\|,$$ and the coefficient on the right-hand side is the best possible (for $a \geqslant 1$).
Computing the scalar product $$(rf' + a r^2 f^{\prime\prime}, rf') = \left(1-\frac{3}{2}a\right) \|r f'\|^2,$$ we can apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to get $$\|rf' + a r^2 f^{\prime\prime}\| \geqslant \left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right) \|r f'\| > \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right),$$ where we used the inequality and the normalization $\|f\| = 1$. We need to show that one can find such functions $f$ with $\|f\|=1$ that the difference between the left-hand and the right-hand side of the inequality becomes arbitrary small. We construct such functions with the help of the functions we obtained for $N = 2$.
Let us take the function $f_\xi(r) \equiv f^{(2)}_\xi(r)$ defined by Eq. and find a normalizable solution $g_\xi(r)$ of the equation $$\label{eq:g}
(1-a)g_\xi + a r g'_\xi = f_\xi.$$ To solve it, we first solve the following auxiliary equation, motivated by the integral representation : $$\label{eq:G}
(1-a)G + a r G' = e^{-\gamma r}, \quad \gamma = \frac{1}{2}\frac{1-\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta}.$$ Then, the corresponding solution of Eq. is $$g_\xi(r) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} \int^\pi_0 \frac{G(r)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta,$$ where, in fact, $G(r)$ depends on both $\xi$ and $\theta$, since $\gamma$ in Eq. depends on them. The general solution of Eq. is $$\label{eq:G2}
G(r) = cr^{\frac{a-1}{a}} - \frac{1}{a} (\gamma r)^{\frac{a-1}{a}}\Gamma\left(-\frac{a-1}{a}, \gamma r\right),$$ so a normalizable solution of Eq. is given by $$\label{eq:g2}
g_\xi(r) = -\frac{1}{a\sqrt{2\pi K(\xi)}} \int^\pi_0 \frac{(\gamma r)^{\frac{a-1}{a}}\Gamma\left(-\frac{a-1}{a}, \gamma r\right)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta,$$ where $\Gamma(\zeta, x)$ is the incomplete Gamma-function [@gr-gamma1] $$\Gamma(\zeta, x) = \int^{+\infty}_x e^{-t} t^{\zeta-1} \, dt.$$ The solution for $c=0$ can be also written as [@gr-gamma2] $$\label{eq:G3}
G(r) = -\frac{e^{-\gamma r}}{a \Gamma\left(2-\frac{1}{a}\right)} \int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{e^{-t} t^{\frac{a-1}{a}}}{\gamma r + t} \, dt,$$ so it is clear that the corresponding solution is normalizable. We could not find an explicit expression for the function $g_\xi(r)$ itself or for its norm in terms of known special functions, but it is possible to find the limit of $\|g_\xi\|$ when $\xi \to 1$.
From Eq. we obtain $$\quad r g'_\xi + a r^2 g^{\prime\prime}_\xi = r f'_\xi,$$ and, since the solution $g_\xi(r)$ is normalizable, we have $$\label{eq:h2}
\begin{split}
(1-a)(1-2a)\|g_\xi\|^2 + a^2 \|r g'_\xi\|^2 &= \|f_\xi\|^2 = 1, \\
(1-3a) \|r g'_\xi\|^2 + a^2 \|r^2 g^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2 &= \|r f'_\xi\|^2.
\end{split}$$ To estimate $\|r^2 g^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|$, let us compute the scalar product $$(r^2 g^{\prime\prime}_\xi, r g'_\xi) = -\frac{3}{2} \|r g'_\xi\|^2,$$ from which we get the inequality $$\|r^2 g^{\prime\prime}_\xi\| \geqslant \frac{3}{2} \|r g'_\xi\|,$$ and from the second equality of Eq. we get $$\|r f'_\xi\|^2 \geqslant \left(1-3a+\frac{9}{4}a^2\right) \|r g'_\xi\|^2 = \left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^2 \|r g'_\xi\|^2.$$ Then, from this inequality, the first equality of Eq. and the inequality we have $$\begin{split}
1 &\leqslant (4(1-a)(1-2a)+a^2) \|r g'_\xi\|^2 \\
&= 4\left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^2 \|r g'_\xi\|^2 \leqslant 4\|r f'_\xi\|^2.
\end{split}$$ It is in this place that we use the condition $a \geqslant 1$ that guarantees non-negativity of the coefficient $(1-a)(1-2a)$. By construction of the function $f_\xi$, we have $4\|r f'_\xi\|^2 \to 1$ when $\xi \to 1$, from which we immediately get $$\|r g'_\xi\|^2 \to \frac{1}{4\left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^2},$$ and thus $\|g_\xi\|^2 \to \left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^{-2}$ when $\xi \to 1$. Results of numerical integration of $g_\xi$ for several randomly chosen $a>1$ and for $\xi \approx 1$ agree with this conclusion (within the accuracy provided by the numerical integration routines). If we take the function $$\label{eq:gtilde}
\tilde{g}_\xi(r) = \frac{g_\xi(r)}{\|g_\xi\|}$$ then this function is normalized, $\|\tilde{g}_\xi\| = 1$ for all $\xi \in (0, 1)$, and we have $$\|r\tilde{g}'_\xi + a r^2 \tilde{g}^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2 = \frac{\|r f'_\xi\|^2}{\|g_\xi\|^2} \to \frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{3}{2}a-1\right)^2$$ when $\xi \to 1$, which concludes the proof.
From this theorem, for $a = 2$, we get $\inf \langle\hat{Z}^{(4)}\rangle = 1/30$. As a minimizing family of functions we can take the functions $f^{(4)}_\xi(r) = \tilde{g}_\xi(r)$, where $\tilde{g}_\xi(r)$ is given by Eqs. and for $a=2$. The corresponding function $\Psi(r)$, Eq. , is shown in Fig. \[fig:psi2\]. The wave function $\psi({\mathbf{x}})$ is given by $$\begin{split}
\psi(x_1, &x_2, x_3, x_4) = \Psi(r) = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} f^{(2)}_\xi(r^4) \\
&= \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} f^{(2)}_\xi((x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3+x^2_4)^2).
\end{split}$$ The functions for $a=3/2$, which we will denote by the same symbol $f^{(4)}_\xi(r)$, will be used in the next subsection to construct a minimizing family of functions for the case $N=6$.
![The wave function $\Psi(r)$, defined by Eqs. for $n=2$, and with $a=2$ for a few different values of $\xi$.[]{data-label="fig:psi2"}](psi4.pdf)
Six-partite case
----------------
For $N=6$ we have to minimize the integral $$\label{eq:ZZ3}
\begin{split}
\langle\hat{Z}^{(6)}\rangle = \frac{1}{560} \int^{+\infty}_0 \Biggl(r f'(r) &+ 9r^2 f^{\prime\prime}(r) \Biggr. \\
&+ \Biggl.\frac{9}{2}r^3 f^{\prime\prime\prime}(r)\Biggr)^2 \, dr.
\end{split}$$ The solution is given by
The following equality holds true: $$\inf \langle\hat{Z}^{(6)}\rangle = \frac{35}{4096}.$$ A family of functions that approach this infimum can be constructed with the help of the functions obtained for the previous case $n=2$.
We have $$\begin{split}
r f' &+ 9r^2 f^{\prime\prime} + \frac{9}{2}r^3 f^{\prime\prime\prime} \\
&= r(3rf'-2f)' + \frac{3}{2}r^2(3rf'-2f)^{\prime\prime},
\end{split}$$ and from Eq. we get the inequality $$\label{eq:f3}
\begin{split}
\|r f' + 9r^2 f^{\prime\prime} + \frac{9}{2}r^3 f^{\prime\prime\prime}\| &> \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{3}{2}\cdot\frac{3}{2}-1\right)\|2f-3rf'\| \\
&= \frac{5}{8}\|2f-3rf'\|.
\end{split}$$ The value $\|2f-3rf'\|^2$ can be estimated as follows: $$\begin{split}
\|2f&-3rf'\|^2 = 10 \|f\|^2 + 9 \|rf'\|^2 \\
&> \left(10+\frac{9}{4}\right)\|f\|^2 = \frac{49}{4}\|f\|^2 = \frac{49}{4},
\end{split}$$ where we used the inequality . Combining this result with the inequality we get $$\|r f' + 9r^2 f^{\prime\prime} + \frac{9}{2}r^3 f^{\prime\prime\prime}\| > \frac{5}{8} \cdot \frac{7}{2} = \frac{35}{16}.$$ We now prove that this estimation is the best possible.
Consider a normalizable solution of the equation $$\label{eq:h}
-2h_\xi + 3r h'_\xi = f^{(4)}_\xi,$$ where $f^{(4)}_\xi(r)$ is the function given by Eqs. and for $a = 3/2$. This function $f^{(4)}_\xi(r)$ has the following integral representation: $$f^{(4)}_\xi(r) = N(\xi) \int^\pi_0 \frac{\sqrt[3]{\gamma r}\, \Gamma\left(-\frac{1}{3}, \gamma r\right)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta,$$ where $N(\xi)$ is the normalization such that $\|f^{(4)}_\xi\| = 1$. To solve Eq. we first find a solution of the equation $$\label{eq:H2}
-2H_\xi + 3r H'_\xi = \sqrt[3]{\gamma r}\, \Gamma\left(-\frac{1}{3}, \gamma r\right),$$ and then construct from it the corresponding solution of Eq. via $$\label{eq:hxi}
h_\xi(r) = N(\xi) \int^\pi_0 \frac{H_\xi(r)}{1+\sqrt{\xi}\cos\theta} \, d\theta.$$ A normalizable solution of Eq. reads as $$\label{eq:Hxi}
\begin{split}
H_\xi(r) &= \frac{3}{2} e^{-\gamma r} - \frac{3}{2} \sqrt[3]{(\gamma r)^2} \, \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{3}, \gamma r \right) \\
&- \sqrt[3]{\gamma r} \, \Gamma\left(-\frac{1}{3}, \gamma r \right),
\end{split}$$ or, according to [@gr-gamma2], this solution can also be written as $$\begin{split}
H_\xi(r) = \frac{3}{2} e^{-\gamma r} &- \frac{3}{2} \frac{\gamma r e^{-\gamma r}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)}
\int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{e^{-t}}{\sqrt[3]{t}(\gamma r + t)} \, dt \\
&-\frac{e^{-\gamma r}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)} \int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{\sqrt[3]{t} e^{-t}}{\gamma r + t} \, dt,
\end{split}$$ from which it is clear that this solution is normalizable.
We could not find an explicit expression for the function $h_\xi(r)$ itself or for its norm $\|h_\xi\|$ but we can prove some statements about the behavior of the norm $\|h_\xi\|$ when $\xi \to 1$. From Eq. we have $$\label{eq:fh4}
rh'_\xi + 9r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi + \frac{9}{2} r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi = r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi.$$ Taking the norm of the both sides of this equality, we get $$\label{eq:fh}
\begin{split}
28 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 &- \frac{261}{2} \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2 + \frac{81}{4} \|r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2 \\
&= \left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2,
\end{split}$$ where we used the relations $$\begin{split}
(r h'_\xi, r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi) &= -\frac{3}{2} \|r h'_\xi\|^2, \ (r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi, r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi) = -\frac{5}{2} \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2, \\
(r h'_\xi, r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi) &= 6\|r h'_\xi\|^2 - \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2.
\end{split}$$ From the second of these relations we can get the following inequality: $$\label{eq:h23}
\|r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi\| \geqslant \frac{5}{2} \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|.$$ If we substitute it into the left-hand side of Eq. we get $$28 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 - \frac{63}{16} \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2,$$ so the second coefficient is negative and we cannot follow the idea of the prove for $n=2$. Up to now we used relations like which are derived from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and this inequality is based on the non-negativity of the expression $\|\alpha f + \beta g\|^2$ for all real numbers $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Here we need to go one step further and use the non-negativity of similar expression with three terms. Namely, we can write $$\begin{split}
&\left\|\alpha r h'_\xi + \beta r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi + \frac{9}{2} r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2
= (\alpha^2 - 3\alpha\beta + 54\alpha) \|r h'_\xi\|^2 \\
&+ \left(\beta^2 - 9\alpha -\frac{45}{2}\beta\right) \|r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2
+ \frac{81}{4} \|r^3 h^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi\|^2 \geqslant 0.
\end{split}$$ Then we find such $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that $$\begin{split}
\alpha^2 - 3\alpha\beta + 54\alpha &= 28-49\left(\frac{5}{8}\right)^2, \\
\beta^2 - 9\alpha -\frac{45}{2}\beta &= -\frac{261}{2}.
\end{split}$$ One can verify that this system has two solutions $$\alpha = \frac{9}{8}(9\pm\sqrt{74}), \quad \beta = \frac{3}{4}(24\pm\sqrt{74}).$$ If we take one these two solutions, $(\alpha_0, \beta_0)$, the equality can be written as $$\begin{split}
49\left(\frac{5}{8}\right)^2 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 &+ \left\|\alpha_0 r h'_\xi + \beta_0 r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi + \frac{9}{2} r^2 h^{\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2 \\
&= \left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2,
\end{split}$$ so that we have the inequality $$\label{eq:fh2}
49\left(\frac{5}{8}\right)^2 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 \leqslant \left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2.$$ From the differential equation we have $$\label{eq:hhprime}
10 \|h_\xi\|^2 + 9 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 = \|f^{(2)}_\xi\|^2 = 1$$ for all $\xi$. Then, using Eq. , we have $$\label{eq:fh3}
\begin{split}
1 &= 10 \|h_\xi\|^2 + 9 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 \leqslant 49 \|r h'_\xi\|^2 \\
&\leqslant \left(\frac{8}{5}\right)^2 \left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2.
\end{split}$$ We have chosen the function $f^{(4)}_\xi(r)$ in such a way that $$\left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\|^2 \to \frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{3}{2}\cdot\frac{3}{2}-1\right) = \left(\frac{5}{8}\right)^2$$ when $\xi \to 1$. From Eq. we get that $\|r h'_\xi\| \to 1/7$ and then from Eq. we obtain that $\|h_\xi\| \to 2/7$ when $\xi \to 1$. Results of numerical integration for $\xi \approx 1$ agree with this conclusion. Now, let us take the function $$\label{eq:htilde}
\tilde{h}_\xi(r) = \frac{h_\xi(r)}{\|h_\xi\|}.$$ This function is normalized, $\|\tilde{h}_\xi\| = 1$, and from Eq. we get $$\begin{split}
\left\|r\tilde{h}'_\xi + 9r^2 \tilde{h}^{\prime\prime}_\xi + \frac{9}{2} r^3 \tilde{h}^{\prime\prime\prime}_\xi\right\| &=
\frac{1}{\|h_\xi\|} \left\|r f^{(4)\prime}_\xi + \frac{3}{2} r^2 f^{(4)\prime\prime}_\xi\right\| \\
&\to \frac{7}{2} \cdot \frac{5}{8} = \frac{35}{16}
\end{split}$$ when $\xi \to 1$. From the definition of $\hat{Z}^{(3)}$, Eq. , we have $$\inf \langle \hat{Z}^{(6)} \rangle = \frac{1}{560}\left(\frac{35}{16}\right)^2 = \frac{35}{4096},$$ which concludes the proof.
The functions $f^{(6)}_\xi(r)$ that minimize $\langle\hat{Z}^{(3)}\rangle$ can now be taken as $$f^{(6)}_\xi(r) = \tilde{h}_\xi(r).$$ The corresponding function $\Psi(r)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:psi3\] and the corresponding wave functions read as $$\psi(x_1, \ldots, x_6) = \Psi(r) = \sqrt{\frac{6}{\pi^3}} f^{(6)}_\xi((x^2_1 + \ldots + x^2_6)^3).$$ As in the previous case, we have not been able to find an explicit expression for $f^{(6)}_\xi(r)$ in terms of known special function, but we could prove that these functions have the desired property without such an expression.
![The wave function $\Psi(r)$, defined by Eqs. for $n=3$, , and for a few different values of $\xi$.[]{data-label="fig:psi3"}](psi5.pdf)
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, we summarize our results obtained in this work. We have tried to minimize the uncertainty product $\sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px}$ and its multipartite generalizations. We have shown that pure states are sufficient to minimize such uncertainty products. We have outlined the general approach for the case of an arbitrary even number of parties and explicitly found the infimum of these products over a special class of states with real spherically symmetric wave functions in bipartite, four-partite and six-partite cases. We have also constructed parametrized families of states that approach the corresponding infimums by varying the parameter. Namely, we have shown that any bipartite state for which $$\frac{1}{8} < \sigma_{xp} \sigma_{px} < \frac{1}{4}$$ is entangled; that any four-partite state for which $$\frac{1}{30} < \sigma_{xxpp} \sigma_{ppxx} < \frac{1}{16}$$ is entangled; and that any six-partite state such that $$\frac{35}{64} \cdot \frac{1}{64} = \frac{35}{4096} < \sigma_{xxxppp} \sigma_{pppxxx} < \frac{1}{64}$$ is entangled and provided examples of states that tend to the limits of $1/8$, $1/30$ and $35/4096$ respectively. The next step will be to answer the question whether these limiting values can be improved by using more general states.
Changing the order of integration
=================================
We need to verify that we can exchange summation and integration in Eq. . We use the following theorem that can be found, for example, in [@budak].
Assume that the sequence of functions $F_n(t)$, $n = 0, 1, \ldots$, defined on an infinite interval $[t_0, +\infty)$, uniformly converges to the function $F(t)$ on any finite interval $[t_0, T]$, $T > t_0$. If the integral $\int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F_n(t)\,dt$ converges uniformly with respect to $n$, then the integral $\int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F(t)\,dt$ exists and the equality $$\lim_{n \to +\infty} \int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F_n(t)\,dt = \int^{+\infty}_{t_0} F(t)\,dt.$$ is valid. In other words, under these conditions the limit of integrals is equal to the integral of the point-wise limiting function.
We apply this theorem to the functions $$\begin{split}
F_n(t) &= c_0 e^r S_n(\xi, t)J_0(2\sqrt{rt})e^{-t} \\
&= c_0 e^r \sqrt{t}e^{-t}S_n(\xi, t) \frac{J_0(2\sqrt{rt})}{\sqrt{t}},
\end{split}$$ where $\xi$ and $r$ are fixed. From the representation it is clear that the partial sum $S_n(\xi, t)$ converges uniformly to $I_0(t\sqrt{\xi})$ on any finite interval. To prove that the integral $\int^{+\infty}_0 F_n(t) \, dt$ converges uniformly note that $$0 < \sqrt{t} e^{-t} S_n(\xi, t) < \sqrt{t} e^{-t} I_0(t\sqrt{\xi}).$$ The Bessel function $I_0(t)$ has the following asymptotic expansion for large $t$ [@gr-I0]: $$I_0(t) \sim \frac{e^t}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}
\left(1 + \frac{1}{8t} + \frac{9}{128t^2} + \ldots\right),$$ from which we immediately get that $\sqrt{t} e^{-t} I_0(t\sqrt{\xi}) \to 0$ when $t \to +\infty$ (take into account that $0 < \xi < 1$) and, as a consequence, we see that the function $\sqrt{t} e^{-t} I_0(t\sqrt{\xi})$ is bounded on $[0, +\infty)$. We have just proved that the functions $\sqrt{t} e^{-t} S_n(\xi, t)$ are uniformly bounded. On the other hand, the function $J_0(2\sqrt{rt})/\sqrt{t}$ (which does not depend on $n$) is integrable for $r>0$ [@gr-J0-2] $$\int^{+\infty}_0 \frac{J_0(2\sqrt{rt})}{\sqrt{t}} \, dt = 2\int^{+\infty}_0 J_0(2t\sqrt{r}) \, dt = \frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}.$$ From this we can conclude that the integral $\int^{+\infty}_0 F_n(t) \, dt$ converges uniformly and thus we can apply the Theorem 1 to verify the correctness of the expression .
Normalization of the coefficients $c_{nm}$ {#app:cnm}
==========================================
Here we prove that the normalization condition for the coefficients defined by Eq. , $$\label{eq:c1}
\sum^{+\infty}_{n,m=0} c^2_{nm}=1 ,$$ can be obtained directly from the explicit expression for these coefficients. In fact, we have $$\sum^{+\infty}_{n,m=0} c^2_{nm} = \sum^{+\infty}_{N = 0} \sum_{n+m=N} c^2_{nm} = \sum^{+\infty}_{N = 0} \sideset{}{'}\sum_{n+m=4N} c^2_{nm},$$ where the prime means that the sum runs over only those pairs of $n$ and $m$ that have the form $n = 4n'$, $m = 4m'$ or $n = 4n'+2$, $m = 4m'+2$. The first equality is simply the “diagonal” summation of this double series with non-negative coefficients (so the sum does not depend on the order of summation) and the second equality is valid since if $N$ is not a multiple of 4 then $c_{nm} = 0$ for all pairs $(n,m)$ with $n+m=N$. From the expression for the coefficients we see that we need to compute the following primed sum: $$\label{eq:nm}
\begin{split}
S_N = \sideset{}{'}\sum_{n+m=4N} &\binom{n}{\frac{n}{2}}\binom{m}{\frac{m}{2}} = \sum^{N}_{n=0} \binom{4n}{2n}\binom{4N-4n}{2N-2n} \\
&+ \sum^{N-1}_{n=0} \binom{4n+2}{2n+1}\binom{4N-4n-2}{2N-2n-1}.
\end{split}$$ To compute this sum, let us introduce the function $F(x)$ via the equality [@gr-F] $$F(x) \equiv \sum^{+\infty}_{n=0} \binom{2n}{n} x^n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-4x}}.$$ Then we can observe that the sum can be written in a compact form with the help of $F(x)$ as $$S_N = \sum^{2N}_{n=0} [x^n] F(x) [x^{2N-n}] F(x) = [x^{2N}] F^2(x),$$ where $[x^n]F(x)$ is the coefficient of $x^n$ in the Taylor expansion of $F(x)$. Thus, we have $$S_N = [x^{2N}] \frac{1}{1-4x} = 2^{4N}.$$ Now we can finish the computation of the sum on the left-hand side of Eq. : $$\begin{split}
\sum^{+\infty}_{n,m=0} c^2_{nm} &= \frac{\pi}{2K(\xi)} \sum^{+\infty}_{N = 0} \binom{2N}{N}^2 S_N \left(\frac{\xi^2}{16^2}\right)^N \\
&= \frac{\pi}{2K(\xi)} \sum^{+\infty}_{N = 0} \binom{2N}{N}^2 \left(\frac{\xi^2}{16}\right)^N = 1,
\end{split}$$ where we have taken into account the relation . This completes the proof of the equality .
Roots of Eq. {#app:roots}
=============
Here we prove that the numbers are the roots of the equation where the coefficients $b_k$ are given by Eq. . We have $$\label{eq:alpha2}
\begin{split}
&\sum^n_{k=1} b_k (\alpha)_k = \sum^n_{k=1} \sum^k_{j=1} \frac{(-1)^{k+j}}{k!} \binom{k}{j} \binom{jn}{n} (\alpha)_k \\
&= \sum^n_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{jn}{n} \sum^n_{k=j} \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \binom{k}{j} (\alpha)_k,
\end{split}$$ where we have exchanged the summation order according to the equality $\sum^n_{k=1} \sum^k_{j=1} = \sum^n_{j=1} \sum^n_{k=j}$. The inner sum on the right-hand side of Eq. is easier to compute when $\alpha$ is a sufficiently large integer number. In this case we can write $(\alpha)_k = \alpha!/(\alpha-k)!$ and transform this sum as follows: $$\label{eq:ain}
\begin{split}
&\sum^n_{k=j} \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \binom{k}{j} (\alpha)_k = \binom{\alpha}{j} \sum^n_{k=j} (-1)^k \binom{\alpha-j}{k-j} = \\
&(-1)^n \binom{\alpha}{j} \binom{\alpha-j-1}{n-j} = \frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n!}\frac{(\alpha)_{n+1}}{j-\alpha}\binom{n}{j},
\end{split}$$ where we have used a simple relation for the binomial coefficients [@gr-bin2]. Note that $$\frac{(\alpha)_{n+1}}{j-\alpha} = \frac{\alpha(\alpha-1)\ldots(\alpha-n)}{j-\alpha}$$ is a polynomial of $\alpha$ for $j = 1, \ldots, n$. Since the polynomial on the left-hand side of Eq. equals the polynomial on the right-hand side for all sufficiently large integer $\alpha$, these two polynomials must be same, and the equality must be valid for all $\alpha$. When we substitute the expression on the right-hand side of Eq. into Eq. we see that we need to prove that $$S(\alpha) \equiv (\alpha)_{n+1} \sum^n_{j=1} \frac{(-1)^j}{j-\alpha} \binom{n}{j} \binom{jn}{n} = 0$$ for $\alpha$ given by Eq. . For $\alpha = 0$ this is clearly true since $(0)_{n+1} = 0$. For $\alpha = i/n$, $i = 1, \ldots, n-1$, we have $$\label{eq:Sin}
S\left(\frac{i}{n}\right) = \frac{n}{n!}\left(\frac{i}{n}\right)_{n+1}\sum^n_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{n}{j} \prod^{n-1}_{\substack{l=0 \\ l \not= i}} (nj-l),$$ since the binomial coefficient $\binom{jn}{n}$ can be expanded as $$\binom{jn}{n} = \frac{1}{n!} \prod^{n-1}_{l=0} (jn-l)$$ and $1/(j-\frac{i}{n}) = n/(nj-i)$ cancels one term of this product. Since $i \not= 0$ the term with $l=0$, i.e. $jn$, is always present. Then we can expand the product on the right-hand side of Eq. and get $$\label{eq:Sin2}
S\left(\frac{i}{n}\right) = \sum^{n-1}_{p = 1} A_p \sum^n_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{n}{j} j^p = 0,$$ where $A_p$ are some numbers and each inner sum is zero due to another standard relation for binomial coefficients [@gr-bin3], $$\label{eq:bi}
\sum^n_{j=1} (-1)^j \binom{n}{j} j^p = \sum^n_{j=0} (-1)^j \binom{n}{j} j^p = 0$$ for $p = 1, \ldots, n-1$. It is important to note here that if $i \not= 0$ then $p$ in the sum starts from $1$ and in this case the first equality in Eq. holds true.
[7]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ** (, ), ed.
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , **, vol. (, ), ed.
, ** (, ).
GR, p. 1000, f. 8.970-1 GR, p. 1001, fs. 8.971-3, 8.971-6 GR, p. 860, f. 8.113-1 GR, p. 861, f. 8.114-1 GR, p. 707, f. 6.631-10 GR, p. 910, f. 8.402 GR, p. 916, f. 8.431-3 GR, p. 697, f. 6.614 GR, p. 339, f. 3.338-4 GR, p. 395, f. 3.621-5 GR, p. 4, f. 0.154-3 GR, p. 899, f. 8.350-2 GR, p. 900, f. 8.353-3
, ** (, , ).
GR, p. 920, f. 8.451-5 GR, p. 659, f. 6.511 GR, p. 11, f. 0.241-3 GR, p. 4, f. 0.15-4 GR, p. 4, f. 0.154-3
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
S.Y. Choi and K. Hagiwara
[Theory Group, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan ]{}
Abstract
We probe the top-quark electric dipole moment (EDM) in top-quark pair production via photon-photon fusion at a photon linear collider. We show how linearly-polarized photon beams can be used to extract information on the top-quark EDM without the use of complicated angular correlations of top-quark decay products. If the luminosity of the laser back-scattered photon-photon collisions is comparable to that of the $e^+e^-$ collisions, then the measurement of the top-quark EDM obtained by counting top-quark-production events in photon fusion can be as accurate as the measurement obtained by studying the $t\bar{t}$ decay correlations in $e^+e^-$ collisions using a perfect detector.
A detailed study of top-quark physics is one of the most important tasks of a linear $e^+e^-$ collider. The fact that the top quark has a much larger mass than the other quarks and leptons suggests that it may be susceptible to effects from physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), to which lighter quarks and leptons are not sensitive.
Detailed studies have been performed mainly in the processes $e^+e^-\rightarrow t\bar{t}$[@Saa; @Hawaii] including general studies of $tt\gamma$, $ttZ$ and $tbW$ couplings[@KLY; @AA; @BN; @ABB]. At a photon linear collider we can measure the $tt\gamma$ and $tbW$ couplings. In this paper we investigate the possibility of extracting the effective couplings of the top quark to the photon by employing linearly polarized photons generated by the Compton back-scattering of linearly polarized laser light on electron/positron beams of linear $e^+e^-$ (or $e^-e^-$) colliders.
One may employ two methods to extract the top-quark effective couplings at a photon linear collider. One method makes use of the quasi-freely decaying property of the top quark by measuring various spin correlations in the $t\bar{t}$ final system, $(bW^+)(\bar{b}W^-)$ or $(bf_1\bar{f}_2)(\bar{b}f_3\bar{f}_4)$. The other method is to employ linearly-polarized photon beams to measure various polarization asymmetries of the initial states. It is, of course, possible to combine the two methods. The former technique is essentially the same as that employed in $e^+e^-$ collisions[@KLY; @AA; @BN; @ABB] with one difference; in $e^+e^-$ collisions the spin of the $t\bar{t}$ system is restricted to $J=1$, while in photon fusion $J=0$ or $J\geq 2$ is allowed. Additionally it is easy to produce linearly polarized photon beams through the Compton back-scattering of polarized laser light off the initial electron/positron beams. Hence a $\gamma\gamma$ collider provides some unique opportunities. We will show that CP-odd correlations can be measured by a counting experiment where no information on the momenta and polarization of the top quark decay products are needed.
A CP-odd asymmetry can be formed at a $\gamma\gamma$-collider when the following $J=0$ amplitudes of two photons in the CP-even and CP-odd states are both non-vanishing; $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}\left[\gamma\gamma\rightarrow X({\rm CP}=+)\right]
\propto \vec{\epsilon}_1\cdot\vec{\epsilon}_2,\qquad
{\cal M}\left[\gamma\gamma\rightarrow X({\rm CP}=-)\right]
\propto (\vec{\epsilon}_1\times\vec{\epsilon}_2)\cdot
\vec{k}_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ are the polarizations of the two colliding photons and $\vec{k}_1$ is the momentum vector of one photon in the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m. frame. This fact has been used in Ref. [@GG] to show that a Higgs boson ($X=H$) of mixed CP character could be distinguished from a pure CP eigenstate by the fact that a certain asymmetry between production cross sections initiated by colliding photons of different helicities is non-zero. A similar analysis can be applied to the $t\bar{t}$ production process ($X=t\bar{t}$) where, for instance, the top-quark EDM generates CP-odd terms. It is evident that the determination of the CP of $\gamma\gamma$ system requires linearly polarized colliding photons.
In general, a linearly polarized photon state is a superposition of two helicity states with equal weight. The state vector of a linearly polarized photon with the polarization along an azimuthal angle $\phi$ in a given coordinate system can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left[-e^{-i\phi}|\lambda=+\rangle
+e^{i\phi}|\lambda=-\rangle\right].\end{aligned}$$ The state vector of the two-photon system, where two photons collide head-on, is the direct product $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi_1,\phi_2\rangle
=
\frac{1}{2}\left[e^{-i(\phi_1-\phi_2)}|++\rangle
-e^{-i(\phi_1+\phi_2)}|+-\rangle
-e^{i(\phi_1+\phi_2)}|-+\rangle
+e^{i(\phi_1-\phi_2)}|--\rangle\right].\end{aligned}$$ Then the scattering amplitude from the linearly polarized state to a final state $X$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X |M|\phi_1,\phi_2\rangle
=\frac{1}{2}
\left[e^{-i(\phi_1-\phi_2)}M_{++}-e^{-i(\phi_1+\phi_2)}M_{+-}
-e^{i(\phi_1+\phi_2)}M_{-+}+e^{i(\phi_1-\phi_2)}M_{--}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used for helicity amplitudes the notation $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}=\langle X|M|\lambda_1\lambda_2\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The azimuthal angle difference, $\chi=\phi_1-\phi_2$, is not changed with respect to rotation along the two-photon direction, while the azimuthal angle sum, $\varphi=\phi_1+\phi_2$, can be cancelled by an overall rotation along the $z$-axis. After taking an average over the azimuthal angle $\varphi$ we obtain the matrix element squared as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma(\chi)
=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2=\pm}|M_{\lambda_1\lambda_2}|^2
-\frac{1}{2}\cos(2\chi){\rm Re}\left[M_{++}M^*_{--}\right]
-\frac{1}{2}\sin(2\chi){\rm Im}\left[M_{++}M^*_{--}\right],\end{aligned}$$ which differs from the unpolarized cross section by the last two terms. Only the last term is CP-odd.
We now turn to the specific process $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow
t\bar{t}$ with Compton back-scattered laser lights as a photon source at a future linear $e^+e^-$ ($e^-e^-$) collider. The effective Lagrangian for the top-quark–photon interaction is generalized by including terms of dimension five: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L}_M=eQ_t\left(\frac{d_t}{2m_t}\right)
\bar{t}\sigma^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}t,\qquad
{\cal L}_E=-ieQ_t\left(\frac{\tilde{d}_t}{2m_t}\right)
\bar{t}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_5F_{\mu\nu}t,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^{\mu\nu}=\frac{i}{2}\left[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\right]$, $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the photon field strength and $Q_t=2/3$ is the top-quark electric charge in units of the proton charge $e$. The coefficient $\mu_t=ed_tQ_t/2m_t$ is then called the anomalous magnetic dipole moment (MDM) of the top quark, which receives one-loop contributions of the order $\alpha_s/\pi m_t$. This would very likely mask any new-physics contribution to the MDM. On the other hand, the top-quark EDM, $\tilde{\mu}_t=e\tilde{d}Q_t/2m_t$, violates T-invariance. Its presence can hence be tested unambiguously via CP-odd correlations. Therefore, we focus in this letter on the measurement of $\tilde{d}_t$.
The top-quark EDM modifies the SM $\gamma t\bar{t}$ vertex as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{\mu}(k,p,p^\prime)
&=&-ieQ_t\left[\gamma^\mu+\tilde{d}_t\sigma^{\mu\nu}
\gamma_5\frac{k_\nu}{2m_t}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $k=p-p^\prime$ is the four-momentum of the photon and $p$ and $p^\prime$ are four-momenta of the incoming and outgoing top quarks, respectively. With this modification, the helicity amplitudes for the process $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ are in the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m. frame given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\sigma\bar{\sigma}}
=
\frac{4\pi\alpha Q^2_tN_c}{(1-\hat{\beta}^2\cos^2\theta)}
A_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\sigma\bar{\sigma}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&A_{\lambda\lambda;\sigma\sigma}=-\frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{2m_t}
(\lambda+\sigma\hat{\beta})\left[\frac{4m_t^2}{\hat{s}}+
\tilde{d}_t\left(i\lambda-\frac{\tilde{d}_t}{2}\right)
(1+\lambda\sigma\hat{\beta}\cos^2\theta)\right],\nonumber\\
&&A_{\lambda\lambda;\sigma,-\sigma}=
\tilde{d}_t\left(i\lambda-\frac{\tilde{d}_t}{2}\right)
\hat{\beta}\cos\theta\sin\theta,\nonumber\\
&&A_{\lambda,-\lambda;\sigma\sigma}=\frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}}}{2m_t}
\sigma\hat{\beta}\sin^2\theta
\left[\frac{4m_t^2}{\hat{s}}-i\tilde{d}_t\sigma\hat{\beta}
+\frac{\tilde{d}_t^2}{2}\right],\nonumber\\
&&A_{\lambda,-\lambda;\sigma,-\sigma}=\hat{\beta}
\left(\lambda\sigma+\cos\theta\right)\sin\theta
\left[1-\frac{\hat{s}}{8m_t^2}\tilde{d}_t^2
(1-\lambda\sigma\hat{\beta}^2\cos\theta)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda,\bar{\lambda}$ and $\sigma/2,\bar{\sigma}/2$ are the two-photon and $t,\bar{t}$ helicities, respectively. $\hat{s}$ is the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m. energy squared, $\hat{\beta}=\sqrt{1-4m^2_t/\hat{s}}$, and $\theta$ is the polar angle between the photon beam and the top-quark directions. The differential cross section of the process $\gamma\gamma\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}\cos\theta}
(\lambda_1\lambda_2;\lambda^\prime_1\lambda^\prime_2)
& = &
\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{\hat{s}}
\frac{Q^4_tN_c\beta}{(1-\hat{\beta}^2\cos^2\theta)^2}
T_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\lambda^\prime_1\lambda^\prime_2},\\
T_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\lambda^\prime_1\lambda^\prime_2}
& = &\sum_{\sigma_1\sigma_2=\pm}
A_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\sigma_1\sigma_2}
A^*_{\lambda^\prime_1\lambda^\prime_2;\sigma_1\sigma_2}.\end{aligned}$$ We find to first order in $\tilde{d}_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\lambda_1\lambda_2=\pm}
T_{\lambda_1\lambda_2;\lambda_1\lambda_2}
\!\! &=&\!\! \frac{1}{2}
\left[1+2\hat{\beta}^2
-(1+\sin^4\theta)\hat{\beta}^4\right],\nonumber\\
{\rm Re}[T_{++;--}]=-2(1-\hat{\beta}^2)^2,& &\qquad
{\rm Im}[T_{++;--}]=-4(1-\hat{\beta}^2){\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t).
\label{Matrix}\end{aligned}$$ One can see from these expressions that, to first order, the electric-dipole-form-factor, $\tilde{d}_t$, does not contribute to the unpolarized cross-section, nor to the CP-even term, ${\rm Re}[T_{++;--}]$, but it can contribute to the CP-odd term, ${\rm Im}[T_{++;--}]$. It is now clear that its measurement requires linear polarization of the two photon beams, which can be achieved efficiently via the Compton backscattering of laser beams[@GKS].
The event rate for $t\bar{t}$ production can now be obtained by folding a photon luminosity spectral function, ${\rm d}L_{\gamma\gamma}$, with the $t\bar{t}$ production cross section as $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}N={\rm d}L_{\gamma\gamma}\sum_{i,j=0}^{3}
\langle \zeta_i\bar{\zeta}_j\rangle_\tau
\sigma_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ where $\zeta_i(\bar{\zeta}_i)$ are the Stokes parameters (with $\zeta_0=\bar{\zeta}_0=1$) for $\gamma_1(\gamma_2)$, and $\sigma_{ij}$ are the corresponding $t\bar{t}$ production cross-sections. The linear-polarization transfer from the laser photons to the high-energy photons is described by the $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_3$ components of the Stokes vector, $\vec{\zeta}=(\zeta_1,\zeta_2,\zeta_3)$. The length, $l=\sqrt{\zeta^2_1+\zeta^2_3}$, of these two components depends on the final state photon energy and on the value of the parameter $x=2p_e\cdot p_\gamma/m^2_e$. ${\rm d}L_{\gamma\gamma}$ and $\langle \zeta_i\bar{\zeta}_j\rangle_\tau$ are obtained as functions of the fraction $\tau(=\hat{s}/s)$ of the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m. energy-squared, $\hat{s}$, to the $e^+e^-$ c.m. energy squared $s$ by averaging over collision, including a convolution over the energy spectra for the colliding photons. Operation below the threshold for $e^\pm$ pair production in collisions between the laser beam and the Compton-backscattered photon beam requires $x\leq 2(1+\sqrt{2})$; the lower bound on $x$ depends on the lowest available laser frequency and the production threshold of the final state. The linear-polarization transfer is large for small values of $x$ if the photon energy to electron beam energy, $y$, is close to the maximum value, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
y\rightarrow y_m=\frac{x}{1+x},
\label{ymax}\end{aligned}$$ for a given parameter $x$. The photon energy spectrum is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_0(y)=\frac{1}{1-y}+1-y-4r(1-r),\end{aligned}$$ and the Stokes linear component, $l(y)=\phi_3(y)/\phi_0(y)$, follows from $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_3(y)=2r^2,\end{aligned}$$ with $r=y/x(1-y)$. The maximum value of $l(y)$ is reached at $y=y_m$, $$\begin{aligned}
l(y_m)=\frac{2(1+x)}{1+(1+x)^2},\end{aligned}$$ and approaches unity for small values of $x$. Since only part of the laser polarization is transferred to the high-energy photon beam, it is useful, for the sake of discussion, to define the polarization asymmetry ${\cal A}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal A}(\tau)=\frac{\langle \phi_3\phi_3\rangle_\tau}{\langle
\phi_0\phi_o\rangle_\tau},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \phi_i\phi_i\rangle_\tau
=
\frac{1}{{\cal N}^2(x)}\int^{y_m}_{\tau/y_m}\frac{{\rm d}y}{y}
\phi_i(y)\phi_i(\tau/y).\end{aligned}$$ The normalization factor ${\cal N}(x)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal N}(x)=\int^{y_m}_0\phi_0(y){\rm d}y
={\rm ln}(1+x)\left[1-\frac{4}{x}-\frac{8}{x^2}\right]
+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{8}{x}-\frac{1}{2(1+x)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ For the linearly-polarized laser beams the number of the $t\bar{t}$ events is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}N=\kappa^2L_{ee}\langle \phi_0\phi_0\rangle_\tau{\rm d}\tau
\left[\sigma_0-\cos(2\chi){\cal A}\sigma_{A_1}
-\sin(2\chi){\cal A}\sigma_{A_2}{\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)\right],
\label{Number}\end{aligned}$$ where for the two-photon luminosity function the relation $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm d}L_{\gamma\gamma}=\kappa^2L_{ee}
\langle \phi_0\phi_0\rangle_\tau{\rm d}\tau
\label{Lum_rel}\end{aligned}$$ is used and the respective cross sections are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_0(\hat{s})
&=&\frac{4\pi\alpha^2Q^4_tN_c\hat{\beta}}{\hat{s}}
\left[-2+\hat{\beta}^2
+\frac{3-\hat{\beta}^4}{2\hat{\beta}}
{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\hat{\beta}}{1-\hat{\beta}}\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\sigma_{A_1}(\hat{s})
&=&\frac{4\pi\alpha^2Q^4_tN_c\hat{\beta}}{\hat{s}}
\frac{(1-\hat{\beta}^2)}{4}
\left[1+\frac{1-\hat{\beta}^2}{2\hat{\beta}}
{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\hat{\beta}}{1-\hat{\beta}}\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\sigma_{A_2}(\hat{s})
&=&\frac{4\pi\alpha^2Q^4_tN_c\hat{\beta}}{\hat{s}}
\frac{1}{2}
\left[1+\frac{1-\hat{\beta}^2}{2\hat{\beta}}
{\rm ln}\left(\frac{1+\hat{\beta}}{1-\hat{\beta}}\right)\right].
\label{approx}\end{aligned}$$ The expression of $\sigma_0(\hat{s})$ in Eq. (\[approx\]) coincides with that of Ref. [@KMS]. The $e$-$\gamma$ conversion coefficient, $\kappa$, in Eq. (\[Lum\_rel\]) is assumed to be $1$ in the following analysis. $\chi$ is in the $e^+e^-$ $(e^-e^-)$ c.m. frame the angle between the directions of maximum linear polarization of the two laser beams, which are assumed to be approaching nearly head-on towards the electron and positron beams, respectively. And $L_{ee}$ is the integrated $e^+e^-$ $(e^-e^-)$ luminosity.
The last term in Eq. (\[Number\]) depends on $\sin(2\chi)$ such that the EDM contribution can be isolated by taking the difference of events rates at $\chi=\frac{\pi}{4}$ and $\chi=-\frac{\pi}{4}$. Then one measure of the significance of the EDM contribution is the number of standard deviations ($N_{\rm SD}$) by which $|N(\chi=\frac{\pi}{4})-N(\chi=-\frac{\pi}{4})|$ exceeds the expected uncertainty of the background distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm SD}={\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)
\frac{\sqrt{2}N_{A_2}}{\sqrt{N_0}},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
N_0=L_{ee}\int^{\tau_m}_{4m_t^2/s}\langle \phi_0\phi_0\rangle_\tau
\sigma_0(\tau s),\qquad
N_{A_2}=L_{ee}\int^{\tau_m}_{4m_t^2/s}\langle \phi_3\phi_3\rangle_\tau
\sigma_{A_2}(\tau s),\end{aligned}$$ with $\tau_m=y^2_m$ in Eq. (\[ymax\]). At the 1-$\sigma$ level the allowed maximum value of the EDM parameter, ${\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)$, is $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)|_m=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2N_0}}
\frac{N_0}{N_{A_2}},
\label{EDM_m}\end{aligned}$$ if no asymmetry is found. The $N_{SD}$-$\sigma$ level upper bound is obtained simply by multiplying $|{\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)|_m$ by $N_{\rm SD}$. We shall evaluate the EDM upper bound, $|{\rm Re}(\tilde{d}_t)|_m$ for a yearly integrated luminosity of $20$ ${\rm fb}^{-1}$.
A crucial experimental issue is the optimal means for maximizing $N_{A_2}/\sqrt{N_0}$. It requires obtaining the smallest possible value of $x$ to make the linear polarization transfer as large as possible. However, the large top-quark mass does not allow $x$ to be very small. For a given c.m. energy squared, $s$, the allowed range for $x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2m_t}{\sqrt{s}-2m_t}\leq x \leq 2(1+\sqrt{2}).\end{aligned}$$ Numerically, for $m_t=175$ GeV the minimum value of $x$ is $7/3$ at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $7/13$ at $\sqrt{s}=1$ TeV, respectively. The EDM upper bound (\[EDM\_m\]) will be very sensitive to the value of $\sqrt{s}$ since a small $x$ requires a large $s$. Fig. 1 shows the cross section $\sigma_0$ and the ratio $\sigma_{A_2}/\sigma_0$ with respect to the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m. energy, $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$, for $m_t=150$, $160$, $170$, $180$, and $190$ GeV. The cross section is maximal near $\sqrt{\hat{s}}= 2m_t+ 100$ GeV, while the ratio $\sigma_{A_2}/\sigma_0$ is maximal at the threshold. Therefore, it is important to adjust the laser energy and electron/positron beam energies so as to obtain as many $t\bar{t}$ events as possible while retaining $x$ small so as to have large transverse polarization of the back-scattered photons. We make a numerical analysis for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV and $m_t=150$ GeV as well as for $m_t=170$ GeV; this facilitates direct comparison with the results of Ref. [@BN]. Table 1 shows the $x$ dependence of the number of $t\bar{t}$ events, the ratio $N_{A_2}/N_0$, and the EDM upper bound. $N_0$ increases while $N_{A_2}/N_0$ decreases with $x$. As a result, the optimal upper bound $|{\rm Re}(\tilde{\mu})|_m$ for $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV is obtained near $x=2.2$ for $m_t=150$ GeV as $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm Re}(\tilde{\mu})|_m=\frac{eQ_t|{\rm Re}(\tilde{d})|_m}{2m_t}
=5.8\times 10^{-18} ({\rm e\cdot cm}).
\label{bound}\end{aligned}$$ The 1-$\sigma$ upper bound (\[bound\]) should be compared with the corresponding bound $$\begin{aligned}
|{\rm Re}(\tilde{\mu})|_m=7.3\times 10^{-18} ({\rm e\cdot cm}),
\label{bound3}\end{aligned}$$ which is obtained from the spin correlation study[@BN] of the cascade process, $e^+e^-\rightarrow t\bar{t}$, $t\rightarrow bW^+(\bar{t}\rightarrow \bar{b}W^-)$, and $W^-\rightarrow l\nu_l(W^+\rightarrow l^+\bar{\nu}_l)$[^1] for $1.3\times 10^4$ $t\bar{t}$ events expected at $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV. It is now clear from the bounds (\[bound\]) and (\[bound3\]) that, with the $\gamma\gamma$ luminosity comparable to the $e^+e^-$ luminosity, a counting experiment of top-quark pair production events by using linearly polarized laser beams at a photon linear collider can measure the top-quark EDM as accurately as or more accurately than a perfect detector can achieve by studying the $t\bar{t}$ decay correlations in $e^+e^-$ collisions. It is clear that by identifying the $t$ or $\bar{t}$ mometum, we can make use of $J\geq 2$ amplitudes which are large at $\hat{s}\gg m^2_t$[@Choi].
In summary, it is possible to measure the top-quark EDM in the polarized $\gamma\gamma$ mode by counting $t\bar{t}$ pair production events in a straightforward manner. In the $e^+e^-$ mode it is possible to measure the top-quark EDM by studying $t\bar{t}$ decay correlations. Comparison of our results for the $\gamma\gamma$ mode with previous analyses in the $e^+e^-$ mode shows that the two approaches are competitive. As no information on the momenta and polarization of the top-quark decay products is directly required, linearly-polarized laser beams with an adjustable beam energy provide us with a very efficient way of probing the top-quark EDM at a photon linear collider.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank R. Szalapski for careful reading the manuscript. This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 94024) and also by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (No. 05228104).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on “Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders" (Saariselka, Filand, September 1991), eds. R. Orava, P. Eerola, and M. Nordberg (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992).
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on “Physics and Experiments with Linear $e^+e^-$ Colliders" (Waikoloa, Hawaii, April 1993), eds. F.A. Harris, S.L. Olsen, S. Pakvasa, and X. Tata (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
G.L. Kane, G.A. Ladinsky, and C.-P. Yuan, [Phys. Rev. D[45]{}]{} (1991) 124.
C.R. Schmidt and M.E. Peskin, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [69]{}]{} (1992) 410; D. Atwood, A. Aeppli and A. Soni, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [69]{}]{} (1992) 2754.
W. Bernreuther and O. Nachtmann, [Phys. Rev. Lett. [63]{}]{} (1989) 2787; W. Bernreuther, O. Nachtmann, P. Overmann and T. Schröder, [Nucl. Phys. B[388]{}]{} (1992) 53.
H. Anlauf, W. Bernreuther and A. Brandenburg, PITHA 95/11 (1995).
B. Grazadkowski and J.F. Gunion, [Phys. Lett. B[294]{}]{} (1992) 361; M. Krämer, J. Kühn, M.L. Stong and P.M. Zerwas, [Z. Phys. C[64]{}]{} (1994) 21.
I.F. Ginzburg, G.L. Kotkin, V.G. Serbo, S.L. Panfil and V.I. Telnov: Nucl. Instr. and Meth. 219 (1984) 5.
J.H. Kühn, E. Mirkes and J. Steegborn, [Z. Phys. C[57]{}]{} (1993) 615.
S.Y. Choi and K. Hagiwara, in preparation.
Tables {#tables .unnumbered}
======
1. [The ratio $N_{A_2}/N_0$, the number of $t\bar{t}$ events $N_0$, and the upper EDM bound, $[{\rm Re}(\tilde{\mu}_t)]_m$, for selected values of $x$ with $\sqrt{s}=500$ GeV, $m_t=150$ GeV and $L_{ee}=20$ ${\rm fb}^{-1}$. The numbers in parentheses are for $m_t=170$ GeV.]{}
0.2cm $x\ \ $0.4cm $\ \ N_0\ \ $ $\ \ N_{A_2}/N_0\ \ $ $|{\rm Re}(\tilde{\mu}_t)|_m(10^{-17} {\rm e}\cdot {\rm cm})$
-------------------- --------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
$1.8$ $156\ \ (\cdots)$ $\!\!\! 0.33\ \ (\cdots)$ $\!\!\! 0.76\ \ (\cdots)$
$2.0$ $395\ \ (\cdots)$i $\!\!\! 0.26\ \ (\cdots)$ $\!\!\! 0.60\ \ (\cdots)$
$2.2$ $\!\!\! 680\ \ (2)$ $0.20\ \ (0.31)$ $0.58\ \ (7.24)$
$2.4$ $983\ \ (36)$ $0.16\ \ (0.26)$ $0.60\ \ (2.01)$
$2.6$ $1290\ \ (108)$ $0.13\ \ (0.21)$ $0.65\ \ (1.39)$
$2.8$ $1594\ \ (206)$ $0.11\ \ (0.18)$ $0.71\ \ (1.21)$
$3.0$ $1890\ \ (320)$ $0.09\ \ (0.15)$ $0.79\ \ (1.16)$
$3.2$ $2178\ \ (445)$ $0.08\ \ (0.13)$ $0.88\ \ (1.16)$
$3.4$ $2456\ \ (574)$ $0.06\ \ (0.11)$ $0.98\ \ (1.20)$
$3.6$ $2724\ \ (707)$ $0.05\ \ (0.09)$ $1.09\ \ (1.27)$
1.2cm
Figures {#figures .unnumbered}
=======
1. The cross section $\sigma_0(\hat{s})$ and the ratio $\sigma_{A_2}(\hat{s})/\sigma_0(\hat{s})$ with respect to the $\gamma\gamma$ c.m energy $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ for $m_t=150$, $160$, $170$, $180$, and $190$ GeV.
=6.5in
[^1]: The $l^+l^-$ channel gives the strongest bound since charged leptons analyze the $t$ and $\bar{t}$ spins most efficiently when the decays are as predicted by the SM.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
We investigate the generalization and consistency of minimum-norm interpolants $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:rkhs_interpolation}
\algo~\in~ &\argmin{f\in\cH} ~~\norm{f}_{\cH} ~~~ \text{s.t.}~~ f(x_i)=y_i,~~ i=1,\ldots,n \end{aligned}$$ of the data $(x_1,y_1),\ldots,(x_n,y_n) \in\reals^d\times \reals$ with respect to a norm in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space $\cH$. The interpolant, also termed “Kernel Ridgeless Regression,” can be viewed as a limiting solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def:rkhs}
\argmin{f\in\cH} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n (f(x_i)-y_i)^2 + \lambda\norm{f}^2_{\cH}\end{aligned}$$ as $\lambda\to 0$. Classical statistical analyses of Kernel Ridge Regression (see e.g. [@caponnetto2007optimal] and references therein) rely on a carefully chosen regularization parameter to control the bias-variance tradeoff, and the question of consistency of the non-regularized solution falls outside the scope of these classical results.
Recent literature has focused on understanding risk of estimators that interpolate data, including work on nonparametric local rules [@belkin2018overfitting; @belkin2018does], high-dimensional linear regression [@bartlett2019benign; @hastie2019surprises], random features model [@ghorbani2019linearized], classification with rare instances [@feldman2019does], and kernel (ridgeless) regression [@belkin2018understand; @liang2018just; @rakhlin2018consistency].
This paper continues the line of work on kernel regression. More precisely, [@rakhlin2018consistency] showed that the minimum-norm interpolant with respect to Laplace kernel is *not* consistent (that is, risk does not go to zero with $n\to\infty$) if dimensionality $d$ of the data is constant with respect to $n$, even if the bandwidth of the kernel is chosen adaptively. On the other hand, [@liang2018just] investigated the regime $n\asymp d$ and showed that risk can be upper bounded by a quantity that can be small under favorable spectral properties of the data and the kernel matrix.
The present paper aims to paint a more comprehensive picture, studying the performance of the minimum-norm interpolants in a general scaling regime $d \asymp n^{\alpha}$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Figure \[fig:multipledescent\] summarizes the non-monotone behavior of our upper bound on the risk of the minimum-norm interpolant, as reported in Theorem \[thm:informal\] below.
![**Multiple-descent behavior** of the rates as the scaling $d = n^{\alpha}$ changes.[]{data-label="fig:multipledescent"}](rates.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
We make two observations. First, for any integer $\iota \geq 1$, for $\alpha \in [\frac{1}{\iota+1}, \frac{1}{\iota})$, there exists a “valley” on the curve at each $d = n^{\frac{1}{\iota+1/2}}$ where the rate is fast (of the order $n^{-\beta}$ with $\beta = \frac{1}{2\iota+1}$). Second, towards the lower-dimensional regime ($\alpha$ moving towards $0$), the fastest possible rate even at the bottom of the valley is getting worse, with no consistency in the $\alpha=0$ regime, matching the lower bound of [@rakhlin2018consistency].
Depending on the point of view, we can also interpret the upper bound of Theorem \[thm:informal\] by fixing $d$ and analyzing the behavior in $n$. In this case, the interpretation is rather counterintuitive: more data can lead to alternating regimes of better and worse performance. Conceptually, this occurs because with more samples, the empirical kernel matrix could estimate more complex subspaces associated with smaller population eigenvalues, thus increasing the variance of the interpolants.
Our experiments, reported in Figure \[fig:graphics\_experiment\_n=5000\], confirm the surprising multiple-peaks behavior, suggesting that the non-monotone shape of our upper bound is not just an artifact of the proof technique. Moreover, the locations of the peaks line up with our theoretical predictions. Our finding complements the *double-descent* behavior investigated previously in the literature [@belkin2018reconciling; @mei2019generalization],[^1] suggesting that the behavior in the kernel case is significantly more detailed.
The challenging problem of proving a *lower bound* that exhibits the multiple descent behavior remains open. A more detailed analysis that studies relative heights of the peaks also appears to be an interesting direction of investigation. While the peaks and their size are certainly interesting, the reader should also note the positive message of our main result: the interpolating solution provably has a diminishing (in sample size) out-of-sample error for most of the scalings of $d$ and $n$.
![Empirical evidence for multiple descent. Sample size $n=5000$, x-axis: $\log d$, y-axis: variance of the minimum-norm interpolant. Vertical lines denote theoretically predicted peaks.[]{data-label="fig:graphics_experiment_n=5000"}](experiment_n=5000-with-lines.png){width=".5\textwidth"}
The main result of the paper can be informally stated as follows.
\[thm:informal\] For any integer $\iota \geq 1$, consider $d = n^{\alpha}$ where $\alpha \in [\frac{1}{\iota+1}, \frac{1}{\iota}).$ Consider a general function $h \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ and define the inner product kernel $k(x, z) = h(x^\top z/d)$. Consider $n$ $i.i.d.$ data pairs $(x_i, y_i)$ drawn from $\mathcal{P}_{X, Y}$, and denote the target function $f_*(x)=\mathbb{E}[Y|X=x]$. Suppose the conditions on $f_*, h$ and $\mathcal{P}_{X, Y}$ specified by Theorems \[thm:variance\]-\[thm:bias\] are satisfied. With probability at least $1 - \delta - e^{-n/d^{\iota}}$ on the design $\bm{X} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times d}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \| \widehat f - f_* \|^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} | \bm{X} \right] \leq C \cdot \left( \frac{d^{\iota}}{n}+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}} \right) \asymp n^{-\beta}, \\
\quad \beta:= \min\left\{(\iota+1)\alpha-1, 1-\iota\alpha \right\} \geq 0.
\end{aligned}$$ Here the constant $C(\delta, h, \iota, \mathcal{P})$ does not depend on $d, n$, with $\mathcal{P}$ denoting the distribution of each coordinate of $X$.
It is easy to see that the minimum-norm interpolant in has the closed-form solution $$\algo(x) = k(x,\bm{X})^\tr K^{-1}\bm{Y}$$ if the kernel matrix $K\in \reals^{n\times n}$ is invertible. Here $k(x,\bm{X})=[k(x,x_1),\ldots,k(x,x_n)]^\tr$, $K_{i,j}=k(x_i,x_j)$, and $\bm{Y}=[y_1,\ldots,y_n]^\tr$. As discussed below, the variance of the estimator can be upper bounded by $$\sigma^2_Y\cdot \En_{x,\bm{X}}\norm{k(x,\bm{X})^\tr K^{-1}}^2$$ where $\sigma^2_Y$ is a uniform upper bound on the conditional variance of $Y$ given $X$. However, in general, the smallest eigenvalue of the sample kernel matrix scales as a constant. Hence, further estimates on the variance term require a careful spectral analysis of the sample-based $K$ and the population-based $k(x,\bm{X})$. Note that the eigenvalues of the empirical kernel matrix have one-to-one correspondance to that of the empirical covariance operator. We prove that on a filtration of eigen-spaces of the covariance operator defined by the population distribution, the empirical covariance operator satisfies a certain *restricted lower isometry* property. This spectral analysis is the main technical part.
Restricted Lower Isometry of High-Dimensional Kernels
=====================================================
In this section, we highlight Proposition \[prop:key\], which establishes the *Restricted Lower Isometry Property*. This property proves crucial in bounding the generalization error for the kernel ridgeless regression and, as a consequence, for randomly-initialized wide neural networks trained to convergence. The detailed proof of Proposition \[prop:key\] is deferred to Section \[sec:main\_proof\].
Setup
-----
Before stating the main proposition, let us introduce the formal setup and assumptions for the rest of the paper. Random vectors $x_1,\cdots,x_n \in \mathbb{R}^d$ are drawn i.i.d. from a product distribution $\mathcal{P}_X = \mathcal{P}^{\otimes d}$, where the distribution for each coordinate $\mathcal{P}$ is independent and satisfies the following property.
\[asmp:dist-coordinate\] Assume that: (1) $\mathbb{E}_{z \sim \mathcal{P}}[z] = 0$ and for a constant $\nu > 1$, $\mathbb{P}(|z|\ge t)\le C(1+t)^{- \nu}$ holds for all $t\geq 0$. (2) For any set $S$ of finitely many real numbers, $\mathbb{P}(z\in S)<1$.
In addition, we require that $\forall x \in \mathcal{X} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$, the conditional variance is bounded by a constant: ${\rm Var}[Y|X = x] \leq \sigma^2_Y$.
Consider a function $h \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ whose Taylor expansion converges for all $t \in \mathbb{R}$ $$\label{eq:h}
h(t)=\sum_{i=0}^\infty \alpha_i t^i$$ with all coefficients $\alpha_i\ge 0$. We define a kernel function $k(\cdot, \cdot):\mathcal{X} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ induced by $h$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kernel-interproduct}
k(x, z) := h\left( \frac{x^\top z}{d} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we define the *normalized* finite dimensional kernel matrix $\mathbf{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, $$\mathbf{K}_{ij}:=k(x_i, x_j)/n, ~~1\leq i,j\leq n$$ In other words, $\mathbf{K} = k(\bm{X} , \bm{X} )/n$ with the $1/n$ normalization.
Denote the truncated polynomial and the corresponding truncated kernel matrix $\mathbf{K}^{[\iota]}$ (used only in the proof) as $$h^{[\le\iota]}(t)=\sum_{i=0}^\iota \alpha_i t^i, ~~~ \mathbf{K}^{[\le \iota]}_{ij}:=h^{[\le\iota]}(x_i^\top x_j/d)/n.$$ Similarly, we denote the degree-$\iota$ component and the corresponding kernel as $$h^{[\iota]}(t)=\alpha_\iota t^\iota\enspace, ~~~ \mathbf{K}^{[\iota]}_{ij}:=h^{[\iota]}(x_i^\top x_j/d)/n\enspace.$$
We are interested in the following high dimensional regime: there is a fixed positive integer $\iota$ such that $$\iota<\frac{\log n}{\log d(n)}<\iota+1.$$ Our investigation focuses on the regime when the dimension $d(n)$ grows with the sample size $n$, with $n$ being sufficiently large.
Finally, we use the norm $\norm{g}_{L_2(\mathcal{P}_X)}^2 = \norm{g}_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2= \int g^2 \mathcal{P}_X(dx)$ to measure the quality of the estimator. Thanks to the identity $\En\norm{\algo-f_*}^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} = \En (\algo(X)-Y)^2 - \min_{f\in\cH} \En(f(X)-Y)^2$, our results on estimation directly translate into prediction error guarantees.
Main Technical Result
---------------------
Now we are ready to state the main technical contribution. We establish the restricted lower isometry property of the empirical kernel matrix on a filtration of spaces indexed by the polynomial basis with increasing degree.
\[prop:key\] Let $\iota_0$ be a positive integer. Assume that the first $\iota_0+1$ Taylor coefficients $\alpha_0,\cdots, \alpha_{\iota_0}$ of the function $h$ (defined in ) are positive. Assume that $d^{\iota_0}\log d=o(n)$. Let Assumption \[asmp:dist-coordinate\] on $\mathcal{P}$ be satisfied with $\nu > \iota_0$.
Then there are positive constants $C,C'$ depending only on $\iota_0$, $\mathcal{P}$, and $\{\alpha_i\}_{i\leq \iota_0}$ such that for $n$ large enough, with probability at least $1-e^{-\Omega(n/d^{\iota_0})}$ the following holds:
- for any $\iota\le \iota_0$, $\mathbf{K}^{[\le \iota]}$ has $\binom{\iota+d}{\iota}$ nonzero eigenvalues, all of them larger than $C'd^{-\iota}$, and
- the range of $\mathbf{K}^{[\le \iota]}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm span}\Big\{(p(x_1),\cdots,p(x_n)):p \text{ is a multivariable polynomial of degree not larger than $\iota$}\Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Proof Outline.
--------------
First, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
n \bm{K}_{ij} & = \sum_{\iota=0}^\infty \alpha_\iota \left( \frac{x_i^\top x_j}{d} \right)^{\iota} = \sum_{r_1,\cdots,r_d \geq 0} ~ c_{r_1 \cdots r_d} \alpha_{r_1+\cdots+r_d} p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_i) p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_j)/ d^{r_1+\cdots+r_d}
\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{r_1 \cdots r_d} = \frac{(r_1+\cdots+r_d)!}{r_1!\cdots r_d!}$ and monomials $p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_i) = (x_i[1])^{r_1}\cdots (x_i[d])^{r_d}$ with multi-index $r_1\cdots r_d$. The degree-bounded empirical kernel is then $$\begin{aligned}
n \bm{K}_{ij}^{[\leq \iota]} := \sum_{\substack{r_1,\cdots,r_d \geq 0\\r_1+\cdots+r_d \leq \iota}}~ c_{r_1 \cdots r_d} \alpha_{r_1+\cdots+r_d} p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_i) p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_j)/ d^{r_1+\cdots+r_d} =\Phi \cdot \Phi^\top
\end{aligned}$$ with polynomial features $\Phi \in \reals^{n \times \binom{\iota+d}{\iota}}$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i, (r_1 \cdots r_d)} = \left(c_{r_1 \cdots r_d} \alpha_{r_1+\cdots+r_d}\right)^{1/2} p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x_i) / d^{(r_1+\cdots+r_d)/2} \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ The restricted lower isometry of the kernel is equivalent to establishing that all eigenvalues of the sample covariance operator $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta^{[\leq \iota]} := \frac{1}{n} \Phi^\top \cdot \Phi
\end{aligned}$$ are lower bounded by $d^{-\iota}$. Observe that non-zero eigenvalues of $\bm{K}^{[\leq \iota]}$ have one-to-one correspondance to that of $\Theta^{[\leq \iota]}$.
Hypothetically, if the mononomials $p_{r_1 \cdots r_d}(x)$ were orthogonal in $L^2_{\mathcal{P}_X}$, then we would have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \Theta^{[\leq \iota]} \right] = {\rm diag}(C(0),~ \cdots, ~C(\iota')\cdot d^{-\iota'} ,~ \cdots,~ \overbrace{C(\iota) \cdot d^{-\iota}}^{\binom{d+\iota-1}{d-1}~\text{such entries}} )
\end{aligned}$$ which would prove what we aim to establish on the smallest eigenvalue, at least in expectation. However, the orthogonality does not hold, and the monomials have a complex covariance structure that we have to tackle. To address the problem, we perform the *Gram-Schimdt* process on polynomials $$\{1, t, t^2, \cdots \} \rightarrow \{1, q_1(t), q_2(t), \cdots \} \quad \text{$q$ orthogonal polynomial basis on $L^2_{\mathcal{P}}$},$$ and show that such basis is *weakly-correlated*. Then under the new polynomial features $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{i, (r_1 \cdots r_d)} &\rightarrow \Psi_{i, (r_1 \cdots r_d)} = \left(c_{r_1 \cdots r_d} \alpha_{r_1+\cdots+r_d}\right)^{1/2} \prod_{j \in [d]} q_{r_j}(x_i[j]) / d^{(r_1+\cdots+r_d)/2} \\
\Phi &= \Psi \Lambda, \quad \Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{\binom{\iota+d}{\iota} \times \binom{\iota+d}{\iota}} \quad \text{upper-triangular} \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ It turns out that through technical calculations, we can show that such *weakly-correlated* polynomial features ensure that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Lambda \|_{\rm op}, \| \Lambda^{-1} \|_{\rm op} \leq C(\iota) \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ We can now focus on studying the smallest eigenvalue of the un-correlated features since for any $u \in \mathbb{R}^{\binom{\iota+d}{\iota}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
u^{\top} \Theta^{ [\leq \iota]} u = \frac{1}{n} \| \Phi u \|^2 = \frac{1}{n} \| \Psi \Lambda u \|^2 \geq \lambda_{\min} \left( \frac{1}{n} \Psi^\top \Psi \right) \| \Lambda u\|^2 \asymp \lambda_{\min} \left( \frac{1}{n} \Psi^\top \Psi \right) \| u \|^2 \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ The next challenge is in establishing a lower bound on the above smallest eigenvalue. Here, a naive use of standard concentration fails to provide strong high probability bounds. To see this, recall that if one wants to establish deviation bound via standard concentration like below $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{u \in B_2^{\binom{d+\iota}{\iota}}} u^\top \left(\frac{1}{n} \Psi^\top \Psi - \mathbb{E}\left[ \frac{1}{n} \Psi^\top \Psi \right] \right) u \lesssim \frac{{\rm complexity}(B_2^{\binom{d+\iota}{\iota}})}{\sqrt{n}} \enspace,
\end{aligned}$$ the deviation bound will typically be larger than $d^{-\iota}$ for $\iota$ of our interest. To address this, we take the *small-ball* approach, pioneered in [@koltchinskii2015bounding; @mendelson2014learning], which utilizes the non-negativity of the quadratic process. The intuition is as follows: due to positivity of $\langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2$, the following lower bound holds $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Psi u\|^2 = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2 \geq c_1 \mathbb{E}[\langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2] \cdot \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n I_{\langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2 \geq c_1 \mathbb{E}[\langle \Psi(X), u \rangle^2]} \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ Suppose one can show that there exist absolute constants $c_1, c_2 >0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\left( \langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2 \geq c_1 \mathbb{E}[\langle \Psi(X), u \rangle^2] \right) \geq c_2 \enspace,
\end{aligned}$$ a condition referred to as the *small-ball* property. Then it immediately follows that with probability at least $1 - \exp(-c \cdot n)$ $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n I_{\langle \Psi(x_i), u \rangle^2 \geq c_1 \mathbb{E}[\langle \Psi(X), u \rangle^2]} \geq c_2/2 \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ Now the union bound on $B_2^{\binom{d+\iota}{\iota}}$ does not affect the rate significantly since the probability control is overwhelmingly small (exponential in $n$). Last but not least, the technicality remains to verify the *small-ball* property for weakly dependent polynomials via *Paley-Zygmund* inequality.
We note that concurrent work of [@ghorbani2019linearized] also implies a similar control on the least eigenvalue under a different setting with different assumptions on the underlying data. Specifically, their result concerns the approximation error on random Fourier feature models. It could be translated to a risk bound due to the dual relationship between random features and random samples, in the case when there is no label noise $y_i = f_\star(x_i)$.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:RKHS\] and \[sec:NN\] we will apply the key Proposition \[prop:key\] to obtain generalization results for kernel ridgeless regression and wide neural networks, respectively. Sections \[sec:variance\_proof\] and \[sec:bias\_proof\] will be devoted to the proofs of Theorem \[thm:variance\] and Theorem \[thm:bias\] on the variance and bias of the minimum-norm interpolant. Section \[sec:main\_proof\] in the Appendix will focus on the main steps behind proving Proposition \[prop:key\]. Appendix also contains several supporting lemmas.
Application to Kernel Ridgeless Regression {#sec:RKHS}
==========================================
The following bias-variance decomposition holds, conditionally on $\bm{X}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\En_{\bm{Y}}\norm{\algo - f_* }^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} = \En_{\bm{Y}}\norm{\algo - \En_Y[\algo] }^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} + \norm{\En_{\bm{Y}}[\algo] - f_* }^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $\En_{\bm{Y}}$ denotes expectation only over the $\bm{Y}$ vector. In this section, we refer to the first term as *Variance*, and the second term as (squared) *Bias*. As mentioned earlier, the variance term can be upper bounded as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^2_Y \cdot \En_{x\sim \mathcal{P}_X} \norm{k(x,\bm{X})^\tr k(\bm{X},\bm{X})^{-1}}^2,\end{aligned}$$ thanks to the closed-form of $\algo$. In the rest of this section we shall assume, for brevity, that $\sigma^2_Y=1$.
Variance {#sec:variance}
--------
In this section, to control the variance term we make a stronger assumption on the tail behavior of $\mathcal{P}$.
\[thm:variance\] Let $x\sim \mathcal{P}_X$, $\bm{X}\sim \mathcal{P}^{n\times d}$, and $\mathcal{P}$ be sub-Gaussian. Consider $h \in \mathcal{C}^\infty(\mathbb{R})$, denote $h(t) = \sum_{i=0}^\infty \alpha_i t^i$ with corresponding Taylor coefficients $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^\infty$. Consider $k(x,z) = h(x^T z/d)$ for $x, z \in \mathcal{X}$.
(i) Suppose that:
- $\alpha_1,\cdots, \alpha_ \iota>0$;
- there is $\iota' \geq 2 \iota+3$ such that $\alpha_{\iota'}>0$.
Assume $d^{\iota}\log d \lesssim n \lesssim d^{\iota+1}$. Then with probability at least $1- e^{- \Omega(n/d^{\iota})}$ w.r.t. $\bm{X}$,
$$\text{Variance} \leq \mathbb{E}_{x \sim \mathcal{P}_X}\|k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1}k(\bm{X},x)\|^2\le C\left(\frac{d^{\iota}}{n}+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}}\right) \enspace.$$
(ii) Suppose that the Taylor expansion coefficients satisfy for some $\iota>0$:
- $\alpha_1,\cdots, \alpha_{\iota}>0$;
- $\forall \iota'> \iota, \alpha_{\iota'}=0$, i.e. $k$ is a polynomial kernel.
Assume $d^{\iota}\log d \lesssim n$. Then with probability at least $1- e^{- \Omega(n/d^{\iota})}$ w.r.t. $\bm{X}$,
$$\text{Variance} \leq \mathbb{E}_{x \sim \mathcal{P}_X}\|k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1}k(\bm{X},x)\|^2\le C\frac{d^{\iota}}{n}\enspace.$$
The proof of the above theorem, which appears in Section \[sec:variance\_proof\], depends on breaking the variance into two parts depending on the polynomial degree: the first part we can further upper bounded via the key restricted lower isometry proposition on a filtration of spaces (ordered according to the degree of the polynomials), and for the second part we utilize the fact that $n\bm{K} \succeq \Omega(1) \bm{I}_{n}$.
Bias
----
In this section, we bound the bias part for the min-norm interpolated solution. In fact, we will show that, under a suitable assumption, the squared bias is upper bounded by a multiple factor of the variance term, studied in the previous section.
\[thm:bias\] Assume that the target function $f_*(x) = \mathbb{E}[Y|X=x]$ can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
f_*(x) = \int_{\mathcal{X}} k(x, z) \rho_*(z) \mathcal{P}_X(dz)
\end{aligned}$$ with $\int_{\mathcal{X}} \rho_*^4(x) \mathcal{P}_X (dx) \leq C$ for $C>0$. Assume that $\sup_{x \in \mathcal{X}} k(x, x) \leq M$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bias} &:= \mathbb{E}_{x \sim \mathcal{P}_X} \left( k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} f_*(\bm{X}) - f_*(x) \right)^2 \\
&\leq C_1(\bm{X}) \cdot \mathbb{E}_x \left\| k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x) \right\|^2 + \frac{C_2(\bm{X})}{n}
\end{aligned}$$ where the scalar random variables are bounded in $\ell_2$-sense: $\mathbb{E}_{\bm{X}} [C_1(\bm{X})]^2, \mathbb{E}_{\bm{X}} [C_2(\bm{X})]^2 \precsim 1$.
We remark that $\mathbb{E}_{x} \left\| k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x) \right\|^2$ is the expression for the upper bound on variance in Section \[sec:variance\]. The statement can be strengthened to the “in probability” statement, as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Bias} &:= \| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} f_*(\bm{X}) - f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2 \\
&\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta}} \cdot \left(\mathbb{E}_x \left\| k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x) \right\|^2 \vee \frac{1}{n} \right)
\end{aligned}$$ with probability $1-\delta$ on $\bm{X}$. See Proposition \[prop:in-prob\] for details. We emphasize that here the factor $\delta^{-1/2}$ has *no dependence* on the dimension $d$. Note that one can relax the assumption of $\int_{\mathcal{X}} \rho_*^4(x) \mathcal{P}_X (dx) \leq C$ to $\int_{\mathcal{X}} \rho_*^2(x) \mathcal{P}_X (dx) \leq C$ at the cost of the factor $\delta^{-1}$ instead of $\delta^{-1/2}$ in the above statement.
Applications to Wide Neural Networks {#sec:NN}
====================================
Before extending the results to neural networks, we need to study a Neural-Tangent-type kernel defined below in , which is slightly different from the inner-product kernel as in . Specifically, we consider kernels of the following form: $$\label{eq:cos}
k(x,x')=\| x\|\| x'\|\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty \alpha_i \left( \cos\angle (x, x') \right)^i %\langle \tilde x,\tilde x'\rangle$$ where $ \cos\angle ( x, x') = x^\top x'/\| x\|\| x'\|$. Suppose that $\alpha_i\ge 0$ for all $i$ and $\sup \{i: \alpha_i>0\}=\infty$. Note that the above kernel reduces to the inner-product kernel when the data lies on a fixed radius sphere $\| x \| \equiv R$.
\[coro:ntk\] Consider the type of kernels defined in , which subsumes the Neural Tangent Kernel as a special case. Consider $n$ $i.i.d.$ data pairs $(x_i, y_i)$ drawn from $\mathcal{P}_{X, Y}$, and denote the target function $f_*(x)=\mathbb{E}[Y|X=x]$. Suppose the conditions on $f_*$ and $\mathcal{P}_{X, Y}$ specified by Theorems \[thm:variance\]-\[thm:bias\] are satisfied. Consider integer $\iota$ that satisfy $d^{\iota} \log d \lesssim n \lesssim d^{\iota+1}/\log d$. Then the result of Theorem \[thm:informal\] can be generalized to such kernels: with high probability, the following upper bound on the risk holds: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left[ \| \widehat f - f_* \|^2_{\mathcal{P}_X} | \bm{X} \right] \leq C \cdot \left( \frac{d^{\iota}}{n}+\frac{n \log d}{d^{\iota+1}} \right) \enspace.
\end{aligned}$$
The connection between Neural Tangent Kernel (NTK) [@jacot2018neural] and wide neural networks is by now well-known. It follows from [@du2018gradient] that sufficiently wide randomly initialized (with appropriate scaling) neural networks converge to the minimum-norm interpolating solution with respect to NTK, under appropriate assumptions. This connection allows us to leverage Corollary \[coro:ntk\] for establishing estimation and generalization guarantees for these models.
For completeness, we show that NTK for infinitely-wide neural networks is indeed of the form . Here we consider a one-hidden-layer neural network defined as follows: $$f(x;W,a):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}\sum_{j=1}^m a_j\sigma(w_j^\top \tilde x),$$ where the input $x$ is a $d$-dimensional vector $W=(w_1,\cdots,w_m)$ is a $(d+1)\times m$ matrix and $a=(a_1,\cdots,a_m)$ is a $m$-dimensional vector and $\tilde x=(x^\top,\sqrt{d})^\top$. The NTK $h^m$ is defined by $$h^m(x,x'):=\frac{1}{m}\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^m\sigma(w_j^\top \tilde x)\sigma(w_j^\top \tilde x')+x^\top x'\sum\limits_{j=1}^ma_i^2\sigma'(w_j^\top \tilde x)\sigma'(w_j^\top \tilde x')\right) \enspace.$$ Assume that the parameters are initialized according to i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$. Then the above kernel converges pointwise to the following kernel as $m\rightarrow\infty$: $$\begin{split}
h^\infty(x,x'):&=\mathbb{E}_{w\sim \mathcal{N}(0,I_{d+1})}\left(\sigma(w^\top \tilde x)\sigma(w^\top \tilde x')+\tilde x^\top \tilde x'\sigma'(w^\top \tilde x)\sigma'(w^\top \tilde x')\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{4 \pi}\|\tilde x\|\|\tilde x'\|\left((\pi- \angle (\tilde x, \tilde x'))\cos\angle (\tilde x, \tilde x') +\sin \angle (\tilde x, \tilde x')\right)+\frac{1}{2 \pi}\tilde x^\top \tilde x' \left(\pi- \angle (\tilde x, \tilde x')\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{4 \pi}\|\tilde x\|\|\tilde x'\| U\left( \cos\angle (\tilde x, \tilde x') \right)
\end{split}$$ and $U$ takes the following analytic form $$\begin{split}
U(t)&:= 3t(\pi-\arccos(t))+\sqrt{1-t^2}\\
&=1+\frac{3 \pi t}{2}+\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty \left(\frac{3(\frac{1}{2})_{i}}{(1+2i)i!}- \frac{1}{2}\frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{i}}{(i+1)!}\right)t^{2i+2}\\
% &=1+\frac{3 \pi t}{2}+\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty \left(\frac{3}{2i+1}- \frac{1}{2(i+1)}\right)\frac{(\frac{1}{2})_{i}t^{2i+2}}{i!}\\
&=1+\frac{3 \pi t}{2}+\sum\limits_{i=0}^\infty\frac{(4i+5)(\frac{1}{2})_{i}t^{2i+2}}{2(2i+1)(i+1)i!}\\
\end{split}$$ where $(\frac{1}{2})_i=\frac{1}{2}\times \frac{3}{2}\times \cdots\times (\frac{1}{2}+i-1)$ is the Pochhammer symbol. Now we have verified that the Neural Tangent Kernel $h^{\infty}$ is of the form .
In fact, it is not difficult to prove that for multilayer fully connectedly neural network the NTK is also of this form with all positive Taylor coefficients if seen as a function of $\cos\angle (\tilde x, \tilde x')$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:variance\] {#sec:variance_proof}
=================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[thm:variance\], as it sheds light on the emergence of the multiple descent phenomenon. We need only prove (i) because (ii) shall follow easily from the proof of (i). We will first show that with high probability, $\mathbf{K}$ is invertible, and $n\mathbf{K}\succ c \mathbf{I}_{n}$ for some constant $c > 0$. To show this, it suffices to prove $$n\mathbf{K}^{[\iota']}\succ c \mathbf{I}_{n}$$ Write $\mathbf{K}^{[\iota']}$ as $$n\mathbf{K}^{[\iota']}=A+B$$ where $A$ is the diagonal terms and $B$ is the non-diagonal terms. With probability at least $1 - n^{-C}$, we shall have $$\| A \|_{\rm op} = \Omega(1).$$ and by Hölder’s inequality on matrix induced norm, $$\begin{aligned}
&\| B\|_{\rm op} = \| B\|_{\ell_2 \rightarrow \ell_2} \leq \sqrt{\| B\|_{\ell_1 \rightarrow \ell_1} \| B\|_{\ell_\infty \rightarrow \ell_\infty}} \\
&= \|B\|_{\ell_1 \rightarrow \ell_1}\le O\left(n \times\left(\frac{\sqrt{\log n}}{\sqrt{d}}\right)^{\iota'}\right)\le O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}\right) \enspace.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
n \mathbf{K} \succeq n \mathbf{K}^{[\iota']} \succeq (\| A \|_{\rm op} - \| B\|_{\rm op}) \mathbf{I}_{n} \succeq c \mathbf{I}_{n} \enspace.\end{aligned}$$
Now back to the proof of (i). Recall the normalized kernel matrix $\mathbf{K} = k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})/n$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:put-together}
&\mathbb{E}_{x}\|k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1}k(\bm{X},x)\|^2\\
&\lesssim \sum_{i = 0}^{\iota}\mathbb{E}_{x}\|\mathbf{K}^{-1}\frac{1}{n}(\bm{X}x)^{i}/d^{i}\|^2+\mathbb{E}_{x}\|\mathbf{K}^{-1}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=\iota+1}^{\infty}(\bm{X}x)^{i}/d^{i}\|^2\\
&\lesssim\frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=0}^{\iota}\mathbb{E}_{x}\|\mathbf{K}^{-1}(\bm{X}x)^i/d^i\|^2+\| (n\mathbf{K})^{-1} \|_{\rm op}^2 \cdot \mathbb{E}_{x}\|\sum_{i=\iota+1}^{\infty}(\bm{X}x)^{i}/d^{i}\|^2\\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=0}^{\iota}\mathbb{E}_{x} \left[ \| ( \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} )^{+} \|_{\rm op}^2 \cdot \|(\bm{X}x)^{i}/d^{i}\|^2 \right]+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}} \label{eq:4thline}\end{aligned}$$ Now, by Proposition \[prop:key\], the above quantity is at most $$\begin{aligned}
&\lesssim \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=0}^{\iota}\mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ d^{2i} \cdot \|(\bm{X}x)^{i}/d^{i}\|^2 \right]+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}} \\
&\lesssim \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=0}^{\iota}\mathbb{E}_{x}\|(\bm{X}x)^{i}\|^2+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}}
\lesssim \frac{1}{n^2}\sum_{i=0}^{\iota} n d^i +\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}}
\le \frac{d^{\iota}}{n}+\frac{n}{d^{\iota+1}} \enspace.\end{aligned}$$ The line requires some explanation. First observe that $(\bm{X}x)^i$ lies in the span of $\mathbf{K}^{[\le i]}$. Write $
\mathbf{K} = \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} + \mathbf{K}^{[> i]} \succeq \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]}
$, we know that when restricted to the column space $\Phi$ of $\mathbf{K}^{[\le i]}$ (via projection operator $\Pi_{\Phi}$), the operator $\mathbf{K}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{K}|_{\Phi} = \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} + \Pi_{\Phi} \mathbf{K}^{[> i]} \Pi_{\Phi} \succeq \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for $v = (\bm{X}x)^i$ in the span of $\Phi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\| (\mathbf{K}|_{\Phi})^{-1} v\|^2 & \leq \| ( \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} )^{+} \|_{\rm op} \cdot \| (\mathbf{K}|_{\Phi})^{-1/2} v \|^2 \\
&\leq \| ( \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} )^{+} \|_{\rm op} \cdot v^\top (\mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} )^{+} v \leq \| ( \mathbf{K}^{[\le i]} )^{+} \|_{\rm op}^2 \cdot \| v \|^2 \enspace.\end{aligned}$$ Note that in above derivation, we use that by concentration $\mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ (x^\top x_j)^{2\iota}\right] \precsim d^{\iota}$ in high probability over $\bm{X}$. This can be seen because conditioning on $\bm{X}$, $x^\top x_j$ is sub-Gaussian with parameter $\|x_j\|_2$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{x}\left[ (x^\top x_j)^{2\iota}\right] \precsim \|x_j\|_2^{2\iota} \precsim d^{\iota}, \quad \text{w.p. $1 - \exp(d - \log n)$}\enspace.\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:variance\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:bias\] {#sec:bias_proof}
=============================
In this section we provide a proof of Theorem \[thm:bias\]. Define the following “surrogate” function for analyzing the bias term $\tilde{f}_n(x) := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n k(x, x_i) \rho_*(x_i)$. We start with splitting $$\begin{aligned}
&\| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} f_*(\bm{X}) - f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2 \\
&\precsim \left\| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} \left[f_*(\bm{X}) - \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X})\right] \right\|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2 + \| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X})- f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The first term is equal to $\int \left\langle k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x), f_*(\bm{X}) - \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X}) \right\rangle^2 \mathcal{P}_X (dx) $, which is at most $$\begin{aligned}
&\int \left\| k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x) \right\|^2 \mathcal{P}_X (dx) \cdot \| f_*(\bm{X}) - \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X}) \|^2 \\
&= \| f_*(\bm{X}) - \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X}) \|^2 \cdot \mathbb{E}_{x \sim \mathcal{P}_X} \left\| k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, x) \right\|^2
\end{aligned}$$ by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. By Proposition \[prop:leave-one-out\] in the Appendix, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}_{\bm{X}} \| f_*(\bm{X}) - \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X}) \|^2 \precsim 1.
\end{aligned}$$ For the second term, defining a vector $\tilde{V} = [\frac{\rho_*(x_1)}{n}, \ldots, \frac{\rho_*(x_n)}{n}] \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we have $\tilde{f}_n(\bm{X}) = k(\bm{X}, \bm{X}) \tilde{V}.$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} \tilde{f}_n(\bm{X})- f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2
&=\| k(x, \bm{X}) k(\bm{X}, \bm{X})^{-1} k(\bm{X}, \bm{X}) \tilde{V}- f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2 \\
& = \| \tilde{f}_n(x) - f_*(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[prop:var\] in the Appendix, it holds that $\mathbb{E}_{\bm{X}} \| f_*(x) - \tilde{f}_n(x) \|_{\mathcal{P}_X}^2 \precsim \frac{1}{n}$.
Discussion
==========
We showed that minimum norm interpolants in RKHS, under the assumptions employed in this paper, have risk that vanishes in $n$ for a wide range of scalings $d\asymp n^\alpha$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Notably, the places where our upper bounds become vacuous are fractions $\alpha=1/i$ for integer $i$. The phenomenon of non-monotonicity with peaks at these locations is supported by empirical evidence, and generalizes the double-descent behavior in linear regression and other models.
A more precise description of the risk curve is an interesting research direction. In addition, it would be interesting to understand the effect of regularization on the peaks. In terms of assumptions, the i.i.d. assumption on the coordinates can certainly be lifted, and we believe similar results hold under a rotation of vectors with independent or weakly-dependent coordinates. Some degree of independence, however, is needed to capture the scaling with $d$.
Finally, we mention that the difficulty of analyzing min-norm interpolants is greatly reduced in the *noiseless* case when $y_i=f_*(x_i)$. Indeed, in this case the variance term is zero. Moreover, one can appeal to known results on lower isometry (for instance, Lemmas 8 and 9 in [@Rakhlin2017]) to establish that, up to polylogarithmic factors, $$\mathbb{E}\norm{\algo-f_*}_{L_2(\mathcal{P}_X)}^2\lesssim \mathcal{R}_n(\mathcal{F})^2,$$ the squared Rademacher averages of $\mathcal{F}$, whenever $\algo\in\mathcal{F}$. Since $\algo$ is the min-norm interpolant, we can take $\mathcal{F}$ to be the ball in $\cH$ of radius $\norm{f_*}_{K}$, yielding a consistency result $$\mathbb{E}\norm{\algo-f_*}^2_{L_2(\mathcal{P}_X)}\lesssim \frac{\norm{f_*}^2_K}{n}.$$ This can be further tightened to an upper bound in terms of $\norm{\algo}^2_K$, in high probability. In contrast, the norm $\norm{\algo}_K$ is not easily controlled in the noisy case.
[^1]: In Figure \[fig:graphics\_experiment\_n=5000\], we only plotted the variance of the minimum-norm interpolant since the shape will dominate the bias term for appropriately scaled conditional variance of the $Y$ variable.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[The Glasgow reweighting method is evaluated for SU(2) lattice gauge theory at nonzero $\mu$ and finite $T$. We establish that the ’overlap problem’ of SU(3) measurements, in which the transition points determined from thermodynamic observables have an unphysical dependence on the value of $\mu$ used to generate ensembles for reweighting, persists for SU(2). By combining the information from different lattice ensembles we alleviate sampling bias in the fugacity expansion, and identify the Lee Yang zeros associated with the transition to a high density phase that can plausibly be associated with diquark condensation. We also confirm the existence of a line of first order transitions above a critical point in the $T-\mu$ phase plane previously predicted by effective chiral lagrangian calculations.]{}'
address: 'Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, G12 8QQ, Scotland, UK.'
author:
- 'P. R. Crompton'
title: 'Composite reweighting SU(2) QCD at Finite Temperature'
---
Introduction
============
Recent speculation over BCS type-instabilities in the Fermi surface at high density [@1][@2] has led to resurgence of interest in two colour QCD. Lattice models with pseudoreal representations are attractive candidates for simulation at finite density since for such theories the Dirac matrix is positive definite, which permits the use of existing Monte Carlo techniques at $\mu \neq 0$. For SU(3) at finite density the lattice action is otherwise complex [@3], and so the probabilistic importance sampling step of such methods is therefore undefined. Reweighting methods have proved a useful means of addressing this issue, where the $\mu$ dependence of the grand canonical partition function $Z(\mu)$ can be made semi-analytic in a fugacity expansion, as with the Glasgow method [@4]. The complex action issue is thus avoided, by generating a lattice ensemble in an accessible regime of the parameter space (eg. $\mu =0$ for SU(3)). Naively, one might anticipate that the specific lattice ensemble used in the reweighting has little impact on numerical evaluations of the expansion. In fact quite the reverse is true. For the SU(3) model with dynamical quarks, even at intermediate coupling where one might expect thermal fluctuations to enhance the frequency of sampling physically relevant states, an ensemble generated at $\mu=0$ reproduces a similar phase structure to the quenched model [@5][@6]. This has severe consequences since quenched finite density QCD is understood to be the zero flavor limit ($n \rightarrow 0$) of a theory with equal numbers of quarks and conjugate quarks. The lowest lying baryonic state in the model is thus the unphysical “baryonic pion”, formed from quark-conjugate quark pairs rather than the lightest three quark state [@7][@8]. However, this is of no consequence in two colour QCD [@9] as the baryonic pion and baryon propagators are equivalent at $\mu \neq 0$.
Pseudoreal models are not entirely free from the effects of the reweighting overlap pathologies, however. Models with quarks in the adjoint representation (with $n$ odd) suffer from the related reweighting pathology: the sign problem. Since ${\rm{det}}M(\mu)$ is always real for two colour QCD, although reweighting is no longer mandatory it provides a useful opportunity to investigate the overlap issue (where the correct physics may be more easily extracted from lattice measurements by conventional means), and to quantify the signatures of the sampling numerical discrepancies therein.
Symmetries of the SU(2) Lattice Action
======================================
The $n-$flavor symmetry of SU(2) QCD given by quarks in their fundamental representation $\bf{2}$, is $SU(2n)$ rather than $U(n)_{L} \times U(n)_{R}$ as might be anticipated, as is demonstrated by a change of basis in the free field langrangian. $$\mathcal{L} \,= \,\overline{\psi} \gamma_{\nu} D_{\nu} \psi \, = \,
i \Psi^{\dagger} \sigma_{\nu} D_{\nu} \Psi$$ $$\Psi = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\psi_{L} \\
\sigma_{2}\tau_{2}\psi_{R}^{*} \end{array}\right)$$ where $\psi$ is a $\bf{2}$ doublet. The inclusion of explicit symmetry breaking terms in $m$ and $\mu$ can be shown similarly to lead to the symmetry breaking patterns tabulated above [@9][@10]. $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{\psi}\psi & = & \frac{1}{2} \Psi^{T} \sigma_{2} \tau_{2}
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
0 & -1 \\
1 & 0 \end{array}\right)\Psi + \,h. \,c. \label{pbp} \\
\overline{\psi} \gamma_{o}\psi & = & \Psi^{\dagger} \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \end{array}\right)
\Psi \label{pp}\end{aligned}$$
------- ------------------------------ --------------------
$m, \mu =0$ $m \neq 0,\mu =0 $
Cont. $SU(2n)$ $Sp(2n)$
Latt. $U(2n)$ $O(2n)$
$m = 0, \mu \neq 0$ $m,\mu \neq 0$
Cont. $SU(n)_{L} \times SU(n)_{R}$ $SU(n)_{V}$
Latt. $U(n)_{V} \times U(n)_{A}$ $U(n)_{V}$
------- ------------------------------ --------------------
: Global $n-$flavor symmetries of the two colour QCD action, in the continuum and with staggered quarks for $m, \mu \neq 0$.
Naturally, the lattice model (with Kogut-Susskind fermions), follows a somewhat similar symmetry breaking scheme, having a manifest global $U(2n)$ symmetry. In the continuum limit, for the choice of $n=1$, this lattice action corresponds to 8 physical flavors through the well-known doubling of fermionic modes [@11].
At $m, \mu \neq 0$ it is argued in [@9] that since the number of the Goldstone modes differs for nonzero expectations of $\psi\psi$ and $\overline{\psi}\psi$, that a phase transition occurs at $\mu \geq \frac{1}{2}m_{\pi}$ corresponding to the point at which the number density of quarks becomes nonzero and $U(n)_{V}$ is spontaneously broken. It is then further argued with the Landau free energy in [@12], that since the number of Goldstone modes at high density is odd, that the transition to the free quark phase at finite temperature is necessarily first order.
Glasgow Method
==============
For the Glasgow reweighting method, the $\mu$ dependence of the lattice action is made analytic through the formulation of the fugacity expansion, where $z \equiv {\rm{exp}}(\mu/T)$. This constitutes the characteristic fugacity polynomial which is formed from the propagator matrix $P$, defined through the fermion matrix $M$ [@13]. Where $P$ is written in terms of the matrices which contain links between lattice sites in the spatial directions $G$, and forward and backward in the time direction $V$ and $V^{\dagger}$, $$2iM = 2im + G + V e^{\mu} + V^{\dagger}e^{-\mu}$$ $$P = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-( G + 2im ) & 1 \\
-1 & 0 \end{array}\right) V
\label{P}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm{det}} M & = & {\rm{det}} ( G + 2im +
V^{\dagger}e^{-\mu} + Ve^{\mu} ) \\
& = & e^{n_{c}n_{s}^{3}n_{t}\mu} \,\,{\rm{det}} ( P - e^{-\mu} ) \nonumber \\
& = & e^{n_{c}n_{s}^{3}n_{t}\mu}\sum_{n=0}^{2n_{c}n_{s}^{3}n_{t}}
c_{n}e^{-n\mu} \end{aligned}$$ with $n_{s}^{3}n_{t}$ the lattice volume and $n_{c}$ the number of colours in the expansion. Since $V$ is an overall factor of $P$ the order of the expansion is reduced by exploited the unitary symmetry $Z_{n_{t}}$ defined by multiplying the timelinks in $V$ by $e^{2\pi ij / n_{t}}$, where $j$ is an integer. Since $n_{t} = 1/T$, the Grand Canonical Partition function $Z(\mu)$ is thus given defined as an expansion in terms of the fugacity variable and the canonical partition functions $Z_{n}$. $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\mu) & = & \int DU \,\, {\rm{det}} M(\mu) \,\, e^{-S_{g}} \\
& = & \sum_{n} \,\, Z_{n} \,\, e^{n\mu/T}\end{aligned}$$ By reweighting this expansion an arbitrary normalisation to $Z(\mu)$ is introduced, though this leaves the analytic determination of thermodynamic variables unaffected. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{Z(\mu)}{Z(\mu_{o})} & = & \frac {\int DU \,\,
{\displaystyle{\frac{ {\rm{det}}
M(\mu) }{ {\rm{det}}
M(\mu_{o}) }}}
\,\,\, {\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o}) \,\, e^{-S_{g}}} {\int DU
\,\, {\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o}) \,\, e^{-S_{g}}}
\nonumber \\
\label{norm}
& = & \left\langle {\frac{{\rm{det}} M(\mu)}{{\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o})}}
\right\rangle_{\mu_{o}} \\
\frac {Z_{n}} {Z(\mu_{o})} & = & \frac {\int DU {\displaystyle{\frac {c_{n}} { {\rm{det}}
M(\mu_{o}) }}}
\,\, {\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o}) \,\, e^{-S_{g}}} {\int DU
\,\, {\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o}) \,\, e^{-S_{g}}} \\
\label{aver}
& = & \left\langle {\frac{{c_{n}}}{{\rm{det}} M(\mu_{o})}}
\right\rangle_{\mu_{o}} \label{ens} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ However, the reliability of the ensemble-averaging is strongly affected when the ratio of the ratio in eqn.(\[aver\]) differs greatly from one. The canonical partition functions can, in general, only be reliably determined for a small series of terms in the expansion, centered on the term of order $n(\mu_{o})$. This effect and the reliability of the averaging elsewhere can be established for two-colour QCD by measuring the ratio of the ensemble-averaged expansion coefficients between two or more ensembles generated at different values of $\mu_{o}$. Having then identified $n(\mu_{o})$ for several ensembles, our composite reweighting method then consists of rescaling the expansion coefficients from different ensembles through these ratios (where the ensemble-averaging is effective). The bias introduced through reweighting the expansion can thus be systematically alleviated, and thermodynamic observables more reliably determined [@14].
Thermodynamic Observables
-------------------------
The eigenvalues $\lambda_{n}$ of $P$ naturally share the symmetries of $V$, most notably $\lambda \rightarrow 1/\lambda^{*}$ relating $P$ to $P^{-1}$ up to a unitary transformation. Since SU(2) with quarks in the fundamental representation is pseudoreal it can also be shown that $\lambda \rightarrow \lambda^{*}$. By rewriting the expansion in the variable $y = z + 1/z$ the order can be further reduced by a factor of two to reduce rounding errors in the numerical implementation [@15]. The quark number density $n$ and its associated susceptibility $\chi_{n}$ for this expansion is then both easily evaluated from the expansion, and in addition is also readily amenable to composite reweighting approach described above. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \, n \, \rangle & = &
\frac{T}{n_{s}^{3}} \frac{\partial \,{\rm{ln}} Z(\mu)}{\partial \mu} \\
& = &
\frac{\sum_{n = 0}^{n_{c}n_{s}^{3}}
n \,\, {\rm{sinh}} {\displaystyle (-\frac{\epsilon_{n}-n\mu}{T})}}
{\sum_{n = 0}^{n_{c}n_{s}^{3}}
{\rm{sinh}} {\displaystyle (-\frac{\epsilon_{n}-n\mu}{T})}} \\
\label{arse}
\langle \, \chi_{n} (\mu) \, \rangle & = & \langle \,n^{2}\,\rangle - \langle \,n\, \rangle^{2} \end{aligned}$$ Similarly the zeros $\alpha_{n}$ of $Z(\mu)$ are readily identified from the expansion, which as Lee and Yang showed with an Ising ferromagnetic system, correspond to a phase transition in the thermodynamic limit wherever a zero approaches the real axis in the complex-$z$ plane [@16]. $$Z(\mu) \,\,\,\propto \,\,\,e^{-n_{c}n_{s}^{3}n_{t}\mu} \,\,
\prod_{n=1}^{n_{c}n_{s}^{3}} \,\,( e^{n_{t} \mu} - \alpha_{n} )$$
Results
=======
Intermediate Coupling
---------------------
We generated a total of seven ensembles at consecutive values of $\mu_{o}$ ranging from $\mu_{o} = 0.3 - 1.1$, at $\beta_{c} = 1.5$ both for $4^{4}$ and $6^{3}4$ lattice volumes. From these lattice ensembles we evaluated the Lee-Yang zeros, quark number density susceptibility $\langle \chi_{n} \rangle$, and $\langle \overline{\psi} \psi \rangle$ using a conventional stochastic approach.
For both our measurements at $\beta =1.5$ and $\beta =2.3$, $\langle \overline{\psi} \psi \rangle$ decreases gradually to zero over the range of values of $\mu$ we generated for $m = 0.05$. However, since $\langle \overline{\psi} \psi \,(\mu\!=\!0) \rangle$ is considerably smaller in the latter measurement, plausibly $U(1)_{A}$ is spontaneously broken in the chiral limit in the former case for the volumes we used. It then follows that there should be a corresponding transition in the $m - \mu$ plane at $\mu_{c} \sim \frac{1}{2}m_{\pi}$ (as we argued in Sec 2), which we were able to identify from our Lee-Yang zeros measurements using composite reweighting. An unphysical $\mu_{o}$ dependence dominates our measurements prior to composite reweighting at $\beta =1.5$ and is tabulated in Table 2, along with the convergence of our measurements after composite reweighting as we increase the number of included ensembles.
For an ensemble generated at $\mu_{o} = \mu_{c}$ we believe the sampling should be effective enough to circumvent the need for composite reweighting. There is evidence to support this with the ensemble we generated at $\mu_{o}=0.3 \sim \mu_{c}$ in Fig.1, which shows more evidence of a transition (where the zeros consistently approach the real axis) at $\mu_{c} \sim \frac{1}{2}m_{\pi}$ than the other ensembles we generated at $\beta =1.5$. However, since we are unable to accurately quantify which values of $\mu_{c}(\mu_{o})$ are the more valid from our jacknife error estimates of the Lee-Yang zeros, and the unphysical $\mu_{o}$ dependence of our measurements persists for ensembles generated at values of $\mu_{o}$ arbitrarily close to $\mu_{c}$, we found it is more effective to sample the expansion coefficients accurately by generating a covering series of ensembles with our composite reweighting method.
In varying the lattice volume $V$ and $\beta$, we can confirm that this unphysical $\mu_{o}$ dependence in our measurements behaves as we would expect of a reweighting overlap(sign) problem. The expectation of the sign of the Monte Carlo measure (which is treated as an observable for reweighting in the Potts model), shows a $\beta$ and $V$ dependence of the form, $$\langle sgn \rangle = \frac{Z}{Z_{||}} = {\rm{exp}}(-\beta V \Delta f)$$ where $Z_{||}$ is the partition function of the ensemble modified to exclude the sign problem amenable to a Monte Carlo approach, and $\Delta f$ the difference in free energy densities between ensembles [@17]. This effect is seen Tables 2 and 3 where the imaginary part of the zeros nearest the real axis evaluated from the ensemble at generated at $\mu_{o} \sim \mu_{c}$ is comparatively smaller (and therefore more convincing) as $V$ is increased. Similarly, this Lee-Yang zeros effect becomes more pronounced as we increase $\beta$.
We are able to determine the range of values of $\mu_{o}$ over which to generate ensembles for our effective sampling strategy, from the jacknife error estimates for the ensemble-averaged expansion coefficients, which give us $n(\mu_{o})$. The largest of the coefficients $c_{2n_{c}n_{s}^{3}}$ (related to the canonical partition function for the filled lattice) is of order one for $\mu_{o}=1.2$, and the lattice therefore saturated. Our quark number density susceptibility measurements $\langle \chi_{n} (\mu)
\rangle$ become singular at $\mu_{c}$ as we include more ensembles in the composite reweighting across this range, indicating that the transition at $\mu_{c} \sim
\frac{1}{2} m_{\pi}$ for $\beta =1.5$ is first order, Fig 4. We are also able to identified a second smaller peak in these measurements which corresponds to the point at which the expectation of the diquark falls off in existing condensate measurements. As saturation is approached at $\mu = 1.2$ the diquark condensate thus evaporates in a less well determined transition driven by Fermi statistics [@18][@19].
$4^{4}\,\,\,$
[|c|c|c||]{} $\mu_{o} $ & Re $\eta_{1}$ & Im $\eta_{1}$\
0.3 & 0.502(0.109) & 0.117(0.171)\
0.5 & 0.966(0.003) & 0.056(0.024)\
0.7 & 0.871(0.066) & 0.098(0.103)\
0.8 & 0.688(0.061) & 0.105(0.114)\
0.9 & 0.824(0.072) & 0.237(0.077)\
1.0 & 0.354(0.025) & 0.169(0.081)\
1.1 & 0.560(0.015) & 0.142(0.069)\
$\#. \, \rm{Ens.} $ & &
\
1 & 0.688(0.061) & 0.105(0.114)\
3 & 0.556(0.002) & 0.015(0.025)\
5 & 0.497(0.001) & 0.024(0.014)\
7 & 0.480(0.001) & 0.014(0.013)\
$6^{3}4$
[|c|c|c||]{} $\mu_{o} $ & Re $\eta_{1}$ & Im $\eta_{1}$\
0.3 & 0.411(0.001) & 0.116(0.001)\
0.5 & 0.830(0.002) & 0.167(0.096)\
0.7 & 0.523(0.032) & 0.134(0.001)\
0.8 & 0.822(0.028) & 0.154(0.082)\
0.9 & 0.546(0.067) & 0.153(0.051)\
1.0 & 0.434(0.039) & 0.091(0.039)\
1.1 & 0.461(0.011) & 0.064(0.030)\
$\#. \, \rm{Ens.} $ & &
\
1 & 0.546(0.067) & 0.153(0.051)\
3 & 0.467(0.008) & 0.012(0.007)\
5 & 0.453(0.008) & 0.011(0.007)\
7 & 0.477(0.001) & 0.006(0.005)\
Weak Coupling
-------------
There is a marked difference between the unphysical $\mu_{o}$ dependence of the Lee-Yang zeros associated with $\mu_{c}$ evaluated before composite reweighting at $\beta =1.5$ and $\beta = 2.3$ between Tables 2 and 3. In Table 2 there is some indication of competition between the two separate transition points during rootfinding we have identified above as the value of $\mu_{o}$ is varied, which is now entirely absent in Table 3. From this we can conclude that there is no indication of a second transition point at $\beta =2.3$, and that a transition can be readily identified at $\mu_{c} \sim 0.8$. Where the reweighting ensemble is generated at $\mu_{o} = \mu_{c}$ there is also good agreement between these zeros measurements and those from composite reweighting. Although again we have not quantified how small the difference between $\mu_{o}$ and $\mu_{c}$ must be for the reweighting to be effective, and have relied instead on composite reweighting.
Our composite reweighting Lee-Yang zeros and quark number density susceptibility measurements indicate again (where the zero closest the real $z$-axis goes to zero as the volume is increased and where $\langle \chi_{n} (\mu) \rangle$ becomes singular) that the transition is first order. The only context in which a first order transition is predicted in the effective chiral lagrangian approach is with a transition from the diquark to the symmetric phase for $\mu_{c} >
\frac{1}{2}m_{\pi}$, and we therefore confirm the existence of such a transition line in the $T-\mu$ plane.
$4^{4}\,\,\,$
-------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\mu_{o} $ Re $\eta_{1}$ Im $\eta_{1}$
0.3 0.816(0.041) 0.214(0.096)
0.5 0.801(0.059) 0.235(0.059)
0.7 0.791(0.090) 0.223(0.106)
0.8 0.797(0.042) 0.099(0.135)
0.9 0.747(0.048) 0.230(0.089)
1.0 0.734(0.040) 0.200(0.094)
1.1 0.610(0.003) 0.167(0.091)
$\# \, \rm{Ens.} $
2 0.835(0.029) 0.113(0.038)
4 0.839(0.005) 0.082(0.036)
6 0.830(0.003) 0.040(0.034)
8 0.849(0.005) 0.031(0.026)
-------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Lee Yang zero with the smallest imaginary part evaluated in the complex$\mu$ plane ($\eta_{n} = T \, ln \, \alpha_{n}$) for two lattice volumes at $\beta =2.3$. Dependence on value of $\mu_{o}$ used to generate ensembles for the Glasgow reweighting method (upper), and dependence on the number of ensembles included in the new composite reweighting scheme (lower).
$6^{3}4$
-------------------- --------------- ---------------
$\mu_{o} $ Re $\eta_{1}$ Im $\eta_{1}$
0.3 1.144(0.028) 0.144(0.060)
0.5 0.874(0.036) 0.176(0.086)
0.7 0.883(0.039) 0.176(0.093)
0.8 0.806(0.001) 0.009(0.004)
0.9 0.907(0.021) 0.319(0.033)
1.0 1.068(0.025) 0.148(0.026)
1.1 0.935(0.002) 0.172(0.014)
$\# \, \rm{Ens.} $
2 0.807(0.001) 0.009(0.008)
4 0.806(0.001) 0.009(0.005)
6 0.803(0.001) 0.007(0.004)
8 0.802(0.001) 0.007(0.003)
-------------------- --------------- ---------------
: Lee Yang zero with the smallest imaginary part evaluated in the complex$\mu$ plane ($\eta_{n} = T \, ln \, \alpha_{n}$) for two lattice volumes at $\beta =2.3$. Dependence on value of $\mu_{o}$ used to generate ensembles for the Glasgow reweighting method (upper), and dependence on the number of ensembles included in the new composite reweighting scheme (lower).
Conclusions
===========
Despite expectations, generating an ensemble for the reweighting method with a value of $\mu_{o}$ arbitrarily close to $\mu_{c}$ still leads to an overlap problem in a model with a pseudoreal representation evaluated at $\beta_{c}$. In fact, for an exploratory study (in which $\mu_{c}$ is unknown), the fugacity expansion coefficients are more effectively sampled through the combination of terms from a covering series of ensembles. Even with the real Monte Carlo measure of two colour QCD the overlap problem is still pathological for the Glasgow reweighting method. With new multi-parameter ($\beta$, $\mu$) reweighting approaches to SU(3) [@20] we would therefore expect there to be similar sampling bias in the coefficients across the full fugacity expansion. In order to successfully investigate the possibility of there being similar tricritical behavior in the $\mu - T$ phase plane of SU(3) [@21] with the Glasgow method, this issue of effective sampling across the full range of the polynomial this overlap problem should then be addressed. As we have, seen substantially different transition points are determined from reweighting measurements at intermediate coupling from ensembles generated with $\mu_{o}$ arbitrarily close to $\mu_{c}$.
Lee Yang zero analysis allows the simple identification of a first order transitions in $\mu$ with lattice measurements on comparatively small volumes. To extend the rigor of this approach and determine the critical exponents of the transition at $\mu_{c}$, however, it will be necessary to increase the lattice size as the zeros scaling at $\beta = 2.3$ is not without finite volume effects. It will also be interesting to repeat this volume scaling analysis for $\beta < \beta_{c}$ and to compare the measured critical exponents for the diquark phase transition with those predicted with the chiral langragian approach [@10], believed to be second order.\
Thanks to M. Alford for useful discussions.
[10]{}
M. Alford
K. Rajagopal, F. Wilczek
, 93 (1983).
I.M. Barbour, A.J. Bell , 385 (1992).
C.T.H. Davies, E. Klepfish , 68 (1991).
I.M. Barbour, J.B. Kogut, S.E. Morrison , 456 (1997).
M.A. Halasz, J.C. Osborn, M.A. Stephanov, J.J.M. Verbaarschot , 76 (2000).
M.A. Halasz, J.C. Osborn, M.A. Stephanov, J.J.M. Verbaarschot , 076005
S. Hands, J.B. Kogut, M. P. Lombardo, S.E. Morrison , 327 (1999).
J.B. Kogut, M.A. Stephanov, D. Toublan, J.J.M. Verbaarschot, A. Zhitnitsky , 477 (2000).
Y.Liu, O.Miyamura, A. Nakakmura, T.Takaishi
J.B. Kogut, D. Toublan, D.K. Sinclair , 77 (2001).
P.E. Gibbs , 53 (1986).
P.R. Crompton
I. Barbour, S. Hands, J.B. Kogut, M.P. Lombardo, S. Morrison , 327 (1999).
C.N. Yang, T.D. Lee , 404:410 (1952).
S. Chandrasekharan, U.J. Wiese , 3116 (1999).
J.B. Kogut, D.K. Sinclair, S.J. Hands, S.E. Morrison , 094505
S.J. Hands, J.B. Kogut, S.E. Morrison, D.K. Sinclair 457 (2001).
Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz
R.D. Pisarksi, F. Wilczek , 338 (1984).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.